Molecular profiling of melanoma brain metastases compared to primary cutaneous melanoma and to extracranial metastases.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases are a significant cause of mortality and morbidity for patients with melanoma. We hypothesize that the development of brain metastases may be explained by molecular heterogeneity between primary cutaneous melanoma (PCM) or extracranial (ECM) and brain (MBM) melanoma metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared next-generation sequencing, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and immunohistochemical staining for PD-L1 expression, among 132 MBM, 745 PCM, and 1190 ECM. RESULTS: The most common genetic alterations among MBM included: BRAF (52.4%), NRAS (26.6%), CDKN2A (23.3%), NF1 (18.9%), TP53 (18%), ARID2 (13.8%), SETD2 (11.9%), and PBRM1 (7.5%). Four genes were found with higher frequency among MBM compared to PCM or ECM: BRAF (52.4% v 40.4% v 40.9%), SETD2 (11.9% v 1.9% v 3.9%), PBRM1 (7.5% v 1.6% v 2.6%), and DICER1 (4.4% v 0.6% v 0.4%). MBM showed higher TMB ( CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a unique molecular profile for MBM, including higher rates of BRAF mutations, higher TMB and higher PD-L1 expression, and also implicate chromatin remodeling in the pathogenesis of MBM

Outcome measures for the evaluation of treatment response in hidradenitis suppurativa for clinical practice

Importance Although several clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures have been developed for trials in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), there is currently no consensus on which measures are best suited for use in clinical practice. Identifying validated and feasible measures applicable to the practice setting has the potential to optimize treatment strategies and generate generalizable evidence that may inform treatment guidelines. Objective To establish consensus on a core set of clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures recommended for use in clinical practice and to establish the appropriate interval within which these measures should be applied. Evidence Review Clinician- and patient-reported HS measures and studies describing their psychometric properties were identified through literature reviews. Identified measures comprised an item reduction survey and subsequent electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus rounds. In each consensus round, a summary of outcome measure components and scoring methods was provided to participants. Experts were provided with feasibility characteristics of clinician measures to aid selection. Consensus was achieved if at least 67% of respondents agreed with use of a measure in clinical practice. Findings Among HS experts, response rates for item reduction, e-Delphi round 1, and e-Delphi round 2 surveys were 76.4% (42 of 55), 90.5% (38 of 42), and 92.9% (39 of 42), respectively; among patient research partners (PRPs), response rates were 70.8% (17 of 24), 100% (17 of 17), and 82.4% (14 of 17), respectively. The majority of experts across rounds were practicing dermatologists with 18 to 19 years of clinical experience. In the final e-Delphi round, most PRPs were female (12 [85.7%] vs 2 males [11.8%]) and aged 30 to 49 years. In the final e-Delphi round, HS experts and PRPs agreed with the use of the HS Investigator Global Assessment (28 [71.8%]) and HS Quality of Life score (13 [92.9%]), respectively. The most expert-preferred assessment interval in which to apply these measures was 3 months (27 [69.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance An international group of HS experts and PRPs achieved consensus on a core set of HS measures suitable for use in clinical practice. Consistent use of these measures may lead to more accurate assessments of HS disease activity and life outcomes, facilitating shared treatment decision-making in the practice setting

Hyper IgE syndrome‐related disease treated with dupilumab: A case report

Abstract Phosphoglucomutase 3 (PGM3) catalyzes the glycosylation of immune system precursor proteins. Its impairment leads to severe infections and other developmental, musculoskeletal, and nervous system defects. We present a case of a 2‐month‐old female patient with recurrent infections and diffuse eczematous dermatitis recalcitrant to corticosteroids. A next‐generation sequencing NGS gene panel for inherited immune dysfunction syndromes revealed multiple variants of unknown significance in key immune regulators, specifically heterozygous mutation c.337C⟩G (p.Pro113Ala) on exon 4 of PGM3 as a novel variant in the PGM3 associated diseases. Off‐label use of dupilumab resulted in rapid improvement

Impact of Delayed Dermatology Consultation on Inpatient Care

Introduction: Dermatology consultation for inpatient skin disorders enhances care by changing diagnoses, management plans, and reducing length of stay. Our goal is to quantify the time delay from primary team to dermatology consult, and its impact on hospital course as well as overall patient care. Methods: Retrospective chart review of all inpatient dermatology consults from October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016 at five hospitals within the Detroit Medical Center. Data included demographics, diagnosis, management plans from primary and consulting teams, and timing of initial recognition of skin problem to dermatology and other specialties consultations. Results: 873 consultations met criteria and were included for analysis. Median age was 45 years, 61% were African American, and 51% were female. Of the total, 258 (29.6%) patients had multiple specialties consulted, of which 61 (23.6%) had \u3e24 hours elapse between consultation of another specialty and dermatology. Such delay in dermatology consultation was associated with an increased median length of stay of 7.0 days vs 4.0 days with no delay (p \u3c0.05). Delay was also associated with more referrals from internal medicine or pediatrics (80.3% vs 67.5%) and less from infectious disease (4.9% vs 17.3%) as the primary team. Discussion/Conclusion: Our findings indicated a delay in dermatology consults. Current literature has yet to explore the temporal relationship when a cutaneous finding was discovered between the primary team or dermatology. This study will dictate if timely dermatology consults lead to significant differences in diagnosis and management for patient care

Outcome Measures for the Evaluation of Treatment Response in Hidradenitis Suppurativa for Clinical Practice:A HiSTORIC Consensus Statement

Importance: Although several clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures have been developed for trials in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), there is currently no consensus on which measures are best suited for use in clinical practice. Identifying validated and feasible measures applicable to the practice setting has the potential to optimize treatment strategies and generate generalizable evidence that may inform treatment guidelines.Objective: To establish consensus on a core set of clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures recommended for use in clinical practice and to establish the appropriate interval within which these measures should be applied.Evidence Review: Clinician- and patient-reported HS measures and studies describing their psychometric properties were identified through literature reviews. Identified measures comprised an item reduction survey and subsequent electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus rounds. In each consensus round, a summary of outcome measure components and scoring methods was provided to participants. Experts were provided with feasibility characteristics of clinician measures to aid selection. Consensus was achieved if at least 67% of respondents agreed with use of a measure in clinical practice.Findings: Among HS experts, response rates for item reduction, e-Delphi round 1, and e-Delphi round 2 surveys were 76.4% (42 of 55), 90.5% (38 of 42), and 92.9% (39 of 42), respectively; among patient research partners (PRPs), response rates were 70.8% (17 of 24), 100% (17 of 17), and 82.4% (14 of 17), respectively. The majority of experts across rounds were practicing dermatologists with 18 to 19 years of clinical experience. In the final e-Delphi round, most PRPs were female (12 [85.7%] vs 2 males [11.8%]) and aged 30 to 49 years. In the final e-Delphi round, HS experts and PRPs agreed with the use of the HS Investigator Global Assessment (28 [71.8%]) and HS Quality of Life score (13 [92.9%]), respectively. The most expert-preferred assessment interval in which to apply these measures was 3 months (27 [69.2%]).Conclusions and Relevance: An international group of HS experts and PRPs achieved consensus on a core set of HS measures suitable for use in clinical practice. Consistent use of these measures may lead to more accurate assessments of HS disease activity and life outcomes, facilitating shared treatment decision-making in the practice setting..</p

Comorbidity screening in hidradenitis suppurativa: Evidence-based recommendations from the US and Canadian Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundations

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is associated with comorbidities that contribute to poor health, impaired life quality, and mortality risk. To provide evidence-based screening recommendations for comorbidities linked to HS. Systematic reviews were performed to summarize evidence on the prevalence and incidence of 30 comorbidities in patients with HS relative to the general population. The screening recommendation for each comorbidity was informed by the consistency and quality of existing studies, disease prevalence, and magnitude of association, as well as benefits, harms, and feasibility of screening. The level of evidence and strength of corresponding screening recommendation were graded by using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) criteria. Screening is recommended for the following comorbidities: acne, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, pilonidal disease, pyoderma gangrenosum, depression, generalized anxiety disorder, suicide, smoking, substance use disorder, polycystic ovary syndrome, obesity, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, spondyloarthritis, and sexual dysfunction. It is also recommended to screen patients with Down syndrome for HS. The decision to screen for specific comorbidities may vary with patient risk factors. The role of the dermatologist in screening varies according to comorbidity. Screening recommendations represent one component of a comprehensive care strategy. Dermatologists should support screening efforts to identify comorbid conditions in HS

Comorbidity screening in hidradenitis suppurativa: Evidence-based recommendations from the US and Canadian Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundations.

BackgroundHidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is associated with comorbidities that contribute to poor health, impaired life quality, and mortality risk.ObjectiveTo provide evidence-based screening recommendations for comorbidities linked to HS.MethodsSystematic reviews were performed to summarize evidence on the prevalence and incidence of 30 comorbidities in patients with HS relative to the general population. The screening recommendation for each comorbidity was informed by the consistency and quality of existing studies, disease prevalence, and magnitude of association, as well as benefits, harms, and feasibility of screening. The level of evidence and strength of corresponding screening recommendation were graded by using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) criteria.ResultsScreening is recommended for the following comorbidities: acne, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, pilonidal disease, pyoderma gangrenosum, depression, generalized anxiety disorder, suicide, smoking, substance use disorder, polycystic ovary syndrome, obesity, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, spondyloarthritis, and sexual dysfunction. It is also recommended to screen patients with Down syndrome for HS. The decision to screen for specific comorbidities may vary with patient risk factors. The role of the dermatologist in screening varies according to comorbidity.LimitationsScreening recommendations represent one component of a comprehensive care strategy.ConclusionsDermatologists should support screening efforts to identify comorbid conditions in HS

Evaluating Patients\u27 Unmet Needs in Hidradenitis Suppurativa: results from the Global VOICE project

BACKGROUND: A needs assessment for patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) will support advancements in multidisciplinary care, treatment, research, advocacy, and philanthropy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate unmet needs from the perspective of HS patients. METHODS: Prospective multinational survey of patients between October, 2017 and July, 2018. RESULTS: Majority (63.7%, n=827) visited a physician ≥5 times prior to receiving formal HS diagnosis. Mean delay in diagnosis was 10.2 years (+/- 8.9 years). Patients experienced flare daily, weekly, or monthly in 23.0%, 29.8%, and 31.1%, respectively. Most (61.4%, n=798) rated recent HS-related pain as moderate or higher, while 4.5% described recent pain to be worst possible. Access to dermatology was rated as difficult by 37.0% (n=481). Patients reported visiting the emergency department and hospital ≥5 times for symptoms in 18.3% and 12.5%, respectively. An extreme impact on life was reported by 43.3% (n=563), and 14.5% were disabled due to disease. Patients reported high frequency of comorbidities, most commonly mood disorders. Patients were dissatisfied with medical or procedural treatments in 45.9% and 34.5%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Data was self-reported. Patients with more severe disease may have been selected. CONCLUSIONS: HS patients have identified several critical unmet needs that will require stakeholder collaboration to meaningfully address

Factors associated with treatment satisfaction in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa: results from the Global VOICE project

Background Nearly half of patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) report dissatisfaction with their treatment. However, factors related to treatment satisfaction have not been explored. Objectives To measure associations between treatment satisfaction and clinical and treatment-related characteristics among patients with HS. Methods Treatment satisfaction was evaluated utilizing data from a cross-sectional global survey of patients with HS recruited from 27 institutions, mainly HS referral centres, in 14 different countries from October 2017 to July 2018. The primary outcome was patients' self-reported overall satisfaction with their current treatments for HS, rated on a five-point scale from 'very dissatisfied' to 'very satisfied'. Results The final analysis cohort comprised 1418 patients with HS, most of whom were European (55%, 780 of 1418) or North American (38%, 542 of 1418), and female (85%, 1210 of 1418). Overall, 45% (640 of 1418) of participants were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their current medical treatment. In adjusted analysis, patients primarily treated by a dermatologist for HS had 1 center dot 99 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1 center dot 62-2 center dot 44, P < 0 center dot 001] times the odds of being satisfied with current treatment than participants not primarily treated by a dermatologist. Treatment with biologics was associated with higher satisfaction [odds ratio (OR) 2 center dot 36, 95% CI 1 center dot 74-3 center dot 19, P < 0 center dot 001] relative to treatment with nonbiologic systemic medications. Factors associated with lower treatment satisfaction included smoking (OR 0 center dot 78, 95% CI 0 center dot 62-0 center dot 99; active vs. never), depression (OR 0 center dot 69, 95% CI 0 center dot 54-0 center dot 87), increasing number of comorbidities (OR 0 center dot 88 per comorbidity, 95% CI 0 center dot 81-0 center dot 96) and increasing flare frequency. Conclusions There are several factors that appear to positively influence satisfaction with treatment among patients with HS, including treatment by a dermatologist and treatment with a biologic medication. Factors that appear to lower treatment satisfaction include active smoking, depression, accumulation of comorbid conditions and increasing flare frequency. Awareness of these factors may support partnered decision making with the goal of improving treatment outcomes. What is already known about this topic? Nearly half of patients with hidradenitis suppurativa report dissatisfaction with their treatments. What does this study add? Satisfaction with treatment is increased by receiving care from a dermatologist and treatment with biologics. Satisfaction with treatment is decreased by tobacco smoking, accumulation of comorbid conditions including depression, and higher flare frequency. What are the clinical implications of this work? Awareness of the identified factors associated with poor treatment satisfaction may support partnered decision making and improve treatment outcomes