Human surface anatomy terminology for dermatology: a Delphi consensus from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration

BackgroundThere is no internationally vetted set of anatomic terms to describe human surface anatomy.ObjectiveTo establish expert consensus on a standardized set of terms that describe clinically relevant human surface anatomy.MethodsWe conducted a Delphi consensus on surface anatomy terminology between July 2017 and July 2019. The initial survey included 385 anatomic terms, organized in seven levels of hierarchy. If agreement exceeded the 75% established threshold, the term was considered - accepted- and included in the final list. Terms added by the participants were passed on to the next round of consensus. Terms with <75% agreement were included in subsequent surveys along with alternative terms proposed by participants until agreement was reached on all terms.ResultsThe Delphi included 21 participants. We found consensus (- ¥75% agreement) on 361/385 (93.8%) terms and eliminated one term in the first round. Of 49 new terms suggested by participants, 45 were added via consensus. To adjust for a recently published International Classification of Diseases- Surface Topography list of terms, a third survey including 111 discrepant terms was sent to participants. Finally, a total of 513 terms reached agreement via the Delphi method.ConclusionsWe have established a set of 513 clinically relevant terms for denoting human surface anatomy, towards the use of standardized terminology in dermatologic documentation.Linked Commentary: R.J.G. Chalmers. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020; 34: 2456- 2457. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.16978.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163915/1/jdv16855_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163915/2/jdv16855-sup-0001-FigS1-S3.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163915/3/jdv16855.pd

Site and timing of first relapse in stage III melanoma patients: implications for follow-up guidelines.

PURPOSE: Stage III melanoma is associated with a high risk of relapse and mortality. Nevertheless, follow-up guidelines have largely been empirical rather than evidence-based. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical records of stage III patients with no evidence of disease seen at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) between 1992 and 2004, who ultimately relapsed, were reviewed retrospectively to evaluate date of first relapse, time to first relapse, method of first relapse detection, and survival. We also determined overall 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) of all stage III patients seen at MSKCC during this period. RESULTS: The overall 5-year RFS for stage IIIA, IIIB, and IIIIC patients was 63%, 32%, and 11%, respectively. Among relapsing patients, 340 had adequate follow-up to be evaluable for all parameters. Site of first relapse was local/in-transit (28%), regional nodal (21%), or systemic (51%). First relapses were detected by the patient or family, physician, or by screening radiologic tests in 47%, 21%, and 32% of patients, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that better overall survival was associated with younger age and first relapse being local/in-transit or nodal, asymptomatic, or resectable. For each substage, we estimated site-specific risk of first relapse. CONCLUSION: Patients detected almost half of first relapses. Our data suggest that routine physical examinations beyond 3 years for stage IIIA, 2 years for stage IIIB, and 1 year for stage IIIC patients and radiologic imaging beyond 3 years for stages IIIA and IIIB and 2 years for stage IIIC patients would be expected to detect few first systemic relapses

Incidence of New Primary Cutaneous Melanoma in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Single-Center Cohort Study

Importance: The development of new primary cutaneous melanoma (CM) after starting immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is poorly characterized. Objective: To determine the incidence of new CM in patients treated with ipilimumab, nivolumab, and/or pembrolizumab for metastatic melanoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study using an institutional database to identify patients diagnosed with melanoma at a tertiary care cancer hospital in New York, New York. Exposures: Ipilimumab, nivolumab, and/or pembrolizumab treatment for metastatic melanoma. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the incidence proportion, the incidence rate, and the 5-year cause-specific cumulative risk. Results: A total of 2251 patients were included in the study; mean (SD) age at the time of ICI start was 62.8 (14.4) years. The majority were male (63.8%, n = 1437), White (92.7%, n = 2086), and non-Hispanic (92.1%, n = 2073). Forty-two of 2251 patients who received ipilimumab, nivolumab, and/or pembrolizumab were diagnosed with 48 new CMs at a median (range) of 397.5 (39-2409) days after ICI initiation. The median age of affected patients at the time of ICI first dose was 66.5 years. The majority were male (66.7%, n = 28), White (92.9%, n = 39), and non-Hispanic (100.0%, n = 42). There were no differences in age, sex, race, and ethnicity among patients who did and did not develop a new CM. Patients who developed a new CM were more likely to have a family history of melanoma (23.8% vs 16.3%, P =.02). Most new CMs (n = 30, 62.5%) were diagnosed after the last date of ICI administration. Twenty-seven (56.3%) new CMs were in situ and 21 (43.8%) were invasive. Of the invasive CMs with a reported Breslow thickness (n = 20), the median (range) thickness was 0.4 (0.1-8.4) mm. The overall incidence proportion of new CM was 1.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.5%) and the incidence rate was 1103 cases per 100000 person-years (95% CI, 815-1492). The 5-year cumulative cause-specific risk of new CM was 4.9% (95% CI, 3.3%-7.4%). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients treated with ICI therapy for metastatic melanoma remain at risk for the development of new CM.. © 2021 American Medical Association. All rights reserved

Clinical and dermoscopic features associated with lichen planus-like keratoses that undergo skin biopsy: A single-center, observational study

Background/Objectives: Lichen planus-like keratoses (LPLK) are benign skin lesions that can mimic malignancy; the clinical and dermoscopic features distinguishing lichen planus-like keratoses from skin tumors have not been extensively studied. The objective of this study was to identify dermoscopic features that may prevent unnecessary biopsies of lichen planus-like keratoses. Methods: Retrospective, single-center, observational study of biopsied skin lesions at a tertiary center. We compared 355 lichen planus-like keratoses to 118 non-lichen planus-like keratoses lesions with lichen planus-like keratosis in the differential diagnosis biopsied from August 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016. The investigators were blinded to the diagnosis of the lesions. Results: Lichen planus-like keratoses were most frequently non-pigmented (61.7%), truncal (52.1%), and on sun-damaged skin (69.6%); the majority occurred in Whites (95.5%) and females (62.8%). Dermoscopically, lichen planus-like keratoses were more likely than non-lichen planus-like keratoses to have scale (42.5% vs 31.4%, P = 0.03) and orange colour (8.2% vs 0.9%, P = 0.01). Among lesions with peppering (n = 76; 63 lichen planus-like keratoses and 13 non-lichen planus-like keratoses), coarse ± fine peppering (73% vs 38.5%, P = 0.02) and peppering as the only feature (34.9% vs 0%, P = 0.01) were associated with lichen planus-like keratoses. Conclusions: Lichen planus-like keratoses can be challenging to distinguish from benign and malignant skin tumors. The presence of dermoscopic scale and orange colour may aid in the recognition of lichen planus-like keratosis. Coarse peppering and the presence of peppering as the only dermoscopic feature may further aid the identification of pigmented lichen planus-like keratoses. © 2018 The Australasian College of Dermatologist

Association between the dermoscopic morphology of peripheral globules and melanocytic lesion diagnosis

Background The presence of peripheral globules is associated with enlarging melanocytic lesions; however, there are numerous patterns of peripheral globules distribution and it remains unknown whether specific patterns can help differentiate enlarging naevi from melanoma. Objective To investigate whether morphological differences exist between the peripheral globules seen in different subsets of naevi and in melanoma. Methods A cross‐sectional study of clinical notes that mentioned peripheral globules, in addition to all melanoma images with peripheral globules on the International Skin Imaging Collaboration archive. Dermoscopic images were reviewed and annotated. Associations between diagnosis and categorical features were measured with odds ratios. Non‐parametric tests were used for continuous factors. Results 184 lesions with peripheral globules from our clinic were included in the analysis; only 6 of these proved to be melanoma. 109 melanomas with peripheral globules from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration archive were added to the analysis. Melanomas were more common on the extremities and among older individuals. Melanomas were more likely to display atypical, tiered and/or focal peripheral globules. Only 5% of melanomas lacked dermoscopic melanoma‐specific structures compared to 48% of naevi. Conclusions Melanocytic lesions with atypical or asymmetrically distributed peripheral globules, especially when located on the extremities, should raise suspicion for malignancy. Melanocytic lesions with typical and symmetrically distributed peripheral globules, and with no other concerning dermoscopic features, are unlikely to be malignant

‘Inverse association between the total naevus count and melanoma thickness’

Background: Individuals with a high total naevus count (TNC) are at a higher risk to develop melanoma, and screening efforts have been largely focused on this group. However, some studies suggest that melanomas of patients with many nevi are thinner than those of patients with few nevi. Additionally, nodular melanoma has been associated with individuals with a low naevus count. Objective: To investigate the association between TNC and melanoma Breslow thickness. Methods: A two-centre retrospective study from 1 January 2016 to 1 January 2018. This included three hundred and twenty-six consecutive melanoma patients from two tertiary melanoma centres. The mean age at presentation was 58.3 years (SD = 15.9), and the majority (54.9%, N = 179) were men. Incidence of new in situ and invasive melanomas and correlation with TNC were measured. Results: The mean total naevus count for patients presenting with in situ melanoma was 57.2 (range 4–178), while for patients presenting with invasive disease was 31.5 (P = 0.01). In situ disease was associated with a higher TNC across all ages. For invasive melanoma, a positive association between age and Breslow thickness was observed, while TNC was inversely associated with Breslow thickness. Each additional naevus accounted for a 4% decreased likelihood that the subject had invasive disease. Conclusion: Patients with a higher naevus count had thinner melanomas and more melanomas in situ, independent of age and sex. © 2020 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereolog

Sun Protection Behavior Following Skin Cancer Resection and Reconstruction

Increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is associated with an increased risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer. Cutaneous surgery can be negatively influenced by UVR, causing delayed wound healing, hyperpigmentation of the scar, and an increased incidence of additional skin cancers. By changing sun protection behavior, these risks can be limited. Therefore, this study evaluates changes in patients' sun protective behavior after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). Patients undergoing MMS between December 2017 and November 2019 were included. Patients were asked to complete the FACE-Q Skin Cancer - Sun Protection Behavior checklist before and 3 months and 1 year post-surgery. A total of 125 patients completed the pre-operative and 3-months post-operative checklists, and 89 (71.2%) completed the 1-year post-operative checklist. Reported sun protective behaviors increased post-surgery at all time points (p < 0.001). Patients with a prior history of facial skin cancer demonstrated a larger increase in sun protection behaviors after surgery than patients without a history of facial skin cancer (p = 0.04). Patients with defects located on the ear or scalp demonstrated a lesser increase in sun protection behaviors than patients with defects located in more conspicuous areas as the face (p = 0.02). Our study demonstrates a change in sun protection behavior, with an increase in sun protection behavior over time in patients after MMS. However, more improvement is possible. Targeted counseling can increase sun protection behavior in patients without a history of facial skin cancer and patients with skin cancer located on the ears or scalp

To see or not to see: Impact of viewing facial skin cancer defects prior to reconstruction

Patient expectations of the scar after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) are often not realistic, leading to subsequent psychosocial sequelae such as anxiety, depression, and avoidance of social situations. When patient expectations are not met, this may also contribute to a decrease in patient satisfaction after surgery. Therefore, altering expectation levels may change patient satisfaction and psychosocial distress levels after surgery. To assess whether patient satisfaction improves in patients after MMS when patients view the surgical defect prior to reconstruction. Patients undergoing facial MMS between December 2017 and September 2019 were included. Patients received or did not receive a mirror after MMS to view the surgical defect before closing the defect. Patients were asked to complete the Dutch FACE-Q Skin Cancer before, one-week, three-months, and one-year after MMS. A total of 113 patients where included. One-hundred-eight (95.6%), 113 (100%), and 93 (82.3%) questionnaires were completed, one-week, three-months, and one-year follow-up, respectively. Satisfaction with facial appearance and appraisal of scars significantly improved over time for all patients, no such improvement was seen for appearance-related distress. Female patients who looked in the mirror had higher satisfaction with facial appearance than female patients who did not look in the mirror. Also, lower appearance-related distress scores were seen in patients who looked in the mirror prior to a flap reconstruction. Showing the defect in the mirror prior to the reconstruction may result in higher patient satisfaction in female patients and patients before undergoing a flap reconstruction

Human surface anatomy terminology for dermatology: a Delphi consensus from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration

Background: There is no internationally vetted set of anatomic terms to describe human surface anatomy. Objective: To establish expert consensus on a standardized set of terms that describe clinically relevant human surface anatomy. Methods: We conducted a Delphi consensus on surface anatomy terminology between July 2017 and July 2019. The initial survey included 385 anatomic terms, organized in seven levels of hierarchy. If agreement exceeded the 75% established threshold, the term was considered ‘accepted’ and included in the final list. Terms added by the participants were passed on to the next round of consensus. Terms with &lt;75% agreement were included in subsequent surveys along with alternative terms proposed by participants until agreement was reached on all terms. Results: The Delphi included 21 participants. We found consensus (≥75% agreement) on 361/385 (93.8%) terms and eliminated one term in the first round. Of 49 new terms suggested by participants, 45 were added via consensus. To adjust for a recently published International Classification of Diseases-Surface Topography list of terms, a third survey including 111 discrepant terms was sent to participants. Finally, a total of 513 terms reached agreement via the Delphi method. Conclusions: We have established a set of 513 clinically relevant terms for denoting human surface anatomy, towards the use of standardized terminology in dermatologic documentation. © 2020 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereolog

Human surface anatomy terminology for dermatology: a Delphi consensus from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration

BackgroundThere is no internationally vetted set of anatomic terms to describe human surface anatomy.ObjectiveTo establish expert consensus on a standardized set of terms that describe clinically relevant human surface anatomy.MethodsWe conducted a Delphi consensus on surface anatomy terminology between July 2017 and July 2019. The initial survey included 385 anatomic terms, organized in seven levels of hierarchy. If agreement exceeded the 75% established threshold, the term was considered - accepted- and included in the final list. Terms added by the participants were passed on to the next round of consensus. Terms with <75% agreement were included in subsequent surveys along with alternative terms proposed by participants until agreement was reached on all terms.ResultsThe Delphi included 21 participants. We found consensus (- ¥75% agreement) on 361/385 (93.8%) terms and eliminated one term in the first round. Of 49 new terms suggested by participants, 45 were added via consensus. To adjust for a recently published International Classification of Diseases- Surface Topography list of terms, a third survey including 111 discrepant terms was sent to participants. Finally, a total of 513 terms reached agreement via the Delphi method.ConclusionsWe have established a set of 513 clinically relevant terms for denoting human surface anatomy, towards the use of standardized terminology in dermatologic documentation.Linked Commentary: R.J.G. Chalmers. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020; 34: 2456- 2457. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.16978.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163915/1/jdv16855_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163915/2/jdv16855-sup-0001-FigS1-S3.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163915/3/jdv16855.pd