Delphi Consensus Among International Experts on the Diagnosis, Management, and Surveillance for Lentigo Maligna

Introduction: Melanoma of the lentigo maligna (LM) type is challenging. There is lack of consensus on the optimal diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Objectives: To obtain general consensus on the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up for LM. Methods: A modified Delphi method was used. The invited participants were either members of the International Dermoscopy Society, academic experts, or authors of published articles relating to skin cancer and melanoma. Participants were required to respond across three rounds using a 4-point Likert scale). Consensus was defined as >75% of participants agreeing/strongly agreeing or disagreeing/strongly disagreeing. Results: Of the 31 experts invited to participate in this Delphi study, 29 participants completed Round 1 (89.9% response rate), 25/31 completed Round 2 (77.5% response rate), and 25/31 completed Round 3 (77.5% response rate). Experts agreed that LM diagnosis should be based on a clinical and dermatoscopic approach (92%) followed by a biopsy. The most appropriate primary treatment of LM was deemed to be margin-controlled surgery (83.3%), although non-surgical modalities, especially imiquimod, were commonly used either as alternative off-label primary treatment in selected patients or as adjuvant therapy following surgery; 62% participants responded life-long clinical follow-up was needed for LM. Conclusions: Clinical and histological diagnosis of LM is challenging and should be based on macroscopic, dermatoscopic, and RCM examination followed by a biopsy. Different treatment modalities and follow-up should be carefully discussed with the patient

Patient Education on Scarring Following Mohs Micrographic Surgery:Patient Preference for Information Delivery

BACKGROUND: There are multiple modalities for patient education ranging from written to audiovisual formats. However, little is known regarding which modality is optimal. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient preference for educational materials about scar care following surgery for facial skin cancer using the FACE-Q Skin Cancer patient reported outcome measure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On the day of Mohs surgery, patients were given a written handout or viewed a 3-minute animation video regarding best practices in scar improvement. Afterward, patients received the FACE-Q Skin Cancer-Satisfaction with Information: Appearance scale. Three months later, patients were called and given the same scale and additional questions regarding scar care. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were enrolled. There was no difference between the 2 groups' preoperative information scores (p = .85) and the three-month postoperative scores (p = .37). The change in preoperative and postoperative score showed no significant difference between the 2 groups (p = .21); but there was a trend of higher satisfaction in the video group on the day of Mohs surgery. After the 3-month timepoint, there was a higher satisfaction trend observed with the written handout group. CONCLUSION: Patient preferences in information delivery and accessibility will contribute to greater information retention and satisfaction

Utilization of Facebook for support and education by patients with skin cancer

The expanding role of social media in medical care has resulted in dermatology patients seeking support online regarding personal experience with diagnosis and treatment of skin cancer. Owing to increased privacy settings in closed Facebook groups, the current study analyzed themes of keratinocyte carcinoma patients’ posts within a relatively private social media network. Although the majority of messages included sharing personal experience and provided psychosocial support (50%), there were a significant number of posts offering medical advice (35%), with the majority of such replies being unsupported by evidence-based medicine (87%). The level of medical misinformation and potential harm to patients seeking advice online is important for medical practitioners treating skin cancer and provides impetus for possible further research into online support and education groups that are moderated for misinformation

Comorbidity Assessment in Skin Cancer Patients: A Pilot Study Comparing Medical Interview with a Patient-Reported Questionnaire

Background. Comorbidities are conditions that occur simultaneously but independently of another disorder. Among skin cancer patients, comorbidities are common and may influence management. Objective. We compared comorbidity assessment by traditional medical interview (MI) and by standardized patient-reported questionnaire based on the Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 (ACE-27). Methods. Between September 2011 and October 2013, skin cancer patients underwent prospective comorbidity assessment by a Mohs surgeon (MI) and a radiation oncologist (using a standardized patient-reported questionnaire based on the ACE-27, the PRACE-27). Comorbidities were identified and graded according to the ACE-27 and compared for agreement. Results. Forty-four patients were evaluated. MI and PRACE-27 identified comorbidities in 79.5% and 88.6% (p=0.12) of patients, respectively. Among 27 comorbid ailments, the MI identified 9.9% as being present, while the PRACE-27 identified 12.5%. When there were discordant observations, PRACE-27 was more likely than MI to identify the comorbidity (OR=5.4, 95% CI = 2.4–14.4, p<0.001). Overall comorbidity scores were moderate or severe in 43.2% (MI) versus 59.1% (PRACE-27) (p=0.016). Limitations. Small sample size from a single institution. Conclusion. Comorbidities are common in skin cancer patients, and a standardized questionnaire may better identify and grade them. More accurate comorbidity assessments may help guide skin cancer management