Search

ImportanceTherapy for advanced melanoma has transformed during the past decade, but early detection and prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma (CM) remain paramount goals. Best practices for screening and use of pigmented lesion evaluation tools and gene expression profile (GEP) testing in CM remain to be defined.ObjectiveTo provide consensus recommendations on optimal screening practices and prebiopsy diagnostic, postbiopsy diagnostic, and prognostic assessment of CM.Evidence reviewCase scenarios were interrogated using a modified Delphi consensus method. Melanoma panelists (n = 60) were invited to vote on hypothetical scenarios via an emailed survey (n = 42), which was followed by a consensus conference (n = 51) that reviewed the literature and the rationale for survey answers. Panelists participated in a follow-up survey for final recommendations on the scenarios (n = 45).FindingsThe panelists reached consensus (≥70% agreement) in supporting a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening in clinical settings and public screening events, screening personnel recommendations (self/partner, primary care provider, general dermatologist, and pigmented lesion expert), screening intervals, and acceptable appointment wait times. Participants also reached consensus that visual and dermoscopic examination are sufficient for evaluation and follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions deemed innocuous. The panelists reached consensus on interpreting reflectance confocal microscopy and some but not all results from epidermal tape stripping, but they did not reach consensus on use of certain pigmented lesion evaluation tools, such as electrical impedance spectroscopy. Regarding GEP scores, the panelists reached consensus that a low-risk prognostic GEP score should not outweigh concerning histologic features when selecting patients to undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy but did not reach consensus on imaging recommendations in the setting of a high-risk prognostic GEP score and low-risk histology and/or negative nodal status.Conclusions and relevanceFor this consensus statement, panelists reached consensus on aspects of a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening and follow-up as well as use of visual examination and dermoscopy. These findings support a practical approach to diagnosing and evaluating CM. Panelists did not reach consensus on a clearly defined role for GEP testing in clinical decision-making, citing the need for additional studies to establish the clinical use of existing GEP assays.

IntroductionIn March 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, intended for primary care clinicians. One recommendation advised against concurrent prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines. Although existing research suggests a reduction in co-prescribing of these drug classes by clinicians after guideline release, there are limited data assessing its possible effect on patient medical outcomes, such as overdoses.MethodsThis retrospective observational study analyzed opioid and benzodiazepine exposures, alone or in combination, reported to the California Poison Control System from January 2012 to June 2021. Interrupted time series analyses identified the difference in monthly call volume between pre- and post-guideline release. For exposures resulting in serious medical outcomes, additional analyses assessed trends and identified associated variables.ResultsThere was no significant change in concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine exposures reported to California Poison Control System between pre- and post-guideline release. Compared to pre-guideline release, exposures to a single opioid or to a single benzodiazepine significantly decreased by 1.07 (95% CI: -1.62, -0.51) and 1.82 (95% CI: -2.33, -1.31) calls per month, respectively, after the guideline release. For exposure calls associated with serious medical outcomes, there was a significant increase of 0.11 (95% CI: 0.04, 0.18) and 0.2 (95% CI: 0.05, 0.34) calls per month for concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine and single opioid exposures, respectively, following guideline release.DiscussionThe guideline release appeared to have a variable association with exposures to single opioid, single benzodiazepines, and concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine cases reported to California Poison Control System. Although exposures to opioids or benzodiazepines alone significantly decreased after guideline release, there was no significant change in concomitant exposures. Additionally, for exposures associated with serious medical outcomes, concomitant exposures, and single opioid exposures significantly increased following guideline release.ConclusionOur results suggest that the guideline was not associated with a corresponding decrease in the number of concomitant poisoning exposures reported to California Poison Control System. Additional interventions may be needed to reduce concomitant exposures to opioids and benzodiazepines.

Orofacial granulomatosis is a rare disorder that is heterogeneously defined in the published literature. Herein, we describe a patient with orofacial granulomatosis with clinical and histologic evidence, discuss differential diagnoses, and offer clinical pearls for diagnosing and assessing this disorder. Our case provides support that orofacial granulomatosis is a distinct disorder as opposed to a sequela of other systemic granulomatous diseases. This information will aid dermatologists in decision making and diagnosing the disorder.

In response to the rapidly rising number of asylum applications, student-run asylum clinics (SRACs) designed to provide pro bono forensic medical evaluations have emerged at medical schools across the United States. Distinct from traditional student-run clinics in the services they provide and in their operational models, SRACs face a unique set of challenges. This study aims to identify the common challenges in building SRACs and to collect insights to inform a structured approach to collaborative problem-solving. This study gathered data from online surveys and semi-structured phone interviews with representative medical student SRAC leaders. 14 clinics participated in the 2017 online survey, 15 clinics in the 2018 online survey, and eight clinics in the 2018-2019 phone interviews. We identified common challenges in five areas: volunteer recruitment, clinic operations, case demand, institutional support, and leadership. SRACs stand to benefit from ongoing extramural collaborations to overcome shared challenges.

ImportanceUse of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) testing in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is rising despite a lack of endorsement as standard of care.ObjectiveTo develop guidelines within the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) on integration of GEP testing into the management of patients with CM, including (1) review of published data using GEP tests, (2) definition of acceptable performance criteria, (3) current recommendations for use of GEP testing in clinical practice, and (4) considerations for future studies.Evidence reviewThe MPWG members and other international melanoma specialists participated in 2 online surveys and then convened a summit meeting. Published data and meeting abstracts from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed.FindingsThe MPWG members are optimistic about the future use of prognostic GEP testing to improve risk stratification and enhance clinical decision-making but acknowledge that current utility is limited by test performance in patients with stage I disease. Published studies of GEP testing have not evaluated results in the context of all relevant clinicopathologic factors or as predictors of regional nodal metastasis to replace sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The performance of GEP tests has generally been reported for small groups of patients representing particular tumor stages or in aggregate form, such that stage-specific performance cannot be ascertained, and without survival outcomes compared with data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition melanoma staging system international database. There are significant challenges to performing clinical trials incorporating GEP testing with SLNB and adjuvant therapy. The MPWG members favor conducting retrospective studies that evaluate multiple GEP testing platforms on fully annotated archived samples before embarking on costly prospective studies and recommend avoiding routine use of GEP testing to direct patient management until prospective studies support their clinical utility.Conclusions and relevanceMore evidence is needed to support using GEP testing to inform recommendations regarding SLNB, intensity of follow-up or imaging surveillance, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. The MPWG recommends further research to assess the validity and clinical applicability of existing and emerging GEP tests. Decisions on performing GEP testing and patient management based on these results should only be made in the context of discussion of testing limitations with the patient or within a multidisciplinary group.

Recent progress in the treatment of advanced melanoma has led to unprecedented improvements in overall survival and, as these new melanoma treatments have been developed and deployed in the clinic, much has been learned about the natural history of the disease. Now is the time to apply that knowledge toward the design and clinical evaluation of new chemoprevention agents. Melanoma chemoprevention has the potential to reduce dramatically both the morbidity and the high costs associated with treating patients who have metastatic disease. In this work, scientific and clinical melanoma experts from the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group, composed of National Cancer Trials Network investigators, discuss research aimed at discovering and developing (or repurposing) drugs and natural products for the prevention of melanoma and propose an updated pipeline for translating the most promising agents into the clinic. The mechanism of action, preclinical data, epidemiological evidence, and results from available clinical trials are discussed for each class of compounds. Selected keratinocyte carcinoma chemoprevention studies also are considered, and a rationale for their inclusion is presented. These data are summarized in a table that lists the type and level of evidence available for each class of agents. Also included in the discussion is an assessment of additional research necessary and the likelihood that a given compound may be a suitable candidate for a phase 3 clinical trial within the next 5 years.

A healthy 66 year-old man presented with a complaint of changes within a nodule on the scalp, which had first appeared over 10 years prior. He had no previous history of skin cancer.  On physical examination a solitary, asymmetric, purple-black nodule with irregular borders was identified on the right vertex of his scalp. The remainder of his examination did not reveal any additional lesions.