Search

Cosmetic and laser procedures are increasingly popular among patients and are skills in which dermatologists are regarded as well trained. Most dermatology residents intend to incorporate cosmetic procedures into their practice and prefer to learn such procedures during residency through direct patient care. However, there are notable challenges in optimizing how residents are trained in cosmetic and laser dermatology. To address these barriers and elevate the practice of cosmetic dermatology in academic medicine, the Association of Academic Cosmetic Dermatology (AACD) was founded in 2021 as the lead professional society for dermatologists who direct the education of resident trainees in cosmetic and laser dermatology. The AACD,a group of board-certified dermatologists who teach cosmetic and laser dermatology to residents, aims to improve cosmetic dermatology education through collaboration, research, and advocacy.

Cosmetic dermatology is a key subspecialty of academic dermatology. As such, academic centers are expected to demonstrate excellence in the teaching of cosmetic dermatology skills to trainees, the clinical delivery of cosmetic dermatology services to patients, and the performance of clinical research that advances knowledge and uncovers new therapies in cosmetic dermatology. The Association of Academic Cosmetic Dermatology (AACD), a newly formed medical professional society, includes as its principal aims the support of all of these areas. AACD is comprised of group of board-certified dermatologists who teach cosmetic and laser dermatology at US dermatology residency programs. An expert panel constituted by the AACD recently convened a workshop to review gaps pertaining to academic cosmetic dermatology. This panel considered needs and potential corrective initiatives in three domains: resident education, patient experience, and clinical research. The work of the panel was used to develop a roadmap, which was adopted by consensus, and which will serve to guide the AACD moving forward.

Early diagnosis improves melanoma survival, yet the histopathological diagnosis of cutaneous primary melanoma can be challenging even for expert dermatopathologists. Analysis of epigenetic alterations, such as DNA methylation, that occur in melanoma can aid in its early diagnosis. Using a genome-wide methylation screen, we assessed CpG methylation in a diverse set of 89 primary invasive melanomas, 73 nevi, and 41 melanocytic proliferations of uncertain malignant potential, classified based on interobserver review by dermatopathologists. Melanomas and nevi were split into training and validation sets. Predictive modeling in the training set using ElasticNet identified a 40-CpG classifier distinguishing 60 melanomas from 48 nevi. High diagnostic accuracy (area under the receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC)=0.996, sensitivity=96.6%, and specificity=100.0%) was independently confirmed in the validation set (29 melanomas, 25 nevi) and other published sample sets. The 40-CpG melanoma classifier included homeobox transcription factors and genes with roles in stem cell pluripotency or the nervous system. Application of the 40-CpG melanoma classifier to the diagnostically uncertain samples assigned melanoma or nevus status, potentially offering a diagnostic tool to assist dermatopathologists. In summary, the robust, accurate 40-CpG melanoma classifier offers a promising assay for improving primary melanoma diagnosis.

Telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter mutations are commonly found in malignant melanomas but rare in melanocytic nevi. To assess its potential diagnostic utility for the distinction of melanoma from nevus, we determined the TERT promoter mutation status of 86 primary melanomas, 72 melanocytic nevi, and 40 diagnostically problematic melanocytic proliferations. Of the 86 melanomas, 67 (77.9%) were TERT-positive, defined as harboring a hotspot TERT promoter mutation at positions -124C>T, -124_125CC>TT, -138_139CC>TT, or -146C>T. Of the 72 nevi, only 1 (1.4%) was TERT-positive. Of the 40 diagnostically uncertain melanocytic proliferations, 2 (5.0%) were TERT-positive. TERT positivity as a test for melanoma versus nevus had an accuracy of 87.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 81.1-92.1], a sensitivity of 77.9% (95% CI, 68.9-85.4), a specificity of 98.6% (95% CI, 95.8-100), a positive predictive value of 98.5% (95% CI, 95.6-100), and a negative predictive value of 78.9% (95% CI, 72.6-85.4). Our results indicate that hotspot TERT promoter mutation status may be a useful ancillary parameter for the diagnosis of melanoma. In particular, the high specificity of these mutations for melanoma indicates the presence of a TERT promoter mutation in a melanocytic neoplasm associated with diagnostic controversy, or uncertainty should increase concern for a melanoma.

Burn injuries are known to compromise host immune defenses through disruption of mucocutaneous barriers and suppression of cell-mediated immune responses, which may render patients with burn injuries susceptible to viral infections in the days to years after an initial insult. We report a case of verrucae planae developing as a secondary condition confined to former xenograft sites in a child, appearing more than 3.5 years after initial second-degree burn injuries. Only a few reports have previously described the development of verrucae in former burn sites, with most reporting latency to onset of verrucae appearance of months rather than years. Current hypotheses suggest that the postburn immune response shifts from an early proinflammatory to a late antiinflammatory response characterized by altered cytokine profiles and diminished cellular cytotoxicity mediated by cytotoxic T-lymphocytes, natural killer cells, and epidermal antigen-presenting cells, which together likely contribute to an enduring postburn regional immunosuppression that allows for the seeding and proliferation of viral agents.

BRAF mutation status, and therefore eligibility for BRAF inhibitors, is currently determined by sequencing methods. We assessed the validity of VE1, a monoclonal antibody against the BRAF V600E mutant protein, in the detection of mutant BRAF V600E melanomas as classified by DNA pyrosequencing.The cases were 76 metastatic melanoma patients with only one known primary melanoma who had had BRAF codon 600 pyrosequencing of either their primary (n = 19), metastatic (n = 57) melanoma, or both (n = 17). All melanomas (n = 93) were immunostained with the BRAF VE1 antibody using a red detection system. The staining intensity of these specimens was scored from 0 to 3+ by a dermatopathologist. Scores of 0 and 1+ were considered as negative staining while scores of 2+ and 3+ were considered positive.The VE1 antibody showed a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 100% as compared to DNA pyrosequencing results. There was 100% concordance between VE1 immunostaining of primary and metastatic melanomas from the same patient. V600K, V600Q, and V600R BRAF melanomas did not positively stain with VE1.This hospital-based study finds high sensitivity and specificity for the BRAF VE1 immunostain in comparison to pyrosequencing in detection of BRAF V600E in melanomas.