Demer, Addison M.

Importance There is no consensus on staging and surveillance imaging for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC). Although imaging has been shown to affect management, broad recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network have led to variability in clinical practice. Objective To develop multidisciplinary consensus recommendations on the use of staging and surveillance imaging of localized CSCC. Evidence Review A multidisciplinary expert panel across academic and clinical practice settings convened a Delphi consensus, with 3 iterative survey rounds from January to June 2025. Data were analyzed from February 2025 to January 2026. Eligibility defined by at least 1 to 2 CSCC publications during the previous 5 years, involvement in a relevant clinical trial, experience treating at least 3 patients monthly with CSCC, and/or 5 years or longer of clinical practice. Fifty-four experts were invited and 45 (83%) completed all 3 rounds and were included in the final analysis. Structured Delphi surveys evaluated clinical scenarios, imaging modalities, and surveillance strategies for CSCC. Consensus and near-consensus recommendations were generated, defined as 80% or greater and 70% to 79% agreement, respectively. Findings The 45 participants (21 female individuals [47%] and 24 male individuals [53%]; 14 Asian individuals [31%], 1 multiracial individual [2%], and 30 White individuals [67%]) consisted of dermatology (15 [33%]), medical oncology (7 [16%]), radiation oncology (9 [20%]), radiology (9 [20%]), surgery (3 [7%]), and otolaryngology specialists (2 [4%]). The Delphi panel recommended staging and surveillance for CSCCs with at least a 15% risk of metastasis. Consensus or near consensus was reached to recommend staging and surveillance imaging for tumors with a concern for metastasis, bone invasion, invasion beyond subcutaneous fat, large-caliber nerve invasion, or a diameter of 4 cm or larger or the combination of tumors with poorly differentiated histology and any of the following: diameter of 2 cm or larger, lymphovascular invasion and subcutaneous fat invasion, or lymphovascular invasion and small-caliber perineural invasion. Computed tomography imaging was the preferred modality for nodal staging (38 [84%]) and surveillance (35 [78%]). For surveillance duration, consensus was reached to provide imaging for at least 2 years, and near consensus was reached for at least 3 years. Conclusions and Relevance This study provides an expert consensus–based framework to standardize imaging in localized CSCC that may inform future guidelines.

Belt buckle ectropion is a newly recognized mechanism of lower eyelid malposition following Mohs reconstruction. Unlike cicatricial ectropion caused by vertical skin shortage, this variant results from horizontal flap tension acting on a lax tarsus. We retrospectively reviewed three patients who developed postoperative ectropion following subciliary Mohs reconstruction without lid margin involvement. Mechanism, management, and outcomes were analyzed. In all cases, the ectropion resulted from horizontal anterior lamellar tension producing anterior tarsal tilt, confirmed by a negative forced traction test. One case resolved spontaneously, and two required lateral tarsal strip procedures, both yielding successful anatomic and functional outcomes. Belt buckle ectropion represents a distinct post-reconstructive malposition mechanism, correctable with horizontal tarsal tightening rather than skin grafting. Recognition of this pattern may prevent misclassification as cicatricial ectropion and guide appropriate surgical management.

BACKGROUND The use of Mohs micrographic surgery as a treatment for melanoma is rising, but the reliability of Mohs surgeons in assessing MART-1 melanoma en-face margins has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE To evaluate interrater and intrarater reliability of Mohs surgeons in interpreting margins of early-stage melanoma. METHODS Twenty Mohs surgeons were asked to independently review images of frozen section MART-1 en-face peripheral margins of in situ or early-stage melanoma. Surgeons determined margins as positive or negative at initial evaluation and 6 weeks later. Primary outcomes were interrater and intrarater reliability. RESULTS Interrater agreement was 84.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 75.5%–92.8%) for assessment 1 and 87.5% (95% CI: 78.4%–96.4%) for assessment 2, with kappa values 0.68 (95% CI: 0.50–0.82) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.57–0.88). Average intrarater percent agreement was 95.0% (95% CI: 70.6%–100.0%) with average kappa 0.90 (95% CI: 0.50–1.00). CONCLUSION Substantial interrater and nearly perfect intrarater agreement was identified among surgeons assessing melanoma margins utilizing MART-1 immunostaining, demonstrating consistent and reproducible assessment of melanoma margins during Mohs cases.

Background Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) arising in the vulvar and perivulvar region poses unique challenges to the dermatologic surgeon. The potential for broad subclinical extension and involvement of deeper and high-risk functional structures requires a strong knowledge of relevant anatomy. Careful considerations are required for preoperative arrangements, surgical day preparations, and postoperative surveillance to improve treatment outcomes and patient experiences. Objective The authors aim to provide a practical guide for the dermatologic surgeon, which outlines surgical planning and management recommendations for vulvar DFSP. Emphasis on pelvic anatomy through cadaveric and patient images as well as anatomical illustrations will be included. Materials and Methods A literature review was performed to identify evidence-based management recommendations for vulvar DFSP. Authors share anecdotal perioperative recommendations for optimizing the patient experience. A detailed pelvic dissection of a female cadaver was performed for anatomical depiction of relevant high-risk structures. Illustrations of sensory nerve distributions were created for reference. Conclusion Vulvar DFSP is a challenging cutaneous tumor in a sensitive anatomical location. As Mohs surgery offers clear advantages over wide local excision, the authors provide dermatologic surgeons with detailed anatomy review resources as well as recommendations and considerations for management and perioperative planning for this specialized site.

Background: Development of ectropion is a frequently reported complication after reconstruction of infraorbital Mohs defects. This study aimed to characterize preoperative and surgical factors contributing to ectropion development in patients undergoing reconstruction after Mohs micrographic surgery. Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-center case-control study on patients undergoing reconstruction of Mohs micrographic surgery defects involving the nonmarginal lower eyelid and upper cheek from 2011 to 2023. Pre- and postoperative photographs were reviewed to confirm defect location and postreconstructive eyelid malposition. Ectropion risk factors were determined with uni- and multivariate odds ratio analyses. Results: A total of 202 patients were included, 45 cases in the ectropion group and 157 in the control group. Negative orbital vector (P = 0.02), recurrent disease (P = 0.01), and greater defects size (P = 0.007) were associated with postreconstructive ectropion. Ectropion was more likely after multidisciplinary reconstruction (13.3% versus 1.4%, P < 0.001) and reconstruction with cervicofacial flaps (28.9% versus 4.2%, P < 0.0005); and less likely after primary closure (8.9% versus 28.5%, P < 0.001). Multivariate assessment (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], P value) revealed that combined cheek and eyelid defect involvement (4.32 [1.36–13.6], P = 0.01), larger size (1.07 [1.03–1.13], P < 0.001), and negative orbital vector (12.11 [2.65–65.42], P = 0.002) were independent risk factors for ectropion development. Conclusions: Combined cheek/lower eyelid defects and negative orbital vector increase the risk of postreconstructive ectropion. These findings can be used to optimize surgical technique and counsel patients on increased likelihood of this complication with possible need for revision surgery.