Shahin, Ahmad

AbstractThis case describes a pediatric patient with a history of ichthyosis vulgaris and global anhidrosis who was diagnosed with erythema ab igne (EAI), a rare dermatosis resulting from chronic heat exposure. After developing progressive, reticulated brown patches on his extremities and abdomen, extensive diagnostic investigations were conducted to rule out autoimmune, vascular, and genetic etiologies. Bloodwork was unrevealing and biopsies showed histologic features closely resembling keratosis lichenoides chronica. Ultimately, after discovering the patient had prolonged exposure to a space heater, the diagnosis of EAI was made. This case underscores the diagnostic challenges in pediatric EAI cases and emphasizes the importance of careful history taking as part of a comprehensive evaluation.

A male patient was evaluated by the dermatology inpatient consult service after a 5-week history of a skin lesion on the right anterior thigh with intermittent itching and mild tenderness to palpation. What is your diagnosis?

AbstractBackgroundImmunotherapies have changed the landscape of late‐stage melanoma; however, data evaluating timely access to immunotherapy are lacking.MethodsA retrospective cohort study utilizing the National Cancer Database was conducted. Stage III and IV melanoma cases diagnosed between 2011 and 2018 that received systemic treatment with either immunotherapy or chemotherapy were included. Chemotherapy included BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Multivariable logistic regression models were utilized to evaluate factors associated with the likelihood of receiving immunotherapy as primary systemic treatment relative to chemotherapy; additionally, Cox proportional hazards models were utilized to incorporate time from diagnosis to primary systemic therapy into the analysis.ResultsThe study population was comprised of 14,446 cases. The cohort included 12,053 (83.4%) immunotherapy and 2393 (16.6%) chemotherapy cases. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, factors significantly associated with immunotherapy receipt included population density, circle distance, year of diagnosis, Breslow thickness, and cancer stage. Immunotherapy timing was evaluated using multivariable Cox regression analysis. Minorities were less likely to receive timely immunotherapy than non‐Hispanic Whites (HR 0.83, CI 0.74–0.93, p = 0.001). Patients at circle distances of 10–49 miles (HR 0.94, CI 0.89–0.99, p = 0.02) and ≥50 miles (HR 0.83, CI 0.77–0.90, p < 0.001) were less likely to receive timely immunotherapy.ConclusionPatients traveling ≥10 miles and minorities have a decreased likelihood of receiving timely immunotherapy administration for primary systemic treatment. Future research is needed to identify what barriers and approaches can be leveraged to address these inequities.

AbstractBackgroundPrimary cutaneous B‐cell lymphoma (PCBCL) is a group of B‐cell lymphomas of the skin containing primary cutaneous follicle centre lymphoma (PCFCL) and marginal zone B‐cell lymphoma/lymphoproliferative disorder (PCMZL), which are indolent, and diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma, leg type (PCDLBCL‐LT), which is aggressive.ObjectivesTo evaluate treatment outcomes between PCBCL subtypes after treatment with rituximab and to compare the efficacy of intralesional against systemic rituximab in indolent subtypes.MethodsA search for patients diagnosed with PCBCL and treated with rituximab (systemic or intralesional) across all Mayo Clinic sites was performed, yielding 39 patients.ResultsEight patients had PCFCL (six treated intralesionally and two systemically), 11 had PCMZL (four intralesional, eight systemic with one dual‐treated) and 20 had PCDLBCL‐LT (all systemic). The average age at diagnosis was 62.1 years (SD = 15.1), with average follow‐up of 1852.6 days (SD = 1473.2). 69.2% of all patients treated with any form of rituximab experienced a complete response (100% PCFCL, 81.8% PCMZL and 50% PCDLBCL‐LT). When comparing all three subtypes, a significant difference was seen in overall treatment response (p = 0.022), and progressive disease rates (p = 0.015), but not in retreatment with rituximab (p = 0.440), time to retreatment (p = 0.757), recurrence (p = 0.907) or survival (p = 0.093). In the indolent subtypes, no difference in overall treatment response (p = 1.000), progressive disease rates (p = 1.000), recurrence (p = 0.650), rituximab retreatment (p = 0.650) or time to retreatment (p = 0.724) was observed.ConclusionsThis study suggests that rituximab, as systemic therapy and intralesional therapy, is effective in the management of PCBCL, and that intralesional therapy should be considered before more aggressive therapy in indolent disease.

Introduction/Objectives: Telehealth services expanded during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Student-run free clinics (SRFC) deliver important health care services to underserved populations, who may face barriers to telehealth use. This study characterizes telehealth usage, experiences, and attitudes among individuals working in SRFCs. Methods: In November 2021, a survey adapted from the COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition Telehealth Impact Physician Survey was sent to all registrants who identified themselves as students at the 2020 Society of Student-Run Free Clinics Annual Conference. Results: Thirty-eight individuals of 576 registrants (7%) representing 21 of 88 (24%) SRFCs completed the survey. Twenty-one (58%) individuals reported using telehealth in their clinic. Those that did not cited lack of infrastructure as a barrier (eg, broadband, Internet challenges, technology investments), were more likely to serve homeless (P = .01), and less likely to serve non-English speaking populations (P = .02). There were increases in telehealth and decreases in in-person visits after March 11, 2020 though changes did not reach statistical significance. At least 15 (68%) wanted to continue chronic disease management, preventative care, and mental/behavioral health via telehealth after COVID-19. Most felt that telehealth was easy to use and improved the health, safety, and timeliness of care of patients, but not work satisfaction or access to care. Difficulty accessing physical devices, Internet, and data was the most-cited barrier to maintaining and accessing telehealth. Conclusions: Nearly all participants cited significant benefits and barriers to telehealth that impacted perceived access to care and sustainability. SRFCs’ experiences may be modulated by their underserved populations and role in student education. Addressing barriers, particularly patient- and clinic-level technology challenges, could work to improve inequities in telehealth uptake.

Abstract Background Although perceived barriers to applying to dermatology have been researched among medical students, there remains a dearth of literature dedicated to understanding perceptions that medical students have of the field of dermatology and dermatologists. Methods A review of the literature in Embase, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect were carried out to identify articles and abstracts between 2016 and 2021 relating to medical student perceptions of the field of dermatology. Peer-reviewed English studies measuring attitudes/level of interest in dermatology or other specialities, understanding of dermatologic topics, procedures, and/or scope of practice were included. Duplicate studies and conference abstracts were excluded. All publications were screened using the PRISMA-Sc guidelines. Findings were summarised and tabulated accordingly. Results A total of nine articles met inclusion criteria and eight are included in this review since one was not accessible online. Notable findings include non-US medical students perceiving dermatology as monotonous, stigmatized, unfamiliar, and difficult to access with a misunderstanding of the diversity and severity of the conditions dermatologists treat. No data on US medical student perceptions was found. Perceptions were found to be influential in career planning: medical students may reject specialities after exposure to negative comments on the field. Factors attracting students to dermatology include the appeal of being a dermatologist, media portrayal, and dermatologists' influence on patients' lives. Completion of dermatology-related activities improved medical student interest, comfort, and understanding of the field. Early dermatology exposure in US undergraduate premedical students led to heightened interest in the field, more confidence in ability to find dermatology mentors, and increased perception that dermatology serves the needs of underserved communities. Conclusions This review demonstrates the need to further investigate medical student perceptions of dermatology, particularly in the United States. Perceptions of medical specialities can impact medical student career choices. Understanding which misconceptions may be preventing students from exploring dermatology can inform efforts towards improving diversity, equity, and inclusion: translating to an equitable match and improving patient outcomes. Limitations include exclusion of articles published before 2016, geographic variability in studies, and limited data on evolving student perceptions over time.