Iyengar, Sanjana

Importance Currently, there are no standardized outcome domains or measures in clinical trials for facial aging. Heterogeneity in outcome domains and measurement instruments across clinical trials creates difficulty in directly comparing interventions, determining superior therapies, and developing high-quality meta-analyses. Objective To develop a core outcome set (COS) of essential domains to be reported in clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of interventions for facial aging. Evidence Review PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL were searched from September 2005 to September 2015. An updated search of the same databases was performed from September 2015 to February 2026. Studies were included if (1) they were randomized clinical trial or controlled clinical trial in design, (2) they assessed the efficacy or safety of an intervention for facial aging, (3) they were published in English, and (4) they involved human participants. Complementary sources, including patient interviews, were used to capture further relevant outcomes. Two rounds of Delphi surveys, followed by consensus meetings, were used to identify outcome domains considered most important by both patient and physician stakeholders. Findings The final COS consists of 6 outcome domains: (1) overall convenience of treatment; (2) time to return to normal work and social activity; (3) overall assessment of focused area of treatment (at the point in time when treatment is expected to provide peak benefit); (4) duration of treatment effect; (5) severity of persistent local or systemic adverse events, including pigmentary change, skin texture change, delayed healing, scarring, and serious adverse events; and (6) patient satisfaction with treatment. Conclusions and Relevance The 6 outcome domains identified through a Delphi consensus are recommended for reporting in future facial aging trials to ensure that outcomes that matter most to patients and clinicians are measured and that results are comparable across interventions.

Purpose Indications for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for thin melanoma are continually evolving. We present a large multi-institutional study to determine factors predictive of sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis in thin melanoma. Patients and Methods Retrospective review of the Sentinel Lymph Node Working Group database from 1994 to 2012 identified 1,250 patients who had an SLNB and thin melanomas (≤ 1 mm). Clinicopathologic characteristics were correlated with SLN status and outcome. Results SLN metastases were detected in 65 (5.2%) of 1,250 patients. On univariable analysis, rates of Breslow thickness ≥ 0.75 mm, Clark level ≥ IV, ulceration, and absence of regression differed significantly between positive and negative SLN groups (all P < .05). These four variables and mitotic rate were used in multivariable analysis, which demonstrated that Breslow thickness ≥ 0.75 mm (P = .03), Clark level ≥ IV (P = .05), and ulceration (P = .01) significantly predicted SLN metastasis with 6.3%, 7.0%, and 11.6% of the patients with these respective characteristics having SLN disease. Melanomas < 0.75 mm had positive SLN rates of < 5% regardless of Clark level and ulceration status. Median follow-up was 2.6 years. Melanoma-specific survival was significantly worse for patients with positive versus negative SLNs (P = .001). Conclusion Breslow thickness ≥ 0.75 mm, Clark level ≥ IV, and ulceration significantly predict SLN disease in thin melanoma. Most SLN metastases (86.2%) occur in melanomas ≥ 0.75 mm, with 6.3% of these patients having SLN disease, whereas in melanomas < 0.75 mm, SLN metastasis rates are < 5%. By using a 5% metastasis risk threshold, SLNB is indicated for melanomas ≥ 0.75 mm, but further study is needed to define indications for SLNB in melanomas < 0.75 mm.