Bordeaux, Jeremy S.

BACKGROUND The management of skin cancers has evolved with the development of Mohs micrographic surgery and a greater emphasis on surgical training within dermatology. It is unclear whether these changes have translated into innovations and contributions to the reconstructive literature. OBJECTIVE To assess contributions from each medical specialty to the cutaneous head and neck oncologic reconstructive literature. METHODS The authors conducted a systematic review of the head and neck reconstructive literature from 2000 through 2015 based on a priori search terms relating to suture technique, linear closure, advancement, rotation, transposition and interpolation flaps, and identified the specialty of the senior authors. RESULTS The authors identified 74,871 articles, of which 1,319 were relevant. Under suture technique articles, the senior authors were primarily dermatologists (58.2%) and plastic surgeons (20.3%). Under linear closure, the authors were dermatologists (48.1%), plastic surgeons (22.2%), and otolaryngologists (20.4%). Under advancement and rotation flaps, the senior authors were plastic surgeons (40.5%, 38.9%), dermatologists (38.1%, 34.2%), and otolaryngologists (14.4%, 21.6%). Under transposition and interpolation flaps, the senior authors were plastic surgeons (47.3%, 39.4%), dermatologists (32.3%, 27.0%), and otolaryngologists (15.3%, 23.4%). CONCLUSION The primary specialties contributing to the cutaneous head and neck reconstructive literature are plastic surgery, dermatology, and otolaryngology.

BACKGROUND Success in skin cancer treatment is determined through outcome measurement. Patients and physicians may prioritize different outcomes of care, and identification of such may enhance patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE To identify gaps between patient and physician attitudes toward skin cancer outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS A single-day, 21-patient, modified, in-person Delphi process to solicit and rate the importance of skin cancer–related outcomes was conducted. Twelve masked dermatologic surgeons rated patient-generated outcomes in a 2-round modified Delphi process. Each item was rated on a 1 to 9 scale (1, least important; 9, most important) using the Qualtrics web platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). Results of the physician ratings were compared with the patient ratings. RESULTS A list of 53 skin cancer treatment–related themes and outcomes was generated. Eight items were ranked by physicians as “very high” (>80% importance), 5 as “high” (>70% importance), 19 as intermediate, and 21 as low. The physician and patient panels' ratings were concordant for 56% of items, whereas 7 outcome items showed a 2-category discordance. CONCLUSION Physicians and patients were concordant regarding skin cancer treatment on multiple spheres. Areas of discordance include patient fear of unknown future risk, recurrence, or empowering patients to make treatment choices, and may be areas of continued improvement for delivery of patient-centered care.

BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcomes are critical to research directed at maximizing patient benefit. The outcomes patients consider most relevant in the treatment of skin cancer have not been directly investigated. OBJECTIVE To develop a ranked list of outcomes deemed most important by patients with skin cancer through a proctored Delphi process. METHODS Twenty-one patients with a history of skin cancer volunteered to participate in the patient summit. The patient members participated in a guided discussion to generate a long list of potentially relevant outcomes. The list was then condensed and ranked through 2 rounds of a proctored Delphi process. RESULTS Patients were diverse in their skin cancer histories and complexities, ages, and states of residence. Twelve themes were rated as highly important by 70% or more of participants. Most of these themes related to patient education and the collaborative nature of the physician–patient relationship. Fear of recurrence and cosmetic outcome were also highly rated. Limitations include a preponderance of older patients and patients from the midwest and northeast. CONCLUSION Patients with skin cancer overwhelmingly prioritize a shared decision-making process, in which they are actively engaged and value detailed education regarding their disease. This should inform future research directed at skin cancer treatment and current physician–patient interactions.

e21079 Background: Increased emphasis is being placed on patient centered outcomes. There is little existing literature on the patient population's prioritization of outcomes in skin cancer care. A PCORI-supported Patient Outcomes Summit was organized to address this. Methods: Patients were recruited from patient support groups, solicitation of ASDS member practices, as well as personal recruitment of patients from the practices of the investigators. A one-day Patient Outcome Summit was convened in Arlington, VA in August 2016. Patients attendees were given orientation to existing outcomes for skin cancer as well as the Delphi process. They then participated in a two round Delphi process by run non-physician facilitators (AB and EA). Group discussion was used to solicit outcomes for inclusion in the rating rounds. Outcomes were then rated anonymously on a 1 (lowest relevance) to 9 (highest relevance) scale. Patients were then able to view the anonymous feedback of the group and rerate the items as they deemed fit based on the group feedback. Results: 21 patients participated in the Delphi process (5 men and 21 women). 10 were melanoma and 11 were non-melanoma patients. 56 treatment related outcomes and themes were identified. The ten most highly rated themes are shown in the table. Conclusions: The first ever skin cancer patient outcome summit was convened to address the lack of patient-centered data in the skin cancer literature and guide measure development. Some traditional outcomes (recurrence) were identifiend. However, the majority of the themes rated most important by the patient attendees center around inclusion of the patient in the decision making process and the physician-patient communication. Increased emphasis and education in these domains may drive increased patient satisfaction in skin cancer care. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUND As the number of cutaneous surgeries continues to increase, it is important to evaluate the safety of dermatologic surgery in the outpatient setting. OBJECTIVE The authors sought to determine postoperative bleeding, infection, dehiscence, and necrosis rates in office-based dermatologic surgery using large flap, large graft, and interpolation flap repairs. The authors evaluated the relationship between these complications and surgical site, closure type, repair size, antibiotic use, and antithrombotic use. METHODS Eligible patients were identified through searching the electronic medical records from one Mohs micrographic surgeon at University Hospitals Medical Center. Patient information, surgery characteristics, and complication information were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to reveal associations between each complication and closure type, repair size, repair site, antithrombotic use, and antibiotic use. RESULTS Three hundred and thirty-one reconstruction procedures after Mohs micrographic surgery and excision qualified for the study. The rates of postoperative infection, hemorrhage, hematoma, necrosis, and dehiscence were 5%, 0.3%, 2.4%, 3%, and 0.9%, respectively. CONCLUSION Complications were infrequent and non–life-threatening. The authors' results indicate that dermatologic surgery using large flaps, interpolation flaps, and large grafts is safe in the office setting.