Swick, Brian L.

Background: Dermatofibromas are common skin tumors that typically occur on the extremities and trunk and demonstrate benign behavior, frequent recurrences, and very rare metastasis. Facial dermatofibromas are rare and not well studied. We analyzed clinicopathologic features of facial dermatofibromas. Design: Considering the rarity of the condition, we conducted a cohort study and a systematic review. We queried medical records of a single tertiary care center for dermatofibromas from January 1, 2000, to July 1, 2021. A systematic review of multiple databases was conducted through October 27, 2021, to include studies reporting facial dermatofibromas. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled odds ratio and proportions with associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The cohort study identified 2858 cases of dermatofibromas, of which, 23 cases from 18 patients were on the face (1%). The mean age was 52.7 ± 17.8 years. Fifty-six percent of the cases were women. The most common location was the forehead (6 cases). The mean follow-up was 54 months. Forty-four percent of the cases had subcutaneous involvement, and 39% were the cellular type. Margins were positive in 89% of the cases, recurrence rate was 22%, and no metastases were observed. The systematic review included 10 studies (119 patients). Meta-analyses showed that facial dermatofibromas were 2% of all dermatofibromas (95% CI: 1%–3%). The local recurrence rate was 14% (95% CI: 6%–26%). Facial dermatofibromas with subcutaneous involvement were more likely to recur [odds ratio 4.53 (95% CI: 1.12–18.24)]. Before histopathologic examination, clinical differential diagnosis included dermatofibromas in only 9% of the cases (95% CI: 2%–19%). Conclusion: Facial dermatofibromas are rare and are difficult to fully excise. Cellular type and subcutaneous or muscular involvement are common in these cases and tend to have higher local recurrence rate than other nonfacial dermatofibromas. Wider excisions might be necessary for complete excision.

BackgroundAppropriate use criteria (AUC) provide physicians guidance in test selection, and can affect health care delivery, reimbursement policy and physician decision‐making.ObjectivesThe American Society of Dermatopathology, with input from the American Academy of Dermatology and the College of American Pathologists, sought to develop AUC in dermatopathology.MethodsThe RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology, which combines evidence‐based medicine, clinical experience and expert judgment, was used to develop AUC in dermatopathology.ResultsWith the number of ratings predetermined at 3, AUC were developed for 211 clinical scenarios involving 12 ancillary studies. Consensus was reached for 188 (89%) clinical scenarios, with 93 (44%) considered “usually appropriate,” 52 (25%) “rarely appropriate” and 43 (20%) “uncertain appropriateness.”LimitationsThe methodology requires a focus on appropriateness without comparison between tests and irrespective of cost.ConclusionsThe ultimate decision of when to order specific test rests with the physician and is one where the expected benefit exceeds the negative consequences. This publication outlines the recommendations of appropriateness—AUC for 12 tests used in dermatopathology. Importantly, these recommendations may change considering new evidence. Results deemed “uncertain appropriateness” and where consensus was not reached may benefit from further research.

BackgroundAppropriate use criteria have been developed for many tests using expert judgment, evidence‐based practice and clinical experience. In this context, we report the opinions of practitioners about clonality assays in various clinical scenarios where cutaneous lymphoma is suspected.MethodsAn Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force sponsored by the American Society of Dermatopathology (ASDP) synthesized clinical scenarios for cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders (LPDs). We conducted, summarized and presented a relevant literature search to an audience of 144 dermatopathologists with a variety of practice experiences at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the ASDP in Chicago, IL.ResultsTwenty‐seven clinical scenarios for LPDs (13 T‐cell and 14 B‐cell) were defined. Forty relevant studies for T‐cell receptor gene clonality assays and 20 relevant studies for IgH/IgK clonality assays were identified. Audience response data from participating dermatopathologists reflected a wide variety of approaches to the application of clonality assays in the evaluation of LPDs, based on practice setting, personal experience and test availability.ConclusionsOur clinical scenario analysis and literature review revealed well‐supported clinical scenarios and identified opportunities for additional research to further define the utility of clonality assays in some clinical scenarios.