Maher, Ian A.

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.

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: Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a promising treatment modality for melanoma in situ (MIS). However, variations in surgical technique limit the generalizability of existing data and may impede future study of MMS in clinical trials. Methods: A modified Delphi method was selected to establish consensus on optimal MMS techniques for treating MIS in future clinical trials. The Delphi method was selected due to the limited current data, the wide range of techniques used in the field, and the intention to establish a standardized technique for future clinical trials. A literature review and interviews with experienced MMS surgeons were performed to identify dimensions of the MMS technique for MIS that (1) likely impacted costs or outcomes of the procedure, and (2) showed significant variability between surgeons. A total of 8 dimensions of technical variation were selected. The Delphi process consisted of 2 rounds of voting and commentary, during which 44 expert Mohs surgeons across the United States rated their agreement with specific recommendations using a Likert scale. Results: Five of eight recommendations achieved consensus in Round 1. All 3 of the remaining recommendations achieved consensus in Round 2. Techniques achieving consensus in Round 1 included the use of a starting peripheral margin of ≤5 mm, application of immunohistochemistry, frozen tissue processing, and resecting to the depth of subcutaneous fat. Consensus on the use of Wood’s lamp, dermatoscope, and negative tissue controls was established in Round 2. Conclusions: This study generated 8 consensus recommendations intended to offer guidance for Mohs surgeons treating MIS. The adoption of these recommendations will promote standardization to facilitate comparisons of aggregate data in multicenter clinical trials.

Abstract Background Full-thickness lower eyelid defects after Mohs micrographic surgery are frequently referred out to oculoplastic surgery for reconstruction. Reconstructive options include wedge closure with or without canthotomy/cantholysis and tarsoconjunctival sliding flaps. Defects >50% of the eyelid margin have traditionally required the two-stage Hughes flap, leaving the patient with monocular vision for 3-6 weeks until pedicle division. Objective To demonstrate single-stage periosteal flaps performed by dermatologic surgeons can result in safe, functional, and cosmetically acceptable repairs for large full thickness eyelid defects. Materials and Methods An institutional review board-approved retrospective study of repairs performed by two dermatologic surgeons between January 2017 and July 2021 at the University of Minnesota. Patient demographics, operative notes, and follow-up notes were reviewed. Defect and follow up photos were scored using a visual analogue scale to assess aesthetic results. Results Ten cases were included in the analysis. Six patients were male and the average age was 62 years old. 8/10 were basal cell carcinoma and 2/10 were melanoma. The mean defect was 9.5 cm2, with a range of 1 cm2 to 24 cm2. The median cosmetic score was 85.8 +/- 10.7. There were no serious complications reported. Conclusion Mohs micrographic surgeons can safely and successfully reconstruct large, full thickness eyelid defects by periosteal flap.

BACKGROUND Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) for cutaneous melanoma is becoming more prevalent, but surgical technique varies. OBJECTIVE To define variations in published techniques for MMS for melanoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS A systematic review was performed of PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases to identify all articles describing surgical techniques for MMS for melanoma. Technical details were recorded for the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of MMS. RESULTS Twenty-four articles were included. Mohs surgeons vary in how they assess clinical margins, how wide a margin they excise on the first MMS layer, and how they process tissue to determine tumor stage and margin clearance during MMS for melanoma. CONCLUSION Mohs micrographic surgery for melanoma is performed with varied surgical techniques. To establish best practices, additional research is necessary to determine how different techniques affect outcomes.

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.