Citations

BACKGROUND Previous studies examining melanoma biopsy technique have not demonstrated an effect on overall survival. OBJECTIVE To examine overall survival of patients with cutaneous melanoma diagnosed by shave, punch, incisional, or excisional techniques from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). MATERIALS AND METHODS Melanoma data from the 2004 to 2016 NCDB data set were analyzed. A Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to assess the risk of 5-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS In total, 42,272 cases of melanoma were reviewed, with 27,899 (66%) diagnosed by shave biopsy, 8,823 (20.9%) by punch biopsy, and 5,550 (13.1%) by incisional biopsy. Both the univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated that tumors diagnosed by incisional biopsy had significantly (p = .001) lower overall 5-year survival compared with shave techniques (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.140, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.055 to 1.231). We found no difference (p = .109) between shave and punch biopsy techniques (HR 1.062, 95% CI 0.987–1.142) or between punch and incisional techniques (HR 1.074, 95% CI 0.979–1.177, p = .131). CONCLUSION Incisional biopsies were associated with decreased overall 5-year survival in the NCDB. No difference was observed between shave and punch biopsy techniques. These findings support current melanoma management guidelines.

AbstractBackgroundAppropriate use criteria (AUC) provide patient‐centered physician guidance in test selection. An initial set of AUC was reported by the American Society of Dermatopathology (ASDP) in 2018. AUC reflect evidence collected at single timepoints and may be affected by evolving evidence and experience. The objective of this study was to update and expand AUC for selected tests.MethodsRAND/UCLA (RAND Corporation [Santa Monica, CA]/University of California Los Angeles) methodology used includes the following: (a) literature review; (b) review of previously rated tests and previously employed clinical scenarios; (c) selection of previously rated tests for new ratings; (d) development of new clinical scenarios; (e) selection of additional tests; (f) three rating rounds with feedback and group discussion after rounds 1 and 2.ResultsFor 220 clinical scenarios comprising lymphoproliferative (light chain clonality), melanocytic (comparative genomic hybridization, fluorescence in situ hybridization, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter), vascular disorders (MYC), and inflammatory dermatoses (periodic acid‐Schiff, Gömöri methenamine silver), consensus by panel raters was reached in 172 of 220 (78%) scenarios, with 103 of 148 (70%) rated “usually appropriate” or “rarely appropriate” and 45 of 148 (30%), “appropriateness uncertain.” Limitations: The study design only measures appropriateness. Cost, availability, test comparison, and additional clinical considerations are not measured. The possibility that the findings of this study may be influenced by the inherent biases of the dermatopathologists involved in the study cannot be excluded.ConclusionsAUC are reported for selected diagnostic tests in clinical scenarios that occur in dermatopathology practice. Adhering to AUC may reduce inappropriate test utilization and improve healthcare delivery.

Abstract Although most cases of extramammary Paget's disease (EMPD) are localized to the intraepidermal, the extensive subclinical extension can lead to high rates of marginal recurrence with wide local excisions and topically destructive treatments. Recurrence rates of EMPD treated with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) without immunohistochemical staining are better but variable. Here, we describe our multidisciplinary approach for treating large EMPD tumors of the anogenital region involving critical anatomy using MMS for peripheral margin clearance (moat method) and intraoperative CK7 immunostaining. Our clinical pearls for the management of anogenital EMPD are based on 53 multidisciplinary cases treated at the author's institution between 2014 and 2020.

Background: Although graft choice may be limited in the revision setting based on previously used grafts, most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome. Hypothesis: In the ACL revision setting, there would be no difference between autograft and allograft in rerupture rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who had revision surgery were identified and prospectively enrolled in this cohort study by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data collected included baseline characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO measures. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of PRO instruments. Incidence of additional surgery and reoperation because of graft failure were also recorded. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of PROs, graft rerupture, and reoperation at 6 years after revision surgery. Results: A total of 1234 patients including 716 (58%) men were enrolled. A total of 325 (26%) underwent revision using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft; 251 (20%), soft tissue autograft; 289 (23%), BTB allograft; 302 (25%), soft tissue allograft; and 67 (5%), other graft. Questionnaires and telephone follow-up for subsequent surgery information were obtained for 809 (66%) patients, while telephone follow-up was only obtained for an additional 128 patients for the total follow-up on 949 (77%) patients. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 6-year Marx Activity Rating Scale scores ( P = .024). Specifically, patients who received a BTB autograft for revision reconstruction had higher activity levels than did patients who received a BTB allograft (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.25-2.94). Graft rerupture was reported in 5.8% (55/949) of patients by their 6-year follow-up: 3.5% (16/455) of patients with autografts and 8.4% (37/441) of patients with allografts. Use of a BTB autograft for revision resulted in patients being 4.2 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture than if a BTB allograft were utilized ( P = .011; 95% CI, 1.56-11.27). No significant differences were found in graft rerupture rates between BTB autograft and soft tissue autografts ( P = .87) or between BTB autografts and soft tissue allografts ( P = .36). Use of an autograft was found to be a significant predictor of having fewer reoperations within 6 years compared with using an allograft ( P = .010; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87). Conclusion: BTB and soft tissue autografts had a decreased risk in graft rerupture compared with BTB allografts. BTB autografts were associated with higher activity level than were BTB allografts at 6 years after revision reconstruction. Surgeons and patients should consider this information when choosing a graft for revision ACL reconstruction.