Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) remains the gold standard for the removal of skin cancers in high-risk areas of the body while offering an excellent safety profile and sparing tissue.¹ In the current health care environment, online patient reviews have grown in popularity and influence. More than 60% of consumers consult social media before making health care decisions.² A recent analysis of online patient reviews of general dermatology practices demonstrated the perceived importance of physician empathy, thoroughness, and cognizance of cost in relation to patient-reported satisfaction.³ Because MMS is a well-recognized and unique outpatient-based surgical procedure, a review and analysis of online patient reviews specific to MMS can provide useful practice insights.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted using an online platform (RealSelf [http://www.realself.com]) that connects patients and providers offering aesthetically oriented procedures; the site has 35 million unique visitors yearly.⁴ The community’s directory was used to identify and analyze all cumulative patient reviews from 2006 to December 20, 2015, using the search terms Mohs surgery or Mohs micrographic surgery. The study was exempt by the Northwestern University (Chicago, Illinois) institutional review board.

A standardized qualitative coding methodology was created and applied to all available comments regarding MMS. A broad list of positive and negative patient experiences was first created and agreed upon by all 3 investigators. Each individual comment was then attributed to 1 or more of these positive or negative themes. Of these comments, 10% were coded by 2 investigators (S.X. and Z.A.) to ensure internal validity; 1 investigator coded the remaining statements by patients (Z.A.). Patient-reported satisfaction ratings categorized as “worth it” or “not worth it” (as used by RealSelf to describe the patient-perceived value and utility of a given procedure) as well as cost of MMS were gathered. Cumulative patient ratings were collected for the procedure overall, physician’s bedside manner, answered questions, aftercare follow-up, time spent with patients, telephone/email responsiveness, staff professionalism/courtesy, payment process, and wait times. Patient-reported characteristics of MMS also were evaluated including physician specialty, lesion location, type of skin cancer, and type of closure. For lesion location, we graded whether the location represented a high-risk area as defined by the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, and American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.⁵

Results

A total of 219 reviews related to MMS were collected as of December 20, 2015. Overall, MMS was considered “worth it” by 89% of patients (Table 1). Only 2% of patients described MMS as “not worth it.” There was a wide range reported for the cost of the procedure ($1–$100,000 [median, $1800]). Of those patients who reported their sex, females were 2.5-times more likely to post a review compared to males (51% vs 20%); however, 30% of reviewers did not report their sex. The mean (standard deviation) overall satisfaction rating was 4.8 (0.8). With regard to category-specific ratings (eg, bedside manner, aftercare follow-up, time spent with patients), the mean scores were all 4.7 or greater (Table 2).

Regarding the surgical aspects of the procedure, the majority of patients reported that the excision of the lesion was performed by a dermatologist (62%). However, a notable portion of patients reported that the excision was performed by a plastic surgeon (21%). Physician specialty was not reported in 16% of the reviews. For the lesion closure, the patient-reported specialty of the physician was only slightly higher for dermatologists versus plastic surgeons (46% vs 44%)(Table 3).

The majority of patients who reported the location of the lesion treated with MMS identified a high-risk location (45%), a medium-risk location (18%), or an unspecified region of the face (15%), according to the appropriate-use criteria for MMS (Table 3).⁵ Patients did not specify the site of surgery 17% of the time. Only 5% of reported procedures were performed on low-risk areas.

Basal cell carcinomas were the most commonly reported lesions removed by MMS (38%), though 48% of reviews did not specify the type of tumor being treated (Table 3). A large majority (76%) did not specify the type of closure performed. When specified, secondary intention was used 10% of the time, followed by either a flap (6%) or skin graft (6%). Only 5% of patients reported an estimated size of the primary lesion in our study (data not shown).

The qualitative analysis demonstrated variance in themes for positive and negative characteristics (Table 4). Surgeon characteristics encompassed the 3 most commonly cited themes of positive remarks, including bedside manner (78%), communication skills (74%), and perceived expertise (58%). Specific to MMS, the tissue-sparing nature of the technique was cited by 14% of reviews as a positive theme. The most commonly cited themes of negative remarks were intraoperative and postoperative concerns, including postoperative disfigurement (16%), large scar (9%), healing time (9%), and procedural or postoperative pain (8%). A subtheme analysis of postoperative disfigurement revealed that eyelid or eyebrow distortion was the most common concern (29%), followed by redness and swelling (23%), an open wound (14%), and nostril/nose distortion (14%)(data not shown). Themes not commonly cited as either positive or negative included office environment, cost, and procedure time (data not shown).

Comment

The overall satisfaction with MMS (89%) was one of the highest for any procedure on this online patient review site, albeit based on fewer reviews compared to other common aesthetic surgical procedures. In comparison, 78% of 13,500 reviewers rated breast augmentation as “worth it,” while 60% of 6800 reviewers rated rhinoplasty as “worth it” (as of December 2015). Overall, the online patient reviews evaluated in this study were consistent with a previously published structured data report on patient satisfaction with MMS.⁶

The results show a greater than expected proportion of both the MMS excision and closure being performed by plastic surgeons compared to dermatologists. In reality, the majority of MMS excisions are performed by dermatologists. Based on a survey of American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS) members, only 6% of procedures were sent to other specialties for closure.⁷ Our results may reflect reporting bias or patients misconstruing true MMS with an excision and standard frozen sections, techniques that have lower cure rates. If so, there may be a need to educate patients regarding the specifics of MMS. Other possible explanations for the discrepancy between the online patient reviews and ACMS data include misinterpretation by patients on the exact definition of MMS or that a higher than expected number of procedures were performed by non-ACMS Mohs surgeons.

Our qualitative analysis revealed that patients most frequently commented on the interpersonal skills of their surgeons (eg, bedside manner, communication) as positive themes during MMS, similar to prior analyses of general dermatology practices.³ In comparison to a recent study assessing patient satisfaction with rhinoplasty on RealSelf, the final appearance of the nose represented the most common positive- and negative-cited theme.⁸ Mohs micrographic surgery procedures typically are done under local anesthesia, which may explain the greater importance of bedside manner and communication intraoperatively in comparison to final surgical outcomes for patient satisfaction. For negative themes, 3 of 4 most common concerns were directly related to the intraoperative and postoperative periods. Providers may be able to improve patient satisfaction by explaining the postoperative course, such as healing time and temporary physical restrictions, as well as possible sequelae in greater detail, which may be particularly pertinent for MMS involving the nose or near the eyes.

The global ratings for MMS are high, as shown in our data set of patient reviews; however, patient reviews are highly susceptible to reporting bias, recall bias, and missing information. Prior work using this online patient review website to investigate laser and light procedures also demonstrated the risk for imperfect information associated with patient reviews.⁹ Even so, the data does provide a glimpse into what is considered important to patients. Surgeon interpersonal skills and communication were the most frequently cited positive themes for MMS. The best surgical aspects of MMS focused on the unique tissue-sparing nature of the procedure and the removal of a cancerous lesion. Potential areas for improvement include a more thorough explanation of the intraoperative and postoperative process, specifically potential asymmetry related to the nose or the eyes, healing time, and scarring. These patient reviews underscore the importance of setting appropriate patient expectations. As patients become more connected and utilize online platforms to report their experiences, Mohs surgeons can take insights derived from online patient reviews for their own practice or geographic area to improve satisfaction and manage expectations.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) remains the gold standard for the removal of skin cancers in high-risk areas of the body while offering an excellent safety profile and sparing tissue.¹ In the current health care environment, online patient reviews have grown in popularity and influence. More than 60% of consumers consult social media before making health care decisions.² A recent analysis of online patient reviews of general dermatology practices demonstrated the perceived importance of physician empathy, thoroughness, and cognizance of cost in relation to patient-reported satisfaction.³ Because MMS is a well-recognized and unique outpatient-based surgical procedure, a review and analysis of online patient reviews specific to MMS can provide useful practice insights.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted using an online platform (RealSelf [http://www.realself.com]) that connects patients and providers offering aesthetically oriented procedures; the site has 35 million unique visitors yearly.⁴ The community’s directory was used to identify and analyze all cumulative patient reviews from 2006 to December 20, 2015, using the search terms Mohs surgery or Mohs micrographic surgery. The study was exempt by the Northwestern University (Chicago, Illinois) institutional review board.

A standardized qualitative coding methodology was created and applied to all available comments regarding MMS. A broad list of positive and negative patient experiences was first created and agreed upon by all 3 investigators. Each individual comment was then attributed to 1 or more of these positive or negative themes. Of these comments, 10% were coded by 2 investigators (S.X. and Z.A.) to ensure internal validity; 1 investigator coded the remaining statements by patients (Z.A.). Patient-reported satisfaction ratings categorized as “worth it” or “not worth it” (as used by RealSelf to describe the patient-perceived value and utility of a given procedure) as well as cost of MMS were gathered. Cumulative patient ratings were collected for the procedure overall, physician’s bedside manner, answered questions, aftercare follow-up, time spent with patients, telephone/email responsiveness, staff professionalism/courtesy, payment process, and wait times. Patient-reported characteristics of MMS also were evaluated including physician specialty, lesion location, type of skin cancer, and type of closure. For lesion location, we graded whether the location represented a high-risk area as defined by the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, and American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.⁵

Results

A total of 219 reviews related to MMS were collected as of December 20, 2015. Overall, MMS was considered “worth it” by 89% of patients (Table 1). Only 2% of patients described MMS as “not worth it.” There was a wide range reported for the cost of the procedure ($1–$100,000 [median, $1800]). Of those patients who reported their sex, females were 2.5-times more likely to post a review compared to males (51% vs 20%); however, 30% of reviewers did not report their sex. The mean (standard deviation) overall satisfaction rating was 4.8 (0.8). With regard to category-specific ratings (eg, bedside manner, aftercare follow-up, time spent with patients), the mean scores were all 4.7 or greater (Table 2).

Regarding the surgical aspects of the procedure, the majority of patients reported that the excision of the lesion was performed by a dermatologist (62%). However, a notable portion of patients reported that the excision was performed by a plastic surgeon (21%). Physician specialty was not reported in 16% of the reviews. For the lesion closure, the patient-reported specialty of the physician was only slightly higher for dermatologists versus plastic surgeons (46% vs 44%)(Table 3).

The majority of patients who reported the location of the lesion treated with MMS identified a high-risk location (45%), a medium-risk location (18%), or an unspecified region of the face (15%), according to the appropriate-use criteria for MMS (Table 3).⁵ Patients did not specify the site of surgery 17% of the time. Only 5% of reported procedures were performed on low-risk areas.

Basal cell carcinomas were the most commonly reported lesions removed by MMS (38%), though 48% of reviews did not specify the type of tumor being treated (Table 3). A large majority (76%) did not specify the type of closure performed. When specified, secondary intention was used 10% of the time, followed by either a flap (6%) or skin graft (6%). Only 5% of patients reported an estimated size of the primary lesion in our study (data not shown).

The qualitative analysis demonstrated variance in themes for positive and negative characteristics (Table 4). Surgeon characteristics encompassed the 3 most commonly cited themes of positive remarks, including bedside manner (78%), communication skills (74%), and perceived expertise (58%). Specific to MMS, the tissue-sparing nature of the technique was cited by 14% of reviews as a positive theme. The most commonly cited themes of negative remarks were intraoperative and postoperative concerns, including postoperative disfigurement (16%), large scar (9%), healing time (9%), and procedural or postoperative pain (8%). A subtheme analysis of postoperative disfigurement revealed that eyelid or eyebrow distortion was the most common concern (29%), followed by redness and swelling (23%), an open wound (14%), and nostril/nose distortion (14%)(data not shown). Themes not commonly cited as either positive or negative included office environment, cost, and procedure time (data not shown).

Comment

The overall satisfaction with MMS (89%) was one of the highest for any procedure on this online patient review site, albeit based on fewer reviews compared to other common aesthetic surgical procedures. In comparison, 78% of 13,500 reviewers rated breast augmentation as “worth it,” while 60% of 6800 reviewers rated rhinoplasty as “worth it” (as of December 2015). Overall, the online patient reviews evaluated in this study were consistent with a previously published structured data report on patient satisfaction with MMS.⁶

The results show a greater than expected proportion of both the MMS excision and closure being performed by plastic surgeons compared to dermatologists. In reality, the majority of MMS excisions are performed by dermatologists. Based on a survey of American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS) members, only 6% of procedures were sent to other specialties for closure.⁷ Our results may reflect reporting bias or patients misconstruing true MMS with an excision and standard frozen sections, techniques that have lower cure rates. If so, there may be a need to educate patients regarding the specifics of MMS. Other possible explanations for the discrepancy between the online patient reviews and ACMS data include misinterpretation by patients on the exact definition of MMS or that a higher than expected number of procedures were performed by non-ACMS Mohs surgeons.

Our qualitative analysis revealed that patients most frequently commented on the interpersonal skills of their surgeons (eg, bedside manner, communication) as positive themes during MMS, similar to prior analyses of general dermatology practices.³ In comparison to a recent study assessing patient satisfaction with rhinoplasty on RealSelf, the final appearance of the nose represented the most common positive- and negative-cited theme.⁸ Mohs micrographic surgery procedures typically are done under local anesthesia, which may explain the greater importance of bedside manner and communication intraoperatively in comparison to final surgical outcomes for patient satisfaction. For negative themes, 3 of 4 most common concerns were directly related to the intraoperative and postoperative periods. Providers may be able to improve patient satisfaction by explaining the postoperative course, such as healing time and temporary physical restrictions, as well as possible sequelae in greater detail, which may be particularly pertinent for MMS involving the nose or near the eyes.

The global ratings for MMS are high, as shown in our data set of patient reviews; however, patient reviews are highly susceptible to reporting bias, recall bias, and missing information. Prior work using this online patient review website to investigate laser and light procedures also demonstrated the risk for imperfect information associated with patient reviews.⁹ Even so, the data does provide a glimpse into what is considered important to patients. Surgeon interpersonal skills and communication were the most frequently cited positive themes for MMS. The best surgical aspects of MMS focused on the unique tissue-sparing nature of the procedure and the removal of a cancerous lesion. Potential areas for improvement include a more thorough explanation of the intraoperative and postoperative process, specifically potential asymmetry related to the nose or the eyes, healing time, and scarring. These patient reviews underscore the importance of setting appropriate patient expectations. As patients become more connected and utilize online platforms to report their experiences, Mohs surgeons can take insights derived from online patient reviews for their own practice or geographic area to improve satisfaction and manage expectations.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) remains the gold standard for the removal of skin cancers in high-risk areas of the body while offering an excellent safety profile and sparing tissue.¹ In the current health care environment, online patient reviews have grown in popularity and influence. More than 60% of consumers consult social media before making health care decisions.² A recent analysis of online patient reviews of general dermatology practices demonstrated the perceived importance of physician empathy, thoroughness, and cognizance of cost in relation to patient-reported satisfaction.³ Because MMS is a well-recognized and unique outpatient-based surgical procedure, a review and analysis of online patient reviews specific to MMS can provide useful practice insights.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted using an online platform (RealSelf [http://www.realself.com]) that connects patients and providers offering aesthetically oriented procedures; the site has 35 million unique visitors yearly.⁴ The community’s directory was used to identify and analyze all cumulative patient reviews from 2006 to December 20, 2015, using the search terms Mohs surgery or Mohs micrographic surgery. The study was exempt by the Northwestern University (Chicago, Illinois) institutional review board.

A standardized qualitative coding methodology was created and applied to all available comments regarding MMS. A broad list of positive and negative patient experiences was first created and agreed upon by all 3 investigators. Each individual comment was then attributed to 1 or more of these positive or negative themes. Of these comments, 10% were coded by 2 investigators (S.X. and Z.A.) to ensure internal validity; 1 investigator coded the remaining statements by patients (Z.A.). Patient-reported satisfaction ratings categorized as “worth it” or “not worth it” (as used by RealSelf to describe the patient-perceived value and utility of a given procedure) as well as cost of MMS were gathered. Cumulative patient ratings were collected for the procedure overall, physician’s bedside manner, answered questions, aftercare follow-up, time spent with patients, telephone/email responsiveness, staff professionalism/courtesy, payment process, and wait times. Patient-reported characteristics of MMS also were evaluated including physician specialty, lesion location, type of skin cancer, and type of closure. For lesion location, we graded whether the location represented a high-risk area as defined by the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, and American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.⁵

Results

A total of 219 reviews related to MMS were collected as of December 20, 2015. Overall, MMS was considered “worth it” by 89% of patients (Table 1). Only 2% of patients described MMS as “not worth it.” There was a wide range reported for the cost of the procedure ($1–$100,000 [median, $1800]). Of those patients who reported their sex, females were 2.5-times more likely to post a review compared to males (51% vs 20%); however, 30% of reviewers did not report their sex. The mean (standard deviation) overall satisfaction rating was 4.8 (0.8). With regard to category-specific ratings (eg, bedside manner, aftercare follow-up, time spent with patients), the mean scores were all 4.7 or greater (Table 2).

Regarding the surgical aspects of the procedure, the majority of patients reported that the excision of the lesion was performed by a dermatologist (62%). However, a notable portion of patients reported that the excision was performed by a plastic surgeon (21%). Physician specialty was not reported in 16% of the reviews. For the lesion closure, the patient-reported specialty of the physician was only slightly higher for dermatologists versus plastic surgeons (46% vs 44%)(Table 3).

The majority of patients who reported the location of the lesion treated with MMS identified a high-risk location (45%), a medium-risk location (18%), or an unspecified region of the face (15%), according to the appropriate-use criteria for MMS (Table 3).⁵ Patients did not specify the site of surgery 17% of the time. Only 5% of reported procedures were performed on low-risk areas.

Basal cell carcinomas were the most commonly reported lesions removed by MMS (38%), though 48% of reviews did not specify the type of tumor being treated (Table 3). A large majority (76%) did not specify the type of closure performed. When specified, secondary intention was used 10% of the time, followed by either a flap (6%) or skin graft (6%). Only 5% of patients reported an estimated size of the primary lesion in our study (data not shown).

The qualitative analysis demonstrated variance in themes for positive and negative characteristics (Table 4). Surgeon characteristics encompassed the 3 most commonly cited themes of positive remarks, including bedside manner (78%), communication skills (74%), and perceived expertise (58%). Specific to MMS, the tissue-sparing nature of the technique was cited by 14% of reviews as a positive theme. The most commonly cited themes of negative remarks were intraoperative and postoperative concerns, including postoperative disfigurement (16%), large scar (9%), healing time (9%), and procedural or postoperative pain (8%). A subtheme analysis of postoperative disfigurement revealed that eyelid or eyebrow distortion was the most common concern (29%), followed by redness and swelling (23%), an open wound (14%), and nostril/nose distortion (14%)(data not shown). Themes not commonly cited as either positive or negative included office environment, cost, and procedure time (data not shown).

Comment

The overall satisfaction with MMS (89%) was one of the highest for any procedure on this online patient review site, albeit based on fewer reviews compared to other common aesthetic surgical procedures. In comparison, 78% of 13,500 reviewers rated breast augmentation as “worth it,” while 60% of 6800 reviewers rated rhinoplasty as “worth it” (as of December 2015). Overall, the online patient reviews evaluated in this study were consistent with a previously published structured data report on patient satisfaction with MMS.⁶

The results show a greater than expected proportion of both the MMS excision and closure being performed by plastic surgeons compared to dermatologists. In reality, the majority of MMS excisions are performed by dermatologists. Based on a survey of American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS) members, only 6% of procedures were sent to other specialties for closure.⁷ Our results may reflect reporting bias or patients misconstruing true MMS with an excision and standard frozen sections, techniques that have lower cure rates. If so, there may be a need to educate patients regarding the specifics of MMS. Other possible explanations for the discrepancy between the online patient reviews and ACMS data include misinterpretation by patients on the exact definition of MMS or that a higher than expected number of procedures were performed by non-ACMS Mohs surgeons.

Our qualitative analysis revealed that patients most frequently commented on the interpersonal skills of their surgeons (eg, bedside manner, communication) as positive themes during MMS, similar to prior analyses of general dermatology practices.³ In comparison to a recent study assessing patient satisfaction with rhinoplasty on RealSelf, the final appearance of the nose represented the most common positive- and negative-cited theme.⁸ Mohs micrographic surgery procedures typically are done under local anesthesia, which may explain the greater importance of bedside manner and communication intraoperatively in comparison to final surgical outcomes for patient satisfaction. For negative themes, 3 of 4 most common concerns were directly related to the intraoperative and postoperative periods. Providers may be able to improve patient satisfaction by explaining the postoperative course, such as healing time and temporary physical restrictions, as well as possible sequelae in greater detail, which may be particularly pertinent for MMS involving the nose or near the eyes.

The global ratings for MMS are high, as shown in our data set of patient reviews; however, patient reviews are highly susceptible to reporting bias, recall bias, and missing information. Prior work using this online patient review website to investigate laser and light procedures also demonstrated the risk for imperfect information associated with patient reviews.⁹ Even so, the data does provide a glimpse into what is considered important to patients. Surgeon interpersonal skills and communication were the most frequently cited positive themes for MMS. The best surgical aspects of MMS focused on the unique tissue-sparing nature of the procedure and the removal of a cancerous lesion. Potential areas for improvement include a more thorough explanation of the intraoperative and postoperative process, specifically potential asymmetry related to the nose or the eyes, healing time, and scarring. These patient reviews underscore the importance of setting appropriate patient expectations. As patients become more connected and utilize online platforms to report their experiences, Mohs surgeons can take insights derived from online patient reviews for their own practice or geographic area to improve satisfaction and manage expectations.

MIAMI – In his practice, Joel L. Cohen, MD, spends a good part of his day doing Mohs surgery, “with the goal of cancer removal, and after surgery, having the patient look good,” he said at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference.

“Having resurfacing in my practice has allowed me to treat not only wrinkles and etched lines, but also help skin cancer patients by blending and minimizing their skin cancer scars,” said Dr. Cohen, an aesthetic dermatologist and Mohs surgeon in private practice in Denver.

Reprinted with permission from J Drugs Dermatol. 2013.12:10;1172.

Perioral resurfacing possible

Beyond the world of treating scars, a typical cosmetic patient in Dr. Cohen’s practice presents with numerous lines around the perioral area. “When people think about rejuvenation of the lips, they only think of fillers. But fillers are not the only way to rejuvenate this area, and it is really about choosing the right tool for the right job – where resurfacing lasers are needed.”

Reprinted with permission from Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, 2016, 15:1, 112. Photo credit: Joel Cohen, Colorado Springs, CO

Set realistic expectations

Setting the right expectations for people is extremely important, Dr. Cohen said. “You can educate the patient that if you’re putting the needle into the lines, you’re only treating the larger lines that you can get a 30-g needle into, but there are often a host of other lines in that area – many of which are too small to get a needle into.”

As a starting point, neuromodulators can have a role in trying to prevent or delay etched-in lines from forming around the mouth in the first place. “These are the lines between the musculature, the ones you see when you ask the patient to purse their lips,” Dr. Cohen said. He typically injects a medium dose of one of three neuromodulators – such as 6-10 U of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox), 6-10 U of incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) or 14-18 U of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport). “Then somewhere between week 8 and 10, there is an attenuation of the effect, and I often will see patients back then for additional treatment with a neuromodulator,” he added.

“For our every day patient complaining of lots of etched perioral lines, we have laser resurfacing,” Dr. Cohen noted. He is a bigger proponent of full-field erbium treatment versus fractional ablative laser resurfacing for these prominent upper cutaneous lip lines because the results are much more impressive with a single treatment. He added that dermatologists could do fractional treatment around the rest of the face, and reserve the erbium resurfacing to improve the appearance of lines around the mouth and prominent creping skin around the eyes.

Realistic postprocedure expectations are especially essential in the days after erbium laser resurfacing – as it is a tough downtime procedure for patients, often taking 7-9 days to re-epithelialize. “Having photos to show patients what they will look like is really helpful,” Dr. Cohen said. He suggested showing patients a chronologic set of photos of the downtime period as well as the results – so they realize improvement occurs slowly over time. “Getting people to understand they are gong to look terrible for 1.5-2 weeks is superimportant.”

“I like to have them back in the office for a postprocedure check a few days after the bigger laser resurfacing procedures are done, just to check on them,” Dr. Cohen said. “A lot of hand holding is often needed, as there is significantly more healing time with the full-field ablative resurfacing than there is with fractional. Full-field resurfacing patients will experience postprocedure erythema for a few weeks or even months,” Dr. Cohen said. A prescription of topical steroids, and sometimes some brimonidine topical gel (Mirvaso) as well can help reduce the redness.

Toxin injection then laser resurfacing

For some patients, injection of a neuromodulator a week or 2 before laser resurfacing treatment can decrease some of the movement and contraction of the muscle, “and hopefully give them better results,” Dr. Cohen said.

Timing is important. “You don’t want to use neuromodulators on the same day of treatment,” he advised. “The thinking is swelling could potentially cause the neuromodulators to spread to unwanted adjacent muscles.”

Safety first

Another tip for the postprocedure period is to supply patients with very specific written instructions. “I wish they would follow them. Patients don’t always listen to what we advise, demonstrate, and also have written down for them,” he commented. For example, one patient had resurfacing several weeks before leaving on an undisclosed kayaking trip. Despite instructions to use sunscreen, she said she wore a hat for sun protection and developed postinflammatory hyperpigmentation around the mouth that lasted for several months, Dr. Cohen said.*

With heavy resurfacing and ablative resurfacing in general, it is advised to always give patients an antiviral prophylaxis course such as valacyclovir, but it is unfortunate that not all patients will adhere to the recommended regimen, he added.

Another patient had an adverse reaction after resurfacing because she did not follow instructions to apply white petrolatum to her chest following laser resurfacing, Dr. Cohen said. She used Neosporin, “even though in all our paperwork we say never use Neosporin and just use the petrolatum. She had a big contact dermatitis reaction to the Neosporin.”

“So you really need to caution people about the importance of following instructions very carefully,” he emphasized.

Dr. Cohen is a consultant for Sciton and for companies that manufacture injectables, including Allergan, Galderma, and Merz.

Correction 2/24/17: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the type of pigmentation disorder that the patient developed.

MIAMI – In his practice, Joel L. Cohen, MD, spends a good part of his day doing Mohs surgery, “with the goal of cancer removal, and after surgery, having the patient look good,” he said at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference.

“Having resurfacing in my practice has allowed me to treat not only wrinkles and etched lines, but also help skin cancer patients by blending and minimizing their skin cancer scars,” said Dr. Cohen, an aesthetic dermatologist and Mohs surgeon in private practice in Denver.

Reprinted with permission from J Drugs Dermatol. 2013.12:10;1172.

Perioral resurfacing possible

Beyond the world of treating scars, a typical cosmetic patient in Dr. Cohen’s practice presents with numerous lines around the perioral area. “When people think about rejuvenation of the lips, they only think of fillers. But fillers are not the only way to rejuvenate this area, and it is really about choosing the right tool for the right job – where resurfacing lasers are needed.”

Reprinted with permission from Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, 2016, 15:1, 112. Photo credit: Joel Cohen, Colorado Springs, CO

Set realistic expectations

Setting the right expectations for people is extremely important, Dr. Cohen said. “You can educate the patient that if you’re putting the needle into the lines, you’re only treating the larger lines that you can get a 30-g needle into, but there are often a host of other lines in that area – many of which are too small to get a needle into.”

As a starting point, neuromodulators can have a role in trying to prevent or delay etched-in lines from forming around the mouth in the first place. “These are the lines between the musculature, the ones you see when you ask the patient to purse their lips,” Dr. Cohen said. He typically injects a medium dose of one of three neuromodulators – such as 6-10 U of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox), 6-10 U of incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) or 14-18 U of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport). “Then somewhere between week 8 and 10, there is an attenuation of the effect, and I often will see patients back then for additional treatment with a neuromodulator,” he added.

“For our every day patient complaining of lots of etched perioral lines, we have laser resurfacing,” Dr. Cohen noted. He is a bigger proponent of full-field erbium treatment versus fractional ablative laser resurfacing for these prominent upper cutaneous lip lines because the results are much more impressive with a single treatment. He added that dermatologists could do fractional treatment around the rest of the face, and reserve the erbium resurfacing to improve the appearance of lines around the mouth and prominent creping skin around the eyes.

Realistic postprocedure expectations are especially essential in the days after erbium laser resurfacing – as it is a tough downtime procedure for patients, often taking 7-9 days to re-epithelialize. “Having photos to show patients what they will look like is really helpful,” Dr. Cohen said. He suggested showing patients a chronologic set of photos of the downtime period as well as the results – so they realize improvement occurs slowly over time. “Getting people to understand they are gong to look terrible for 1.5-2 weeks is superimportant.”

“I like to have them back in the office for a postprocedure check a few days after the bigger laser resurfacing procedures are done, just to check on them,” Dr. Cohen said. “A lot of hand holding is often needed, as there is significantly more healing time with the full-field ablative resurfacing than there is with fractional. Full-field resurfacing patients will experience postprocedure erythema for a few weeks or even months,” Dr. Cohen said. A prescription of topical steroids, and sometimes some brimonidine topical gel (Mirvaso) as well can help reduce the redness.

Toxin injection then laser resurfacing

For some patients, injection of a neuromodulator a week or 2 before laser resurfacing treatment can decrease some of the movement and contraction of the muscle, “and hopefully give them better results,” Dr. Cohen said.

Timing is important. “You don’t want to use neuromodulators on the same day of treatment,” he advised. “The thinking is swelling could potentially cause the neuromodulators to spread to unwanted adjacent muscles.”

Safety first

Another tip for the postprocedure period is to supply patients with very specific written instructions. “I wish they would follow them. Patients don’t always listen to what we advise, demonstrate, and also have written down for them,” he commented. For example, one patient had resurfacing several weeks before leaving on an undisclosed kayaking trip. Despite instructions to use sunscreen, she said she wore a hat for sun protection and developed postinflammatory hyperpigmentation around the mouth that lasted for several months, Dr. Cohen said.*

With heavy resurfacing and ablative resurfacing in general, it is advised to always give patients an antiviral prophylaxis course such as valacyclovir, but it is unfortunate that not all patients will adhere to the recommended regimen, he added.

Another patient had an adverse reaction after resurfacing because she did not follow instructions to apply white petrolatum to her chest following laser resurfacing, Dr. Cohen said. She used Neosporin, “even though in all our paperwork we say never use Neosporin and just use the petrolatum. She had a big contact dermatitis reaction to the Neosporin.”

“So you really need to caution people about the importance of following instructions very carefully,” he emphasized.

Dr. Cohen is a consultant for Sciton and for companies that manufacture injectables, including Allergan, Galderma, and Merz.

Correction 2/24/17: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the type of pigmentation disorder that the patient developed.

MIAMI – In his practice, Joel L. Cohen, MD, spends a good part of his day doing Mohs surgery, “with the goal of cancer removal, and after surgery, having the patient look good,” he said at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference.

“Having resurfacing in my practice has allowed me to treat not only wrinkles and etched lines, but also help skin cancer patients by blending and minimizing their skin cancer scars,” said Dr. Cohen, an aesthetic dermatologist and Mohs surgeon in private practice in Denver.

Reprinted with permission from J Drugs Dermatol. 2013.12:10;1172.

Perioral resurfacing possible

Beyond the world of treating scars, a typical cosmetic patient in Dr. Cohen’s practice presents with numerous lines around the perioral area. “When people think about rejuvenation of the lips, they only think of fillers. But fillers are not the only way to rejuvenate this area, and it is really about choosing the right tool for the right job – where resurfacing lasers are needed.”

Reprinted with permission from Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, 2016, 15:1, 112. Photo credit: Joel Cohen, Colorado Springs, CO

Set realistic expectations

Setting the right expectations for people is extremely important, Dr. Cohen said. “You can educate the patient that if you’re putting the needle into the lines, you’re only treating the larger lines that you can get a 30-g needle into, but there are often a host of other lines in that area – many of which are too small to get a needle into.”

As a starting point, neuromodulators can have a role in trying to prevent or delay etched-in lines from forming around the mouth in the first place. “These are the lines between the musculature, the ones you see when you ask the patient to purse their lips,” Dr. Cohen said. He typically injects a medium dose of one of three neuromodulators – such as 6-10 U of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox), 6-10 U of incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) or 14-18 U of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport). “Then somewhere between week 8 and 10, there is an attenuation of the effect, and I often will see patients back then for additional treatment with a neuromodulator,” he added.

“For our every day patient complaining of lots of etched perioral lines, we have laser resurfacing,” Dr. Cohen noted. He is a bigger proponent of full-field erbium treatment versus fractional ablative laser resurfacing for these prominent upper cutaneous lip lines because the results are much more impressive with a single treatment. He added that dermatologists could do fractional treatment around the rest of the face, and reserve the erbium resurfacing to improve the appearance of lines around the mouth and prominent creping skin around the eyes.

Realistic postprocedure expectations are especially essential in the days after erbium laser resurfacing – as it is a tough downtime procedure for patients, often taking 7-9 days to re-epithelialize. “Having photos to show patients what they will look like is really helpful,” Dr. Cohen said. He suggested showing patients a chronologic set of photos of the downtime period as well as the results – so they realize improvement occurs slowly over time. “Getting people to understand they are gong to look terrible for 1.5-2 weeks is superimportant.”

“I like to have them back in the office for a postprocedure check a few days after the bigger laser resurfacing procedures are done, just to check on them,” Dr. Cohen said. “A lot of hand holding is often needed, as there is significantly more healing time with the full-field ablative resurfacing than there is with fractional. Full-field resurfacing patients will experience postprocedure erythema for a few weeks or even months,” Dr. Cohen said. A prescription of topical steroids, and sometimes some brimonidine topical gel (Mirvaso) as well can help reduce the redness.

Toxin injection then laser resurfacing

For some patients, injection of a neuromodulator a week or 2 before laser resurfacing treatment can decrease some of the movement and contraction of the muscle, “and hopefully give them better results,” Dr. Cohen said.

Timing is important. “You don’t want to use neuromodulators on the same day of treatment,” he advised. “The thinking is swelling could potentially cause the neuromodulators to spread to unwanted adjacent muscles.”

Safety first

Another tip for the postprocedure period is to supply patients with very specific written instructions. “I wish they would follow them. Patients don’t always listen to what we advise, demonstrate, and also have written down for them,” he commented. For example, one patient had resurfacing several weeks before leaving on an undisclosed kayaking trip. Despite instructions to use sunscreen, she said she wore a hat for sun protection and developed postinflammatory hyperpigmentation around the mouth that lasted for several months, Dr. Cohen said.*

With heavy resurfacing and ablative resurfacing in general, it is advised to always give patients an antiviral prophylaxis course such as valacyclovir, but it is unfortunate that not all patients will adhere to the recommended regimen, he added.

Another patient had an adverse reaction after resurfacing because she did not follow instructions to apply white petrolatum to her chest following laser resurfacing, Dr. Cohen said. She used Neosporin, “even though in all our paperwork we say never use Neosporin and just use the petrolatum. She had a big contact dermatitis reaction to the Neosporin.”

“So you really need to caution people about the importance of following instructions very carefully,” he emphasized.

Dr. Cohen is a consultant for Sciton and for companies that manufacture injectables, including Allergan, Galderma, and Merz.

Correction 2/24/17: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the type of pigmentation disorder that the patient developed.

I have a breakthrough article to share with you. It’s about a technology that detects skin cancer. Before I tell you about that, however, I need to teach you a few things. For example, do you know what AI is? How about machine learning? What about CNN? (This column is a nonpolitical arena, so, no, not that CNN).

AI stands for artificial intelligence. We are surrounded by it everywhere – computers, cars, and cell phones all use AI. AI describes a machine with the ability to problem solve, to create, to understand, to learn. These are characteristics we call “intelligence,” hence, artificial intelligence.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician and chief of service for the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com . He has no disclosures related to this column.

I have a breakthrough article to share with you. It’s about a technology that detects skin cancer. Before I tell you about that, however, I need to teach you a few things. For example, do you know what AI is? How about machine learning? What about CNN? (This column is a nonpolitical arena, so, no, not that CNN).

AI stands for artificial intelligence. We are surrounded by it everywhere – computers, cars, and cell phones all use AI. AI describes a machine with the ability to problem solve, to create, to understand, to learn. These are characteristics we call “intelligence,” hence, artificial intelligence.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician and chief of service for the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com . He has no disclosures related to this column.

I have a breakthrough article to share with you. It’s about a technology that detects skin cancer. Before I tell you about that, however, I need to teach you a few things. For example, do you know what AI is? How about machine learning? What about CNN? (This column is a nonpolitical arena, so, no, not that CNN).

AI stands for artificial intelligence. We are surrounded by it everywhere – computers, cars, and cell phones all use AI. AI describes a machine with the ability to problem solve, to create, to understand, to learn. These are characteristics we call “intelligence,” hence, artificial intelligence.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician and chief of service for the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com . He has no disclosures related to this column.

To the Editor:

Verrucous carcinoma is an uncommon type of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and was first described by Ackerman¹ in 1948. Rock and Fisher² called this condition oral florid papillomatosis. The distinctive features of this tumor are low-grade malignancy, slow growth, local invasiveness, and rarely intraoral and extraoral metastasis. Extraorally, it can occur in any part of the body,³ a common site being the anogenital region. Depending on the area of occurrence, the condition also is known as Buschke-Lowenstein tumor⁴ or giant condyloma acuminatum (anogenital region) and carcinoma cuniculatum⁵ (plantar region). The exact etiology of the condition is unknown, though it is associated with human papillomavirus infection, traumatic scars, chronic infection, tobacco, and chemical carcinogens.³ We report a rare case of verrucous carcinoma originating from the buccal mucosa that subsequently spread to involve the lip and cheek as a large cauliflowerlike growth, which is an unusual presentation.

A 65-year-old man presented to the dermatology department with a painless growth inside the left side of the oral cavity that had developed 5 years prior as a growth on the left buccal mucosa. The lesion gradually increased in size to involve the left oral commissure including the upper and lower lips and the skin of the left cheek; it extended beyond the nasolabial fold in a cauliflowerlike pattern. The lesion was insidious in onset and was not associated with pain, itching, or bleeding. The patient chewed tobacco for the last 40 years, with no similar lesions on any part of the body. On physical examination a warty papilliform lesion was seen on the left buccal mucosa with extension to 2 cm of the upper and lower lip on the left side including the left oral commissure and the skin of the left cheek beyond the nasolabial fold where it appeared as a cauliflowerlike growth measuring 4×5 cm in size (Figure 1). No notable lymphadenopathy was present.

Digital radiographs of the skull (posteroanterior oblique view)(Figure 2) and mandible (left oblique view) showed a lobulated soft-tissue density lesion overlying the left half of the mandible (near the mandibular angle) with involvement of both the upper and lower lips on the left side. However, no obvious underlying bony erosion was noted.

Computed tomography revealed a large soft-tissue mass (41.3×35.3 mm)(Figure 3A) involving the left buccal mucosa with extension into overlying muscle, subcutaneous tissue, and skin. Externally, the lesion was exophytic, irregular, and polypoidal with surface ulceration. Medially, the lesion involved the left oral commissure and parts of the adjoining upper and lower lips. No underlying bony erosion was seen. An enlarged lymph node measuring 20×15 mm was noted in the left upper deep cervical group in the submandibular region (Figure 3B).

Our clinical differential diagnosis included verrucous carcinoma and hypertrophic variety of lupus vulgaris. A 1×2-cm diagnostic incisional biopsy was performed from the cauliflowerlike growth and ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration was done from the lymph node. Histopathology revealed a hyperplastic stratified squamous epithelium with upward extension of verrucous projections, which was largely superficial to the adjacent epithelium (Figure 4A). In addition to the surface verrucous projections, there was lesion extension into the subepithelial zone in the form of round club-shaped protrusions (Figure 4B). There was no loss of polarity in these downward proliferations. No horn pearl formation was present. Fine-needle aspiration revealed reactive lymphadenitis.

The final diagnosis of verrucous carcinoma was made and the patient was referred to the oncosurgery department for further management.

Verrucous carcinoma is a rare, low-grade, well-differentiated SCC of the skin or mucosa presenting with a verrucoid or cauliflowerlike appearance. It shows locally aggressive behavior and has low metastatic potential,⁶ a low degree of dysplasia, and a good prognosis. Because it is a tumor with predominantly horizontal growth, it tends to erode more than infiltrate. It does not present with remote metastasis.⁷ It has been known by several different names, usually related to anatomic sites (eg, Ackerman tumor, oral florid papillomatosis, carcinoma cuniculatum).

In the oral cavity, verrucous carcinoma constitutes 2% to 4.5% of all forms of SCC seen mainly in men older than 50 years and also is associated with a high incidence (37.7%) of a second primary tumor mainly in the oral mucosa (eg, tongue, lips, palate, salivary gland).⁸ Indudharan et al⁹ reported a case of verrucous carcinoma of the maxillary antrum in a young male patient, which also was a rare entity. Verrucous carcinoma is thought to predominantly affect elderly men. Walvekar et al¹⁰ reported a male to female ratio of 3.6 to 1 in patients with verrucous carcinoma, with a mean age of 53.9 years. According to Varshney et al,¹¹ patients may range in age from the fourth to eighth decades of life, with a mean age of 60 years; 80% are male. The etiopathogenesis of verrucous carcinoma is related to the following carcinogens: biologic (eg, human papillomavirus), chemical (eg, smoking), and physical (eg, constant trauma).

Verrucous carcinoma should be considered in the differential diagnosis of slow-growing, locally spreading tumors. Oral tumors, especially in tobacco chewers, should raise suspicion of verrucous carcinoma, which will enable prompt management of the tumor.

To the Editor:

Verrucous carcinoma is an uncommon type of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and was first described by Ackerman¹ in 1948. Rock and Fisher² called this condition oral florid papillomatosis. The distinctive features of this tumor are low-grade malignancy, slow growth, local invasiveness, and rarely intraoral and extraoral metastasis. Extraorally, it can occur in any part of the body,³ a common site being the anogenital region. Depending on the area of occurrence, the condition also is known as Buschke-Lowenstein tumor⁴ or giant condyloma acuminatum (anogenital region) and carcinoma cuniculatum⁵ (plantar region). The exact etiology of the condition is unknown, though it is associated with human papillomavirus infection, traumatic scars, chronic infection, tobacco, and chemical carcinogens.³ We report a rare case of verrucous carcinoma originating from the buccal mucosa that subsequently spread to involve the lip and cheek as a large cauliflowerlike growth, which is an unusual presentation.

A 65-year-old man presented to the dermatology department with a painless growth inside the left side of the oral cavity that had developed 5 years prior as a growth on the left buccal mucosa. The lesion gradually increased in size to involve the left oral commissure including the upper and lower lips and the skin of the left cheek; it extended beyond the nasolabial fold in a cauliflowerlike pattern. The lesion was insidious in onset and was not associated with pain, itching, or bleeding. The patient chewed tobacco for the last 40 years, with no similar lesions on any part of the body. On physical examination a warty papilliform lesion was seen on the left buccal mucosa with extension to 2 cm of the upper and lower lip on the left side including the left oral commissure and the skin of the left cheek beyond the nasolabial fold where it appeared as a cauliflowerlike growth measuring 4×5 cm in size (Figure 1). No notable lymphadenopathy was present.

Digital radiographs of the skull (posteroanterior oblique view)(Figure 2) and mandible (left oblique view) showed a lobulated soft-tissue density lesion overlying the left half of the mandible (near the mandibular angle) with involvement of both the upper and lower lips on the left side. However, no obvious underlying bony erosion was noted.

Computed tomography revealed a large soft-tissue mass (41.3×35.3 mm)(Figure 3A) involving the left buccal mucosa with extension into overlying muscle, subcutaneous tissue, and skin. Externally, the lesion was exophytic, irregular, and polypoidal with surface ulceration. Medially, the lesion involved the left oral commissure and parts of the adjoining upper and lower lips. No underlying bony erosion was seen. An enlarged lymph node measuring 20×15 mm was noted in the left upper deep cervical group in the submandibular region (Figure 3B).

Our clinical differential diagnosis included verrucous carcinoma and hypertrophic variety of lupus vulgaris. A 1×2-cm diagnostic incisional biopsy was performed from the cauliflowerlike growth and ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration was done from the lymph node. Histopathology revealed a hyperplastic stratified squamous epithelium with upward extension of verrucous projections, which was largely superficial to the adjacent epithelium (Figure 4A). In addition to the surface verrucous projections, there was lesion extension into the subepithelial zone in the form of round club-shaped protrusions (Figure 4B). There was no loss of polarity in these downward proliferations. No horn pearl formation was present. Fine-needle aspiration revealed reactive lymphadenitis.

The final diagnosis of verrucous carcinoma was made and the patient was referred to the oncosurgery department for further management.

Verrucous carcinoma is a rare, low-grade, well-differentiated SCC of the skin or mucosa presenting with a verrucoid or cauliflowerlike appearance. It shows locally aggressive behavior and has low metastatic potential,⁶ a low degree of dysplasia, and a good prognosis. Because it is a tumor with predominantly horizontal growth, it tends to erode more than infiltrate. It does not present with remote metastasis.⁷ It has been known by several different names, usually related to anatomic sites (eg, Ackerman tumor, oral florid papillomatosis, carcinoma cuniculatum).

In the oral cavity, verrucous carcinoma constitutes 2% to 4.5% of all forms of SCC seen mainly in men older than 50 years and also is associated with a high incidence (37.7%) of a second primary tumor mainly in the oral mucosa (eg, tongue, lips, palate, salivary gland).⁸ Indudharan et al⁹ reported a case of verrucous carcinoma of the maxillary antrum in a young male patient, which also was a rare entity. Verrucous carcinoma is thought to predominantly affect elderly men. Walvekar et al¹⁰ reported a male to female ratio of 3.6 to 1 in patients with verrucous carcinoma, with a mean age of 53.9 years. According to Varshney et al,¹¹ patients may range in age from the fourth to eighth decades of life, with a mean age of 60 years; 80% are male. The etiopathogenesis of verrucous carcinoma is related to the following carcinogens: biologic (eg, human papillomavirus), chemical (eg, smoking), and physical (eg, constant trauma).

Verrucous carcinoma should be considered in the differential diagnosis of slow-growing, locally spreading tumors. Oral tumors, especially in tobacco chewers, should raise suspicion of verrucous carcinoma, which will enable prompt management of the tumor.

To the Editor:

Verrucous carcinoma is an uncommon type of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and was first described by Ackerman¹ in 1948. Rock and Fisher² called this condition oral florid papillomatosis. The distinctive features of this tumor are low-grade malignancy, slow growth, local invasiveness, and rarely intraoral and extraoral metastasis. Extraorally, it can occur in any part of the body,³ a common site being the anogenital region. Depending on the area of occurrence, the condition also is known as Buschke-Lowenstein tumor⁴ or giant condyloma acuminatum (anogenital region) and carcinoma cuniculatum⁵ (plantar region). The exact etiology of the condition is unknown, though it is associated with human papillomavirus infection, traumatic scars, chronic infection, tobacco, and chemical carcinogens.³ We report a rare case of verrucous carcinoma originating from the buccal mucosa that subsequently spread to involve the lip and cheek as a large cauliflowerlike growth, which is an unusual presentation.

A 65-year-old man presented to the dermatology department with a painless growth inside the left side of the oral cavity that had developed 5 years prior as a growth on the left buccal mucosa. The lesion gradually increased in size to involve the left oral commissure including the upper and lower lips and the skin of the left cheek; it extended beyond the nasolabial fold in a cauliflowerlike pattern. The lesion was insidious in onset and was not associated with pain, itching, or bleeding. The patient chewed tobacco for the last 40 years, with no similar lesions on any part of the body. On physical examination a warty papilliform lesion was seen on the left buccal mucosa with extension to 2 cm of the upper and lower lip on the left side including the left oral commissure and the skin of the left cheek beyond the nasolabial fold where it appeared as a cauliflowerlike growth measuring 4×5 cm in size (Figure 1). No notable lymphadenopathy was present.

Digital radiographs of the skull (posteroanterior oblique view)(Figure 2) and mandible (left oblique view) showed a lobulated soft-tissue density lesion overlying the left half of the mandible (near the mandibular angle) with involvement of both the upper and lower lips on the left side. However, no obvious underlying bony erosion was noted.

Computed tomography revealed a large soft-tissue mass (41.3×35.3 mm)(Figure 3A) involving the left buccal mucosa with extension into overlying muscle, subcutaneous tissue, and skin. Externally, the lesion was exophytic, irregular, and polypoidal with surface ulceration. Medially, the lesion involved the left oral commissure and parts of the adjoining upper and lower lips. No underlying bony erosion was seen. An enlarged lymph node measuring 20×15 mm was noted in the left upper deep cervical group in the submandibular region (Figure 3B).

Our clinical differential diagnosis included verrucous carcinoma and hypertrophic variety of lupus vulgaris. A 1×2-cm diagnostic incisional biopsy was performed from the cauliflowerlike growth and ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration was done from the lymph node. Histopathology revealed a hyperplastic stratified squamous epithelium with upward extension of verrucous projections, which was largely superficial to the adjacent epithelium (Figure 4A). In addition to the surface verrucous projections, there was lesion extension into the subepithelial zone in the form of round club-shaped protrusions (Figure 4B). There was no loss of polarity in these downward proliferations. No horn pearl formation was present. Fine-needle aspiration revealed reactive lymphadenitis.

The final diagnosis of verrucous carcinoma was made and the patient was referred to the oncosurgery department for further management.

Verrucous carcinoma is a rare, low-grade, well-differentiated SCC of the skin or mucosa presenting with a verrucoid or cauliflowerlike appearance. It shows locally aggressive behavior and has low metastatic potential,⁶ a low degree of dysplasia, and a good prognosis. Because it is a tumor with predominantly horizontal growth, it tends to erode more than infiltrate. It does not present with remote metastasis.⁷ It has been known by several different names, usually related to anatomic sites (eg, Ackerman tumor, oral florid papillomatosis, carcinoma cuniculatum).

In the oral cavity, verrucous carcinoma constitutes 2% to 4.5% of all forms of SCC seen mainly in men older than 50 years and also is associated with a high incidence (37.7%) of a second primary tumor mainly in the oral mucosa (eg, tongue, lips, palate, salivary gland).⁸ Indudharan et al⁹ reported a case of verrucous carcinoma of the maxillary antrum in a young male patient, which also was a rare entity. Verrucous carcinoma is thought to predominantly affect elderly men. Walvekar et al¹⁰ reported a male to female ratio of 3.6 to 1 in patients with verrucous carcinoma, with a mean age of 53.9 years. According to Varshney et al,¹¹ patients may range in age from the fourth to eighth decades of life, with a mean age of 60 years; 80% are male. The etiopathogenesis of verrucous carcinoma is related to the following carcinogens: biologic (eg, human papillomavirus), chemical (eg, smoking), and physical (eg, constant trauma).

Verrucous carcinoma should be considered in the differential diagnosis of slow-growing, locally spreading tumors. Oral tumors, especially in tobacco chewers, should raise suspicion of verrucous carcinoma, which will enable prompt management of the tumor.

Use of a quadrivalent HPV vaccine in men who have sex with men, administered in genitourinary specialty clinics, would cost effectively provide herd immunity against the ill effects of the virus, particularly anogenital warts and male HPV-related cancers, according to an English mathematical model.

Mark Jit, PhD, a professor of vaccine epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and his colleagues considered in which settings HPV vaccination delivery would have the greatest effect size; the patterns of sexual behavior in MSM leading to the transmission of HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18; and the costs and quality adjusted life year (QALY) implications of disease outcomes (Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Dec 23. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw845).

Clinic attendance rates were based on genitourinary clinic returns in England recorded in public health surveillance data recorded between 2009 and 2012, stratified according to diagnosed HIV-positive status. Also modeled were the effects of vaccination in MSM between the ages of 16 and 40 years, according to groups aged 16-25 years, 16-30 years, 16-35 years, and 16-40 years. Models for ages on either side of 16 or 40 years were not considered because of confidentiality constraints in the former and limited specialty clinic use in the latter.

Herd protection likely would be notable in the first year, because of the breadth of the age ranges modeled, Dr. Jit and his colleagues determined. Specifically, the models predicted a 35% decline in incidence rates of anogenital warts within 5 years of initiating the vaccine across all MSM men seen in specialty clinics. If only HIV-positive MSM across the age groups were vaccinated, the models predicted a 5-year decline of 15%.

Declines predicted in HPV-related cancers would happen more slowly, because progression from infection to malignancies tends to occur over years. For example, there would be a 55% reduction over 100 years for anal cancer if all 16- to 40-year-old MSM attending specialty clinics are offered vaccination. However, the reduction rate would drop to 40% in that same time period if only HIV-positive men across the age groups were vaccinated.

Using a cost-effectiveness threshold of 20,000 British pounds (about $24,500) per QALY, with no more than a 10% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would exceed 30,000 pounds per QALY ($36,710), Dr. Jit and his colleagues determined that using a quadrivalent HPV vaccination in MSM between ages 16 and 40 years in the specialty clinic setting would be cost effective if delivery cost an average of 63 pounds ($77) per dose.

By offering vaccination only to HIV-positive MSM between 16 and 40 years, even if the quadrivalent vaccine were to cost as much as 96.50 pounds ($118), it would still be cost effective. A nonavalent vaccine at the same price would also be cost effective, because nearly all HPV-related cancers are linked to HPV 16 and 18. However, a bivalent vaccine was not shown by the models to be cost effective in such a limited program.

The investigators theorized that HIV infection is associated with the rate of HPV-related disease progression. To simplify computation, however, their models only considered the overall cost effectiveness of offering HPV vaccination to either HIV-positive MSM or to MSM regardless of current HIV status. That could mean “the cost effectiveness of MSM vaccination may be even better than reported,” the researchers noted.

This study was funded primarily by the National Institute for Health Research and Public Health England in the United Kingdom. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
 

wmcknight@frontlinemedcom.comOn Twitter @whitneymcknight

Use of a quadrivalent HPV vaccine in men who have sex with men, administered in genitourinary specialty clinics, would cost effectively provide herd immunity against the ill effects of the virus, particularly anogenital warts and male HPV-related cancers, according to an English mathematical model.

Mark Jit, PhD, a professor of vaccine epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and his colleagues considered in which settings HPV vaccination delivery would have the greatest effect size; the patterns of sexual behavior in MSM leading to the transmission of HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18; and the costs and quality adjusted life year (QALY) implications of disease outcomes (Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Dec 23. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw845).

Clinic attendance rates were based on genitourinary clinic returns in England recorded in public health surveillance data recorded between 2009 and 2012, stratified according to diagnosed HIV-positive status. Also modeled were the effects of vaccination in MSM between the ages of 16 and 40 years, according to groups aged 16-25 years, 16-30 years, 16-35 years, and 16-40 years. Models for ages on either side of 16 or 40 years were not considered because of confidentiality constraints in the former and limited specialty clinic use in the latter.

Herd protection likely would be notable in the first year, because of the breadth of the age ranges modeled, Dr. Jit and his colleagues determined. Specifically, the models predicted a 35% decline in incidence rates of anogenital warts within 5 years of initiating the vaccine across all MSM men seen in specialty clinics. If only HIV-positive MSM across the age groups were vaccinated, the models predicted a 5-year decline of 15%.

Declines predicted in HPV-related cancers would happen more slowly, because progression from infection to malignancies tends to occur over years. For example, there would be a 55% reduction over 100 years for anal cancer if all 16- to 40-year-old MSM attending specialty clinics are offered vaccination. However, the reduction rate would drop to 40% in that same time period if only HIV-positive men across the age groups were vaccinated.

Using a cost-effectiveness threshold of 20,000 British pounds (about $24,500) per QALY, with no more than a 10% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would exceed 30,000 pounds per QALY ($36,710), Dr. Jit and his colleagues determined that using a quadrivalent HPV vaccination in MSM between ages 16 and 40 years in the specialty clinic setting would be cost effective if delivery cost an average of 63 pounds ($77) per dose.

By offering vaccination only to HIV-positive MSM between 16 and 40 years, even if the quadrivalent vaccine were to cost as much as 96.50 pounds ($118), it would still be cost effective. A nonavalent vaccine at the same price would also be cost effective, because nearly all HPV-related cancers are linked to HPV 16 and 18. However, a bivalent vaccine was not shown by the models to be cost effective in such a limited program.

The investigators theorized that HIV infection is associated with the rate of HPV-related disease progression. To simplify computation, however, their models only considered the overall cost effectiveness of offering HPV vaccination to either HIV-positive MSM or to MSM regardless of current HIV status. That could mean “the cost effectiveness of MSM vaccination may be even better than reported,” the researchers noted.

This study was funded primarily by the National Institute for Health Research and Public Health England in the United Kingdom. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
 

wmcknight@frontlinemedcom.comOn Twitter @whitneymcknight

Use of a quadrivalent HPV vaccine in men who have sex with men, administered in genitourinary specialty clinics, would cost effectively provide herd immunity against the ill effects of the virus, particularly anogenital warts and male HPV-related cancers, according to an English mathematical model.

Mark Jit, PhD, a professor of vaccine epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and his colleagues considered in which settings HPV vaccination delivery would have the greatest effect size; the patterns of sexual behavior in MSM leading to the transmission of HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18; and the costs and quality adjusted life year (QALY) implications of disease outcomes (Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Dec 23. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw845).

Clinic attendance rates were based on genitourinary clinic returns in England recorded in public health surveillance data recorded between 2009 and 2012, stratified according to diagnosed HIV-positive status. Also modeled were the effects of vaccination in MSM between the ages of 16 and 40 years, according to groups aged 16-25 years, 16-30 years, 16-35 years, and 16-40 years. Models for ages on either side of 16 or 40 years were not considered because of confidentiality constraints in the former and limited specialty clinic use in the latter.

Herd protection likely would be notable in the first year, because of the breadth of the age ranges modeled, Dr. Jit and his colleagues determined. Specifically, the models predicted a 35% decline in incidence rates of anogenital warts within 5 years of initiating the vaccine across all MSM men seen in specialty clinics. If only HIV-positive MSM across the age groups were vaccinated, the models predicted a 5-year decline of 15%.

Declines predicted in HPV-related cancers would happen more slowly, because progression from infection to malignancies tends to occur over years. For example, there would be a 55% reduction over 100 years for anal cancer if all 16- to 40-year-old MSM attending specialty clinics are offered vaccination. However, the reduction rate would drop to 40% in that same time period if only HIV-positive men across the age groups were vaccinated.

Using a cost-effectiveness threshold of 20,000 British pounds (about $24,500) per QALY, with no more than a 10% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would exceed 30,000 pounds per QALY ($36,710), Dr. Jit and his colleagues determined that using a quadrivalent HPV vaccination in MSM between ages 16 and 40 years in the specialty clinic setting would be cost effective if delivery cost an average of 63 pounds ($77) per dose.

By offering vaccination only to HIV-positive MSM between 16 and 40 years, even if the quadrivalent vaccine were to cost as much as 96.50 pounds ($118), it would still be cost effective. A nonavalent vaccine at the same price would also be cost effective, because nearly all HPV-related cancers are linked to HPV 16 and 18. However, a bivalent vaccine was not shown by the models to be cost effective in such a limited program.

The investigators theorized that HIV infection is associated with the rate of HPV-related disease progression. To simplify computation, however, their models only considered the overall cost effectiveness of offering HPV vaccination to either HIV-positive MSM or to MSM regardless of current HIV status. That could mean “the cost effectiveness of MSM vaccination may be even better than reported,” the researchers noted.

This study was funded primarily by the National Institute for Health Research and Public Health England in the United Kingdom. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
 

wmcknight@frontlinemedcom.comOn Twitter @whitneymcknight

Photoprotection is the foundation of all skin cancer prevention, as UV radiation (UVR) exposure is the only known modifiable risk factor for skin cancer. With the majority of UVR exposure–induced skin cancers found on the scalp, ears, face, and neck, public health initiatives call for wise choices in personal fashion that emphasize the importance of covering these areas.^1-3 From a science of fashion perspective, research has shown that wide-brimmed hats provide better means of ensuring the largest area of coverage compared to standard baseball-style hats.⁴ Thus, for maximum protection, wide-brimmed hats should be favored. However, in academic and military settings, individual style is not optional and is instead influenced or directed by policy, which may not be aligned with the goal of providing photoprotection and raises additional concern for individuals working in environments with longer periods of peak daylight UVR exposure.

In all military branches, service members don uniforms that include head coverage when operating outdoors; however, the choice of headgear is not always aimed at reducing UVR exposure. Similarly, in our counterpart civilian populations, wearing hats that provide the best photoprotection may be influenced by school policies, which frequently mandate clothing choices for children, or by the press or fashion industry in the general public, which might portray sun-protective garments as unfashionable or in some cases threatening if perceived as demonstrating gang affiliation.⁵ This article serves to encourage health care providers to not only discuss the use of sunscreen when educating patients on sun protection but also to emphasize the benefits of wearing photoprotective garments, particularly wide-brimmed hats given their simplicity, reusability, and affordability. Hat use is particularly important for men with comorbid androgenetic alopecia.⁶

Skin Cancer Risk

Unfortunately, the incidence of most common types of skin cancer, specifically nonmelanoma skin cancers such basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas (ie, keratinocyte carcinomas [KCs]), is difficult to estimate properly, as these cases are not required to be reported to worldwide cancer registries. However, more than 5.4 million cases of skin cancers were diagnosed among 3.3 million Americans in 2016, with an estimated 13,650 deaths associated with skin cancers (not including KCs).³ Tracking and data analyses of cases diagnosed in the active and reserve component populations of the US Armed Forces reflect parallel findings.⁷ Keratinocyte carcinomas could be considered largely preventable, as most are the result of UVR exposure.¹ Additionally, it has been suggested that the vast majority of mutations in melanoma skin cancers (up to 86%) are caused by UVR exposure.⁸

Prevention

United States–based national public health services such as the American Cancer Society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Dermatology embrace photoprotection as the central practice in reducing risk factors for skin cancers. Guidelines put forth by these and other national preventive medical institutions specifically recommend the use of wide-brimmed hats as the best option for protection of the face, head, ears, and neck, in addition to more common recommendations such as seeking shade, avoiding sunlight during peak hours of the day, and using sunscreen.^1-3 At state and local levels, policies should be adapted from these recommendations to support protective practices and skin cancer education that begins early for school-aged children. Unfortunately, in some school districts, wearing hats of any kind may be perceived as disruptive or in some cases baseball hats may be a sign of gang affiliation and are therefore banned in the schoolyard.⁵ The opposite is true in certain parts of the world where sun protection is embraced by the population as a whole, such as Australia where the widely accepted “slip, slop and slap, seek and slide” campaign has extended to some school policymakers who have considered adopting a “no hat, no play” policy.^9,10

Sunscreen use as a primary component of photoprotection has its disadvantages in comparison to wearing protective clothing, as sunscreen cannot be reused and proper usage requires reapplication after swimming, when sweating, and following 2 hours of application.^1-3 The need for reapplication of sunscreen can lead to considerable expense as well as time spent in application and reapplication. Additionally, for individuals who are physically active (eg, operationally engaged service members, outdoor athletes), sunscreen applied to the face may become a hindrance to function, as it may drip or enter the eyes with excessive sweating, possibly impairing vision. Some individuals may be averse to applying lotions or creams to the skin in general, as they do not prefer the textural changes or appearance of the skin after application. The application of sunscreen also could impair use of lifesaving military gear (eg, gas masks, helmets) from fitting or securing appropriately.

Patient Education

From a military perspective, a review of a recent targeted pilot study in which skin cancer patients at a US Veterans Administration hospital were surveyed on personal knowledge of UVR protection showed that respondents who had a history of skin cancer diagnosis did not feel that they had ever been at an increased risk for skin cancers and did not receive skin cancer prevention education during their tours of service. The overwhelming majority of all participants in this study agreed that the military should issue sun-protective clothing and sunscreen to active-duty personnel.¹¹ Another 2015 survey of 356 current US Air Force flight line personnel noted that active-duty service members tend not to use sunscreen when at work or while at home, and 43% of participants reported using no sun-protective methods while working outdoors.¹² Although these studies focused on military personal, the data mirror findings within the general public, as it was shown in a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that Americans do not fully take advantage of the benefits of UVR protection, specifically with regard to sunscreen use. Little to no usage was correlated with low socioeconomic status, suggesting that a reusable form of protection could be preferred.¹³

Public health initiatives typically promote education on the use of sunscreen in populations that spend a considerable amount of time working outdoors (eg, construction workers, farmers, military personnel); however, we feel emphasis should be placed on the benefits of wearing hats, as the UVR exposure protection they provide does not wear off, is cost effective, does not require reapplication, and has the advantage of being a recyclable and affordable form of photoprotection.

History of the Military-Grade Wide-Brimmed Hat

One military-specific example of a sun-protective hat is the boonie hat, known at the time of its inception as the tropical or hot-weather hat, which first became popular during the Vietnam War. This hat option was initially proposed on April 7, 1966, when it was realized that a full-brimmed field hat was needed to protect soldiers’ faces and necks from rain and sun in harsh tropical climates.¹⁴ Unfortunately, despite the protective advantages of this style of head covering and favorable support from service members themselves, the boonie hat was not widely accepted, as commanders disliked its “unmilitary appearance.” Fervent protests by units throughout Vietnam eventually led to a compromise in policy that allowed unit-level commanders to authorize the use of boonie hats for units in combat or combat support field operations.¹⁴ Today, the boonie hat continues to garnish mixed emotions from unit commanders, as wearing this garment often is interpreted as not being in line with an appropriate military appearance, which is similar to the public fashion zeitgeist that also does not openly endorse the use of sun-protective garments. A change in fashion culture and policy (both military and civilian) that promotes sun-protective measures is needed.

Wide-Brimmed Hats Are Superior to Baseball Hats

The distribution of skin cancers across anatomic sites is consistent and proportional with the level and frequency of chronic UVR exposure, with the occurrence of most skin cancers being greatest on the nose, forehead/temples, cheeks/perioral areas, and ears.¹⁵ Additionally, higher incidences of skin cancers have been noted in chronically sun-exposed areas of the head and neck in men versus women. It is thought that hair distribution in these areas may be the causal factor.⁶

Baseball-style hats are worn by all branches of the US military as part of standard training and work duty uniform requirements, primarily for the sake of tradition by maintaining a standard appearance and uniform dress code but also to provide photoprotection to these vulnerable areas of the body. Standard, nonmilitary, baseball-style hats have been shown to provide UV protection factor (UPF) equivalents ranging from 2 to 10 on sites known for the highest levels of exposure.¹⁶ Military “patrol caps,” fashioned similar to the baseball-style hat but constructed from military-grade textiles, provide greater levels of photoprotection with UPF ratings from 35 to 50 and higher depending on the fabric color.¹⁷ Although patrol caps have a favorable UPF rating and are advantageous compared to former military headgear styles (eg, berets), wide-brimmed hats would provide greater overall coverage.^4,6 Studies in school environments also revealed that wide-brimmed hats come out ahead in side-by-side testing against baseball hats and are shown to provide greater photoprotection for the cheeks, chin, ears, and neck.¹⁶

Final Thoughts

The battle to educate the public about adequate photoprotection to prevent skin cancers caused by UVR exposure applies to all providers, both military and civilian. Our ongoing initiatives should not only sustain current practices but should further stress the importance of wearing wide-brimmed hats as a vital part of coverage of the skin and protection from UVR. We must combat the public perception that wearing wide-brimmed hats is a detractor of personal fashion and that instead it is desirable to reduce the risk for skin cancer. The wide-brimmed hat is a simple, reusable, and easily executed recommendation that should be made to all patients, both military and civilian, young and old. In conclusion, by improving patients’ perceptions and acknowledgment of the importance of photoprotection as well as making a concerted effort to integrate our knowledge in the fashion industry, in policies at schools, in the military, and in popular culture, we will undoubtedly come to agree that it is not unfashionable to wear a wide-brimmed hat, but it is unfashionable to risk developing skin cancer.

Photoprotection is the foundation of all skin cancer prevention, as UV radiation (UVR) exposure is the only known modifiable risk factor for skin cancer. With the majority of UVR exposure–induced skin cancers found on the scalp, ears, face, and neck, public health initiatives call for wise choices in personal fashion that emphasize the importance of covering these areas.^1-3 From a science of fashion perspective, research has shown that wide-brimmed hats provide better means of ensuring the largest area of coverage compared to standard baseball-style hats.⁴ Thus, for maximum protection, wide-brimmed hats should be favored. However, in academic and military settings, individual style is not optional and is instead influenced or directed by policy, which may not be aligned with the goal of providing photoprotection and raises additional concern for individuals working in environments with longer periods of peak daylight UVR exposure.

In all military branches, service members don uniforms that include head coverage when operating outdoors; however, the choice of headgear is not always aimed at reducing UVR exposure. Similarly, in our counterpart civilian populations, wearing hats that provide the best photoprotection may be influenced by school policies, which frequently mandate clothing choices for children, or by the press or fashion industry in the general public, which might portray sun-protective garments as unfashionable or in some cases threatening if perceived as demonstrating gang affiliation.⁵ This article serves to encourage health care providers to not only discuss the use of sunscreen when educating patients on sun protection but also to emphasize the benefits of wearing photoprotective garments, particularly wide-brimmed hats given their simplicity, reusability, and affordability. Hat use is particularly important for men with comorbid androgenetic alopecia.⁶

Skin Cancer Risk

Unfortunately, the incidence of most common types of skin cancer, specifically nonmelanoma skin cancers such basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas (ie, keratinocyte carcinomas [KCs]), is difficult to estimate properly, as these cases are not required to be reported to worldwide cancer registries. However, more than 5.4 million cases of skin cancers were diagnosed among 3.3 million Americans in 2016, with an estimated 13,650 deaths associated with skin cancers (not including KCs).³ Tracking and data analyses of cases diagnosed in the active and reserve component populations of the US Armed Forces reflect parallel findings.⁷ Keratinocyte carcinomas could be considered largely preventable, as most are the result of UVR exposure.¹ Additionally, it has been suggested that the vast majority of mutations in melanoma skin cancers (up to 86%) are caused by UVR exposure.⁸

Prevention

United States–based national public health services such as the American Cancer Society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Dermatology embrace photoprotection as the central practice in reducing risk factors for skin cancers. Guidelines put forth by these and other national preventive medical institutions specifically recommend the use of wide-brimmed hats as the best option for protection of the face, head, ears, and neck, in addition to more common recommendations such as seeking shade, avoiding sunlight during peak hours of the day, and using sunscreen.^1-3 At state and local levels, policies should be adapted from these recommendations to support protective practices and skin cancer education that begins early for school-aged children. Unfortunately, in some school districts, wearing hats of any kind may be perceived as disruptive or in some cases baseball hats may be a sign of gang affiliation and are therefore banned in the schoolyard.⁵ The opposite is true in certain parts of the world where sun protection is embraced by the population as a whole, such as Australia where the widely accepted “slip, slop and slap, seek and slide” campaign has extended to some school policymakers who have considered adopting a “no hat, no play” policy.^9,10

Sunscreen use as a primary component of photoprotection has its disadvantages in comparison to wearing protective clothing, as sunscreen cannot be reused and proper usage requires reapplication after swimming, when sweating, and following 2 hours of application.^1-3 The need for reapplication of sunscreen can lead to considerable expense as well as time spent in application and reapplication. Additionally, for individuals who are physically active (eg, operationally engaged service members, outdoor athletes), sunscreen applied to the face may become a hindrance to function, as it may drip or enter the eyes with excessive sweating, possibly impairing vision. Some individuals may be averse to applying lotions or creams to the skin in general, as they do not prefer the textural changes or appearance of the skin after application. The application of sunscreen also could impair use of lifesaving military gear (eg, gas masks, helmets) from fitting or securing appropriately.

Patient Education

From a military perspective, a review of a recent targeted pilot study in which skin cancer patients at a US Veterans Administration hospital were surveyed on personal knowledge of UVR protection showed that respondents who had a history of skin cancer diagnosis did not feel that they had ever been at an increased risk for skin cancers and did not receive skin cancer prevention education during their tours of service. The overwhelming majority of all participants in this study agreed that the military should issue sun-protective clothing and sunscreen to active-duty personnel.¹¹ Another 2015 survey of 356 current US Air Force flight line personnel noted that active-duty service members tend not to use sunscreen when at work or while at home, and 43% of participants reported using no sun-protective methods while working outdoors.¹² Although these studies focused on military personal, the data mirror findings within the general public, as it was shown in a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that Americans do not fully take advantage of the benefits of UVR protection, specifically with regard to sunscreen use. Little to no usage was correlated with low socioeconomic status, suggesting that a reusable form of protection could be preferred.¹³

Public health initiatives typically promote education on the use of sunscreen in populations that spend a considerable amount of time working outdoors (eg, construction workers, farmers, military personnel); however, we feel emphasis should be placed on the benefits of wearing hats, as the UVR exposure protection they provide does not wear off, is cost effective, does not require reapplication, and has the advantage of being a recyclable and affordable form of photoprotection.

History of the Military-Grade Wide-Brimmed Hat

One military-specific example of a sun-protective hat is the boonie hat, known at the time of its inception as the tropical or hot-weather hat, which first became popular during the Vietnam War. This hat option was initially proposed on April 7, 1966, when it was realized that a full-brimmed field hat was needed to protect soldiers’ faces and necks from rain and sun in harsh tropical climates.¹⁴ Unfortunately, despite the protective advantages of this style of head covering and favorable support from service members themselves, the boonie hat was not widely accepted, as commanders disliked its “unmilitary appearance.” Fervent protests by units throughout Vietnam eventually led to a compromise in policy that allowed unit-level commanders to authorize the use of boonie hats for units in combat or combat support field operations.¹⁴ Today, the boonie hat continues to garnish mixed emotions from unit commanders, as wearing this garment often is interpreted as not being in line with an appropriate military appearance, which is similar to the public fashion zeitgeist that also does not openly endorse the use of sun-protective garments. A change in fashion culture and policy (both military and civilian) that promotes sun-protective measures is needed.

Wide-Brimmed Hats Are Superior to Baseball Hats

The distribution of skin cancers across anatomic sites is consistent and proportional with the level and frequency of chronic UVR exposure, with the occurrence of most skin cancers being greatest on the nose, forehead/temples, cheeks/perioral areas, and ears.¹⁵ Additionally, higher incidences of skin cancers have been noted in chronically sun-exposed areas of the head and neck in men versus women. It is thought that hair distribution in these areas may be the causal factor.⁶

Baseball-style hats are worn by all branches of the US military as part of standard training and work duty uniform requirements, primarily for the sake of tradition by maintaining a standard appearance and uniform dress code but also to provide photoprotection to these vulnerable areas of the body. Standard, nonmilitary, baseball-style hats have been shown to provide UV protection factor (UPF) equivalents ranging from 2 to 10 on sites known for the highest levels of exposure.¹⁶ Military “patrol caps,” fashioned similar to the baseball-style hat but constructed from military-grade textiles, provide greater levels of photoprotection with UPF ratings from 35 to 50 and higher depending on the fabric color.¹⁷ Although patrol caps have a favorable UPF rating and are advantageous compared to former military headgear styles (eg, berets), wide-brimmed hats would provide greater overall coverage.^4,6 Studies in school environments also revealed that wide-brimmed hats come out ahead in side-by-side testing against baseball hats and are shown to provide greater photoprotection for the cheeks, chin, ears, and neck.¹⁶

Final Thoughts

The battle to educate the public about adequate photoprotection to prevent skin cancers caused by UVR exposure applies to all providers, both military and civilian. Our ongoing initiatives should not only sustain current practices but should further stress the importance of wearing wide-brimmed hats as a vital part of coverage of the skin and protection from UVR. We must combat the public perception that wearing wide-brimmed hats is a detractor of personal fashion and that instead it is desirable to reduce the risk for skin cancer. The wide-brimmed hat is a simple, reusable, and easily executed recommendation that should be made to all patients, both military and civilian, young and old. In conclusion, by improving patients’ perceptions and acknowledgment of the importance of photoprotection as well as making a concerted effort to integrate our knowledge in the fashion industry, in policies at schools, in the military, and in popular culture, we will undoubtedly come to agree that it is not unfashionable to wear a wide-brimmed hat, but it is unfashionable to risk developing skin cancer.

Photoprotection is the foundation of all skin cancer prevention, as UV radiation (UVR) exposure is the only known modifiable risk factor for skin cancer. With the majority of UVR exposure–induced skin cancers found on the scalp, ears, face, and neck, public health initiatives call for wise choices in personal fashion that emphasize the importance of covering these areas.^1-3 From a science of fashion perspective, research has shown that wide-brimmed hats provide better means of ensuring the largest area of coverage compared to standard baseball-style hats.⁴ Thus, for maximum protection, wide-brimmed hats should be favored. However, in academic and military settings, individual style is not optional and is instead influenced or directed by policy, which may not be aligned with the goal of providing photoprotection and raises additional concern for individuals working in environments with longer periods of peak daylight UVR exposure.

In all military branches, service members don uniforms that include head coverage when operating outdoors; however, the choice of headgear is not always aimed at reducing UVR exposure. Similarly, in our counterpart civilian populations, wearing hats that provide the best photoprotection may be influenced by school policies, which frequently mandate clothing choices for children, or by the press or fashion industry in the general public, which might portray sun-protective garments as unfashionable or in some cases threatening if perceived as demonstrating gang affiliation.⁵ This article serves to encourage health care providers to not only discuss the use of sunscreen when educating patients on sun protection but also to emphasize the benefits of wearing photoprotective garments, particularly wide-brimmed hats given their simplicity, reusability, and affordability. Hat use is particularly important for men with comorbid androgenetic alopecia.⁶

Skin Cancer Risk

Unfortunately, the incidence of most common types of skin cancer, specifically nonmelanoma skin cancers such basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas (ie, keratinocyte carcinomas [KCs]), is difficult to estimate properly, as these cases are not required to be reported to worldwide cancer registries. However, more than 5.4 million cases of skin cancers were diagnosed among 3.3 million Americans in 2016, with an estimated 13,650 deaths associated with skin cancers (not including KCs).³ Tracking and data analyses of cases diagnosed in the active and reserve component populations of the US Armed Forces reflect parallel findings.⁷ Keratinocyte carcinomas could be considered largely preventable, as most are the result of UVR exposure.¹ Additionally, it has been suggested that the vast majority of mutations in melanoma skin cancers (up to 86%) are caused by UVR exposure.⁸

Prevention

United States–based national public health services such as the American Cancer Society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Dermatology embrace photoprotection as the central practice in reducing risk factors for skin cancers. Guidelines put forth by these and other national preventive medical institutions specifically recommend the use of wide-brimmed hats as the best option for protection of the face, head, ears, and neck, in addition to more common recommendations such as seeking shade, avoiding sunlight during peak hours of the day, and using sunscreen.^1-3 At state and local levels, policies should be adapted from these recommendations to support protective practices and skin cancer education that begins early for school-aged children. Unfortunately, in some school districts, wearing hats of any kind may be perceived as disruptive or in some cases baseball hats may be a sign of gang affiliation and are therefore banned in the schoolyard.⁵ The opposite is true in certain parts of the world where sun protection is embraced by the population as a whole, such as Australia where the widely accepted “slip, slop and slap, seek and slide” campaign has extended to some school policymakers who have considered adopting a “no hat, no play” policy.^9,10

Sunscreen use as a primary component of photoprotection has its disadvantages in comparison to wearing protective clothing, as sunscreen cannot be reused and proper usage requires reapplication after swimming, when sweating, and following 2 hours of application.^1-3 The need for reapplication of sunscreen can lead to considerable expense as well as time spent in application and reapplication. Additionally, for individuals who are physically active (eg, operationally engaged service members, outdoor athletes), sunscreen applied to the face may become a hindrance to function, as it may drip or enter the eyes with excessive sweating, possibly impairing vision. Some individuals may be averse to applying lotions or creams to the skin in general, as they do not prefer the textural changes or appearance of the skin after application. The application of sunscreen also could impair use of lifesaving military gear (eg, gas masks, helmets) from fitting or securing appropriately.

Patient Education

From a military perspective, a review of a recent targeted pilot study in which skin cancer patients at a US Veterans Administration hospital were surveyed on personal knowledge of UVR protection showed that respondents who had a history of skin cancer diagnosis did not feel that they had ever been at an increased risk for skin cancers and did not receive skin cancer prevention education during their tours of service. The overwhelming majority of all participants in this study agreed that the military should issue sun-protective clothing and sunscreen to active-duty personnel.¹¹ Another 2015 survey of 356 current US Air Force flight line personnel noted that active-duty service members tend not to use sunscreen when at work or while at home, and 43% of participants reported using no sun-protective methods while working outdoors.¹² Although these studies focused on military personal, the data mirror findings within the general public, as it was shown in a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that Americans do not fully take advantage of the benefits of UVR protection, specifically with regard to sunscreen use. Little to no usage was correlated with low socioeconomic status, suggesting that a reusable form of protection could be preferred.¹³

Public health initiatives typically promote education on the use of sunscreen in populations that spend a considerable amount of time working outdoors (eg, construction workers, farmers, military personnel); however, we feel emphasis should be placed on the benefits of wearing hats, as the UVR exposure protection they provide does not wear off, is cost effective, does not require reapplication, and has the advantage of being a recyclable and affordable form of photoprotection.

History of the Military-Grade Wide-Brimmed Hat

One military-specific example of a sun-protective hat is the boonie hat, known at the time of its inception as the tropical or hot-weather hat, which first became popular during the Vietnam War. This hat option was initially proposed on April 7, 1966, when it was realized that a full-brimmed field hat was needed to protect soldiers’ faces and necks from rain and sun in harsh tropical climates.¹⁴ Unfortunately, despite the protective advantages of this style of head covering and favorable support from service members themselves, the boonie hat was not widely accepted, as commanders disliked its “unmilitary appearance.” Fervent protests by units throughout Vietnam eventually led to a compromise in policy that allowed unit-level commanders to authorize the use of boonie hats for units in combat or combat support field operations.¹⁴ Today, the boonie hat continues to garnish mixed emotions from unit commanders, as wearing this garment often is interpreted as not being in line with an appropriate military appearance, which is similar to the public fashion zeitgeist that also does not openly endorse the use of sun-protective garments. A change in fashion culture and policy (both military and civilian) that promotes sun-protective measures is needed.

Wide-Brimmed Hats Are Superior to Baseball Hats

The distribution of skin cancers across anatomic sites is consistent and proportional with the level and frequency of chronic UVR exposure, with the occurrence of most skin cancers being greatest on the nose, forehead/temples, cheeks/perioral areas, and ears.¹⁵ Additionally, higher incidences of skin cancers have been noted in chronically sun-exposed areas of the head and neck in men versus women. It is thought that hair distribution in these areas may be the causal factor.⁶

Baseball-style hats are worn by all branches of the US military as part of standard training and work duty uniform requirements, primarily for the sake of tradition by maintaining a standard appearance and uniform dress code but also to provide photoprotection to these vulnerable areas of the body. Standard, nonmilitary, baseball-style hats have been shown to provide UV protection factor (UPF) equivalents ranging from 2 to 10 on sites known for the highest levels of exposure.¹⁶ Military “patrol caps,” fashioned similar to the baseball-style hat but constructed from military-grade textiles, provide greater levels of photoprotection with UPF ratings from 35 to 50 and higher depending on the fabric color.¹⁷ Although patrol caps have a favorable UPF rating and are advantageous compared to former military headgear styles (eg, berets), wide-brimmed hats would provide greater overall coverage.^4,6 Studies in school environments also revealed that wide-brimmed hats come out ahead in side-by-side testing against baseball hats and are shown to provide greater photoprotection for the cheeks, chin, ears, and neck.¹⁶

Final Thoughts

The battle to educate the public about adequate photoprotection to prevent skin cancers caused by UVR exposure applies to all providers, both military and civilian. Our ongoing initiatives should not only sustain current practices but should further stress the importance of wearing wide-brimmed hats as a vital part of coverage of the skin and protection from UVR. We must combat the public perception that wearing wide-brimmed hats is a detractor of personal fashion and that instead it is desirable to reduce the risk for skin cancer. The wide-brimmed hat is a simple, reusable, and easily executed recommendation that should be made to all patients, both military and civilian, young and old. In conclusion, by improving patients’ perceptions and acknowledgment of the importance of photoprotection as well as making a concerted effort to integrate our knowledge in the fashion industry, in policies at schools, in the military, and in popular culture, we will undoubtedly come to agree that it is not unfashionable to wear a wide-brimmed hat, but it is unfashionable to risk developing skin cancer.

WAILEA, HAWAII – When sunscreens are tested for their SPF, testers apply 2 mg/cm², but most people use only 20%-50% of that amount, which significantly reduces their protection, according to Dr. Julie C. Harper, director of the Dermatology & Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala.

The correct amount is 1 teaspoon of sunscreen on the face/head/neck, 1 teaspoon on each arm, 2 teaspoons on the torso, and 2 teaspoons on each leg, Dr. Harper said in a presentation at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation. Reapplication every 90 minutes to 2 hours is key to effective protection, Dr. Harper said.

However, “most people use less than one bottle of sunscreen per year,” she noted.

Prompting patients to improve their sunscreen use involves disproving some myths, Dr. Harper pointed out. When patients cite concerns about low vitamin D as a reason to avoid sunscreens, she recommended that they be counseled that there are three sources of vitamin D: foods such as fatty fish, vitamin D fortified foods, cheese, and egg yolks; vitamin D supplements; and skin synthesis through UVB exposure; and that only one of these – UVB exposure – is a known carcinogen.

dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com

WAILEA, HAWAII – When sunscreens are tested for their SPF, testers apply 2 mg/cm², but most people use only 20%-50% of that amount, which significantly reduces their protection, according to Dr. Julie C. Harper, director of the Dermatology & Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala.

The correct amount is 1 teaspoon of sunscreen on the face/head/neck, 1 teaspoon on each arm, 2 teaspoons on the torso, and 2 teaspoons on each leg, Dr. Harper said in a presentation at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation. Reapplication every 90 minutes to 2 hours is key to effective protection, Dr. Harper said.

However, “most people use less than one bottle of sunscreen per year,” she noted.

Prompting patients to improve their sunscreen use involves disproving some myths, Dr. Harper pointed out. When patients cite concerns about low vitamin D as a reason to avoid sunscreens, she recommended that they be counseled that there are three sources of vitamin D: foods such as fatty fish, vitamin D fortified foods, cheese, and egg yolks; vitamin D supplements; and skin synthesis through UVB exposure; and that only one of these – UVB exposure – is a known carcinogen.

dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com

WAILEA, HAWAII – When sunscreens are tested for their SPF, testers apply 2 mg/cm², but most people use only 20%-50% of that amount, which significantly reduces their protection, according to Dr. Julie C. Harper, director of the Dermatology & Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala.

The correct amount is 1 teaspoon of sunscreen on the face/head/neck, 1 teaspoon on each arm, 2 teaspoons on the torso, and 2 teaspoons on each leg, Dr. Harper said in a presentation at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation. Reapplication every 90 minutes to 2 hours is key to effective protection, Dr. Harper said.

However, “most people use less than one bottle of sunscreen per year,” she noted.

Prompting patients to improve their sunscreen use involves disproving some myths, Dr. Harper pointed out. When patients cite concerns about low vitamin D as a reason to avoid sunscreens, she recommended that they be counseled that there are three sources of vitamin D: foods such as fatty fish, vitamin D fortified foods, cheese, and egg yolks; vitamin D supplements; and skin synthesis through UVB exposure; and that only one of these – UVB exposure – is a known carcinogen.

dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com

In another sign that immune-suppressing drugs may cause skin cancer, a new Irish study links immunomodulator use in younger patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to higher rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC).

The 19-year study lacks information about medication doses or duration, and it doesn’t confirm a cause-and-effect link. Still, researchers recommend that all patients with IBD be urged to comply with skin cancer prevention guidelines.

As the study notes, previous research has linked immunosuppression – such as that in transplant patients and those with AIDS and lymphoma – to higher rates of NMSC.

Studies have also linked IBD to higher rates of NMSC even before the age of 50, possibly as the result of immune system dysfunction and exposure to immunomodulators, especially thiopurines. The risk of tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, the study says, is less clear.

To better understand the risk of immunomodulators, researchers led by Julianne Clowry, MBBCh, of St Vincent’s University Hospital in Dublin tracked 2,053 IBD patients at a tertiary adult hospital from 1994 to 2013.

The median age at IBD diagnosis was 31 with a median of 19.6 years of illness, and the patients had both Crohn’s disease (41%) and ulcerative colitis (59%). Fifty-seven percent of patients had taken immunomodulating medication, although the database used didn’t disclose details about dose or duration, and 43% had not.

The study findings appeared Jan. 3 in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (doi: 10.1111/jdv.14105).

NMSC was diagnosed in 1.7% of the entire cohort, 1.4% of patients who’d taken immunosuppressants, and 1.9% of those who had not.

Older ages may explain the higher rate in those who didn’t take the medications. The researchers found that the standardized incidence ratio for the patients who took immunomodulators overall was 1.76 [confidence interval, 1.0-2.7], compared with a matched general population cohort, while the ratio was not considered significant among the nonimmunosuppressed [1.07; CI, 0.6-1.6].

The study links use of thiopurines alone and use of both thiopurines and TNF-alpha inhibitors to higher rates of NMSC [odds ratio, 5.26; 95% CI, 2.15-12.93; P less than .001, and OR: 6.45; 95% CI, 2.69-15.95; P less than .001, respectively].

The researchers note that 82% of those who had taken a TNF-alpha inhibitor also took a thiopurine at some point.

The study says the “relatively high” standardized incident ratios are worrisome amid more use of dual immunomodulators and higher IBD rates in kids and younger adults. But the medications are “vital,” the study says, and the researchers suggest “targeted dermatology referrals for IBD patients, particularly those exposed to dual immunomodulatory therapy from an early age.”

The study authors disclose no source of funding and report no relevant disclosures.

In another sign that immune-suppressing drugs may cause skin cancer, a new Irish study links immunomodulator use in younger patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to higher rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC).

The 19-year study lacks information about medication doses or duration, and it doesn’t confirm a cause-and-effect link. Still, researchers recommend that all patients with IBD be urged to comply with skin cancer prevention guidelines.

As the study notes, previous research has linked immunosuppression – such as that in transplant patients and those with AIDS and lymphoma – to higher rates of NMSC.

Studies have also linked IBD to higher rates of NMSC even before the age of 50, possibly as the result of immune system dysfunction and exposure to immunomodulators, especially thiopurines. The risk of tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, the study says, is less clear.

To better understand the risk of immunomodulators, researchers led by Julianne Clowry, MBBCh, of St Vincent’s University Hospital in Dublin tracked 2,053 IBD patients at a tertiary adult hospital from 1994 to 2013.

The median age at IBD diagnosis was 31 with a median of 19.6 years of illness, and the patients had both Crohn’s disease (41%) and ulcerative colitis (59%). Fifty-seven percent of patients had taken immunomodulating medication, although the database used didn’t disclose details about dose or duration, and 43% had not.

The study findings appeared Jan. 3 in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (doi: 10.1111/jdv.14105).

NMSC was diagnosed in 1.7% of the entire cohort, 1.4% of patients who’d taken immunosuppressants, and 1.9% of those who had not.

Older ages may explain the higher rate in those who didn’t take the medications. The researchers found that the standardized incidence ratio for the patients who took immunomodulators overall was 1.76 [confidence interval, 1.0-2.7], compared with a matched general population cohort, while the ratio was not considered significant among the nonimmunosuppressed [1.07; CI, 0.6-1.6].

The study links use of thiopurines alone and use of both thiopurines and TNF-alpha inhibitors to higher rates of NMSC [odds ratio, 5.26; 95% CI, 2.15-12.93; P less than .001, and OR: 6.45; 95% CI, 2.69-15.95; P less than .001, respectively].

The researchers note that 82% of those who had taken a TNF-alpha inhibitor also took a thiopurine at some point.

The study says the “relatively high” standardized incident ratios are worrisome amid more use of dual immunomodulators and higher IBD rates in kids and younger adults. But the medications are “vital,” the study says, and the researchers suggest “targeted dermatology referrals for IBD patients, particularly those exposed to dual immunomodulatory therapy from an early age.”

The study authors disclose no source of funding and report no relevant disclosures.

In another sign that immune-suppressing drugs may cause skin cancer, a new Irish study links immunomodulator use in younger patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to higher rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC).

The 19-year study lacks information about medication doses or duration, and it doesn’t confirm a cause-and-effect link. Still, researchers recommend that all patients with IBD be urged to comply with skin cancer prevention guidelines.

As the study notes, previous research has linked immunosuppression – such as that in transplant patients and those with AIDS and lymphoma – to higher rates of NMSC.

Studies have also linked IBD to higher rates of NMSC even before the age of 50, possibly as the result of immune system dysfunction and exposure to immunomodulators, especially thiopurines. The risk of tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, the study says, is less clear.

To better understand the risk of immunomodulators, researchers led by Julianne Clowry, MBBCh, of St Vincent’s University Hospital in Dublin tracked 2,053 IBD patients at a tertiary adult hospital from 1994 to 2013.

The median age at IBD diagnosis was 31 with a median of 19.6 years of illness, and the patients had both Crohn’s disease (41%) and ulcerative colitis (59%). Fifty-seven percent of patients had taken immunomodulating medication, although the database used didn’t disclose details about dose or duration, and 43% had not.

The study findings appeared Jan. 3 in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (doi: 10.1111/jdv.14105).

NMSC was diagnosed in 1.7% of the entire cohort, 1.4% of patients who’d taken immunosuppressants, and 1.9% of those who had not.

Older ages may explain the higher rate in those who didn’t take the medications. The researchers found that the standardized incidence ratio for the patients who took immunomodulators overall was 1.76 [confidence interval, 1.0-2.7], compared with a matched general population cohort, while the ratio was not considered significant among the nonimmunosuppressed [1.07; CI, 0.6-1.6].

The study links use of thiopurines alone and use of both thiopurines and TNF-alpha inhibitors to higher rates of NMSC [odds ratio, 5.26; 95% CI, 2.15-12.93; P less than .001, and OR: 6.45; 95% CI, 2.69-15.95; P less than .001, respectively].

The researchers note that 82% of those who had taken a TNF-alpha inhibitor also took a thiopurine at some point.

The study says the “relatively high” standardized incident ratios are worrisome amid more use of dual immunomodulators and higher IBD rates in kids and younger adults. But the medications are “vital,” the study says, and the researchers suggest “targeted dermatology referrals for IBD patients, particularly those exposed to dual immunomodulatory therapy from an early age.”

The study authors disclose no source of funding and report no relevant disclosures.

In a global survey, 88% of respondents knew that unprotected sun exposure leads to skin cancer, but less than 60% “always” or “often” applied sunscreen to their faces, arms, and legs, researchers said.

Many respondents also reported ignoring whole categories of sun-protective behaviors – such as wearing long sleeves and seeking shade – and lacked knowledge about individual risk factors for skin cancer, such as skin type and size of moles, Sophie Seite, PhD, and her coauthors reported in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. These data suggest “that messaging needs to be specifically targeted for at-risk demographics (especially by age, gender, skin type, and country),” they added.

karenfoleyphotography/Thinkstock

In a global survey, 88% of respondents knew that unprotected sun exposure leads to skin cancer, but less than 60% “always” or “often” applied sunscreen to their faces, arms, and legs, researchers said.

Many respondents also reported ignoring whole categories of sun-protective behaviors – such as wearing long sleeves and seeking shade – and lacked knowledge about individual risk factors for skin cancer, such as skin type and size of moles, Sophie Seite, PhD, and her coauthors reported in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. These data suggest “that messaging needs to be specifically targeted for at-risk demographics (especially by age, gender, skin type, and country),” they added.

karenfoleyphotography/Thinkstock

In a global survey, 88% of respondents knew that unprotected sun exposure leads to skin cancer, but less than 60% “always” or “often” applied sunscreen to their faces, arms, and legs, researchers said.

Many respondents also reported ignoring whole categories of sun-protective behaviors – such as wearing long sleeves and seeking shade – and lacked knowledge about individual risk factors for skin cancer, such as skin type and size of moles, Sophie Seite, PhD, and her coauthors reported in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. These data suggest “that messaging needs to be specifically targeted for at-risk demographics (especially by age, gender, skin type, and country),” they added.

karenfoleyphotography/Thinkstock

Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

The differential diagnosis of cutaneous neoplasms with clear cells is broad. Clear cell features can be seen in primary tumors arising from the epidermis and cutaneous adnexa as well as in mesenchymal and melanocytic neoplasms. Furthermore, metastatic disease should be considered in the histologic differential diagnosis, as many visceral malignancies have clear cell features. This patient was subsequently found to have a large renal mass with metastasis to the lungs, spleen, and bone. The histologic findings support the diagnosis of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to the skin.

Approximately 30% of patients with clear cell RCC present with metastatic disease with approximately 8% of those involving the skin.^1,2 Cutaneous RCC metastases show a predilection for the head, especially the scalp. The clinical presentation is variable, but there often is a history of a rapidly growing brown, black, or purple nodule or plaque. A thorough review of the patient's history should be conducted if metastatic RCC is in the differential diagnosis, as it has been reported to occur up to 20 years after initial diagnosis.³

Histologically, clear cell RCC (quiz image) is composed of nests of tumor cells with clear cytoplasm and centrally located nuclei with prominent nucleoli. The clear cell features result from abundant cytoplasmic glycogen and lipid but may not be present in every case. One of the most important histologic features is the presence of delicate branching blood vessels (Figure 1). Numerous extravasated red blood cells also may be present. Positive immunohistochemical staining for PAX8, CD10, and RCC antigens support the diagnosis.⁴

Balloon cell nevi (Figure 2) most commonly occur on the head and neck in adolescents and young adults but clinically are indistinguishable from other banal nevi. The nevus cells are large with foamy to finely vacuolated cytoplasm and lack atypia. The clear cell change is the result of melanosome degeneration and may be extensive. The presence of melanin pigment, nests of typical nevus cells, and positive staining with MART-1 can help distinguish the tumor from xanthomas and RCC.⁵

Clear cell hidradenoma (Figure 3) is a well-circumscribed tumor of sweat gland origin that arises in the dermis. The architecture usually is solid, cystic, or a combination of both. The cytology is classically bland with poroid, squamoid, or clear cell morphology. Clear cells that are positive on periodic acid-Schiff staining predominate in up to one-third of cases. Carcinoembryonic antigen and epithelial membrane antigen can be used to highlight the eosinophilic cuticles of ducts within solid areas.⁶

Sebaceous carcinoma (Figure 4) most frequently arises in a periorbital distribution, although extraocular lesions are known to occur. Histologically, there is a proliferation of both mature sebocytes and basaloid cells in the dermis, occasionally involving the epidermis. The mature sebocytes demonstrate clear cell features with foamy to vacuolated cytoplasm and large nuclei with scalloped borders. The clear cells may vary greatly in number and often are sparse in poorly differentiated tumors in which pleomorphic basaloid cells may predominate. The basaloid cells may resemble those of squamous or basal cell carcinoma, leading to a diagnostic dilemma in some cases. Special staining with Sudan black B and oil red O highlights the cytoplasmic lipid but must be performed on frozen section specimens. Although not entirely specific, immunohistochemical expression of epithelial membrane antigen, androgen receptor, and membranous vesicular adipophilin staining in sebaceous carcinoma can assist in the diagnosis.⁷

Cutaneous xanthomas (Figure 5) may arise in patients of any age and represent deposition of lipid-laden macrophages. Classification often is dependent on the clinical presentation; however, some subtypes demonstrate unique morphologic features (eg, verruciform xanthomas). Xanthomas classically arise in association with elevated serum lipids, but they also may occur in normolipemic patients. Individuals with Erdheim-Chester disease have an increased propensity to develop xanthelasma. Similarly, plane xanthomas have been associated with monoclonal gammopathy. Histologically, xanthomas are characterized by sheets of foamy macrophages within the dermis and subcutis. Positive immunohistochemical staining for CD68 highlighting the histiocytic nature of the cells and the absence of a delicate vascular network aid in the differentiation from RCC.

Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

The differential diagnosis of cutaneous neoplasms with clear cells is broad. Clear cell features can be seen in primary tumors arising from the epidermis and cutaneous adnexa as well as in mesenchymal and melanocytic neoplasms. Furthermore, metastatic disease should be considered in the histologic differential diagnosis, as many visceral malignancies have clear cell features. This patient was subsequently found to have a large renal mass with metastasis to the lungs, spleen, and bone. The histologic findings support the diagnosis of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to the skin.

Approximately 30% of patients with clear cell RCC present with metastatic disease with approximately 8% of those involving the skin.^1,2 Cutaneous RCC metastases show a predilection for the head, especially the scalp. The clinical presentation is variable, but there often is a history of a rapidly growing brown, black, or purple nodule or plaque. A thorough review of the patient's history should be conducted if metastatic RCC is in the differential diagnosis, as it has been reported to occur up to 20 years after initial diagnosis.³

Histologically, clear cell RCC (quiz image) is composed of nests of tumor cells with clear cytoplasm and centrally located nuclei with prominent nucleoli. The clear cell features result from abundant cytoplasmic glycogen and lipid but may not be present in every case. One of the most important histologic features is the presence of delicate branching blood vessels (Figure 1). Numerous extravasated red blood cells also may be present. Positive immunohistochemical staining for PAX8, CD10, and RCC antigens support the diagnosis.⁴

Balloon cell nevi (Figure 2) most commonly occur on the head and neck in adolescents and young adults but clinically are indistinguishable from other banal nevi. The nevus cells are large with foamy to finely vacuolated cytoplasm and lack atypia. The clear cell change is the result of melanosome degeneration and may be extensive. The presence of melanin pigment, nests of typical nevus cells, and positive staining with MART-1 can help distinguish the tumor from xanthomas and RCC.⁵

Clear cell hidradenoma (Figure 3) is a well-circumscribed tumor of sweat gland origin that arises in the dermis. The architecture usually is solid, cystic, or a combination of both. The cytology is classically bland with poroid, squamoid, or clear cell morphology. Clear cells that are positive on periodic acid-Schiff staining predominate in up to one-third of cases. Carcinoembryonic antigen and epithelial membrane antigen can be used to highlight the eosinophilic cuticles of ducts within solid areas.⁶

Sebaceous carcinoma (Figure 4) most frequently arises in a periorbital distribution, although extraocular lesions are known to occur. Histologically, there is a proliferation of both mature sebocytes and basaloid cells in the dermis, occasionally involving the epidermis. The mature sebocytes demonstrate clear cell features with foamy to vacuolated cytoplasm and large nuclei with scalloped borders. The clear cells may vary greatly in number and often are sparse in poorly differentiated tumors in which pleomorphic basaloid cells may predominate. The basaloid cells may resemble those of squamous or basal cell carcinoma, leading to a diagnostic dilemma in some cases. Special staining with Sudan black B and oil red O highlights the cytoplasmic lipid but must be performed on frozen section specimens. Although not entirely specific, immunohistochemical expression of epithelial membrane antigen, androgen receptor, and membranous vesicular adipophilin staining in sebaceous carcinoma can assist in the diagnosis.⁷

Cutaneous xanthomas (Figure 5) may arise in patients of any age and represent deposition of lipid-laden macrophages. Classification often is dependent on the clinical presentation; however, some subtypes demonstrate unique morphologic features (eg, verruciform xanthomas). Xanthomas classically arise in association with elevated serum lipids, but they also may occur in normolipemic patients. Individuals with Erdheim-Chester disease have an increased propensity to develop xanthelasma. Similarly, plane xanthomas have been associated with monoclonal gammopathy. Histologically, xanthomas are characterized by sheets of foamy macrophages within the dermis and subcutis. Positive immunohistochemical staining for CD68 highlighting the histiocytic nature of the cells and the absence of a delicate vascular network aid in the differentiation from RCC.

Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

The differential diagnosis of cutaneous neoplasms with clear cells is broad. Clear cell features can be seen in primary tumors arising from the epidermis and cutaneous adnexa as well as in mesenchymal and melanocytic neoplasms. Furthermore, metastatic disease should be considered in the histologic differential diagnosis, as many visceral malignancies have clear cell features. This patient was subsequently found to have a large renal mass with metastasis to the lungs, spleen, and bone. The histologic findings support the diagnosis of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to the skin.

Approximately 30% of patients with clear cell RCC present with metastatic disease with approximately 8% of those involving the skin.^1,2 Cutaneous RCC metastases show a predilection for the head, especially the scalp. The clinical presentation is variable, but there often is a history of a rapidly growing brown, black, or purple nodule or plaque. A thorough review of the patient's history should be conducted if metastatic RCC is in the differential diagnosis, as it has been reported to occur up to 20 years after initial diagnosis.³

Histologically, clear cell RCC (quiz image) is composed of nests of tumor cells with clear cytoplasm and centrally located nuclei with prominent nucleoli. The clear cell features result from abundant cytoplasmic glycogen and lipid but may not be present in every case. One of the most important histologic features is the presence of delicate branching blood vessels (Figure 1). Numerous extravasated red blood cells also may be present. Positive immunohistochemical staining for PAX8, CD10, and RCC antigens support the diagnosis.⁴

Balloon cell nevi (Figure 2) most commonly occur on the head and neck in adolescents and young adults but clinically are indistinguishable from other banal nevi. The nevus cells are large with foamy to finely vacuolated cytoplasm and lack atypia. The clear cell change is the result of melanosome degeneration and may be extensive. The presence of melanin pigment, nests of typical nevus cells, and positive staining with MART-1 can help distinguish the tumor from xanthomas and RCC.⁵

Clear cell hidradenoma (Figure 3) is a well-circumscribed tumor of sweat gland origin that arises in the dermis. The architecture usually is solid, cystic, or a combination of both. The cytology is classically bland with poroid, squamoid, or clear cell morphology. Clear cells that are positive on periodic acid-Schiff staining predominate in up to one-third of cases. Carcinoembryonic antigen and epithelial membrane antigen can be used to highlight the eosinophilic cuticles of ducts within solid areas.⁶

Sebaceous carcinoma (Figure 4) most frequently arises in a periorbital distribution, although extraocular lesions are known to occur. Histologically, there is a proliferation of both mature sebocytes and basaloid cells in the dermis, occasionally involving the epidermis. The mature sebocytes demonstrate clear cell features with foamy to vacuolated cytoplasm and large nuclei with scalloped borders. The clear cells may vary greatly in number and often are sparse in poorly differentiated tumors in which pleomorphic basaloid cells may predominate. The basaloid cells may resemble those of squamous or basal cell carcinoma, leading to a diagnostic dilemma in some cases. Special staining with Sudan black B and oil red O highlights the cytoplasmic lipid but must be performed on frozen section specimens. Although not entirely specific, immunohistochemical expression of epithelial membrane antigen, androgen receptor, and membranous vesicular adipophilin staining in sebaceous carcinoma can assist in the diagnosis.⁷

Cutaneous xanthomas (Figure 5) may arise in patients of any age and represent deposition of lipid-laden macrophages. Classification often is dependent on the clinical presentation; however, some subtypes demonstrate unique morphologic features (eg, verruciform xanthomas). Xanthomas classically arise in association with elevated serum lipids, but they also may occur in normolipemic patients. Individuals with Erdheim-Chester disease have an increased propensity to develop xanthelasma. Similarly, plane xanthomas have been associated with monoclonal gammopathy. Histologically, xanthomas are characterized by sheets of foamy macrophages within the dermis and subcutis. Positive immunohistochemical staining for CD68 highlighting the histiocytic nature of the cells and the absence of a delicate vascular network aid in the differentiation from RCC.