No abstract

Introduction: National guidelines for cutaneous melanoma suggest avoiding sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) if the risk of SLN positivity is <5% (T1a with no high-risk features), considering SLNB if the risk is 5-10% (T1a with additional high-risk features (T1aHR) and T1b), and offering SLNB if the risk is >10% (T2-T4). Because most patients (88%) who undergo an SLNB have a negative result, novel tools to identify patients who can safely forgo SLNB are critical. The integrated 31-gene expression profile (i31-GEP for SLNB) test for cutaneous melanoma combines tumor molecular biology with clinicopathologic features to provide a precise risk of SLN positivity. The Melanoma Institute of Australia (MIA) developed a nomogram that uses only clinicopathologic features to predict SLN positivity. Methods: We compared the i31-GEP for SLNB to the MIA nomogram in patients with T1-T2 tumors with complete data (n=582). The precision of each tool to identify patients with <5% SLN positivity risk was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals. To be considered low risk, the predicted risk must be <5% and the upper 95% confidence interval must be ≤10%, and to be considered high-risk, the predicted risk must be >10% and the lower 95% CI ≥5%. Results: The i31-GEP for SLNB identified 28.5% (166/582) of patients as having a <5% risk of SLN positivity while also having an upper 95% CI ≤10% compared with 0.9% (5/582, p<0.001) using the MIA nomogram. In patients with a pre-test likelihood of SLN positivity of 5-10% (T1aHR-T1b), the i31-GEP reclassified risk in 60.2% (171/284) of patients as being <5% or >10%  compared to 13.7% (39/284, p<0.001) using the MIA nomogram. In patients with a known SLN status (n=466), the i31-GEP for SLNB identified 22.1% (103/466) of patients as having <5% risk, with a 3.9% (4/103) SLN positivity rate compared to 0.6% (3/466, p<0.001) identified by the MIA as having a <5% risk with a 33.3% (1/3) SLN positivity rate. Conclusions: The i31-GEP test outperformed the MIA nomogram in identifying patients who could safely forego SLNB. Integrating the 31-GEP molecular risk stratification tool with clinicopathologic features provides precise SLN positivity risk to better guide patient management in patients with T1-T2 tumors, for whom SLNB guidance could be most impactful.

No abstract

Background: Although intravenous (IV) infiltration is relatively common, data regarding complications and outcomes of this problem remain limited. In addition, there is wide variation in institutional protocols for the management of IV infiltrations. Through retrospective review, we aim to delineate complications and outcomes, and propose an algorithm for the management of these injuries. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all patients who had an IV infiltration at a tertiary care center’s inpatient and outpatient facilities between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Results: In all, 479 patients with 495 infiltrations were included, with a mean age of 36.7 years. The upper extremity was involved in 89.6% of events. Of all the events, 8.6% led to a superficial soft tissue infection, 3.2% led to necrosis or eschar formation, and 1.9% led to ulceration or full-thickness wound formation. There were zero cases of compartment syndrome. Only 5.1% resulted in any long-term defects; none resulted in a functional defect of the extremity. Patients with vascular disease did not experience worse outcomes compared with healthy individuals. Plastic or orthopedic surgery was consulted in 25.3% of events. No emergent surgical intervention was required, 7 (1.4%) required bedside procedures, and 7 (1.4%) patients underwent nonacute operations. Conclusions: A specialist was consulted in about one-quarter of IV infiltrations, yet none were surgical emergencies. Instead, most complications could be monitored and managed by a primary team. Therefore, we propose algorithms involving nursing staff, wound care teams, and primary physicians with limited specialist consultation to manage these injuries.

BACKGROUNDThe dermatology residency application process implemented a new system of preference signaling tokens (PSTs) in the 2021-2022 cycle to allow applicants to express a higher level of interest in specific programs. Limited data are available on the utilization and impact of these tokens.OBJECTIVETo determine the impact of PSTs on the application process and where in the process PSTs had the greatest influence.MATERIALS AND METHODSA 14-question survey was sent to 62 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs. Primary outcomes were PST impact on 2021-2022 applications. Variables were evaluated using open-ended questions, yes/no responses, and importance ratings from 0 to 100.RESULTSAn average of 7.1% of applicants were offered interviews, but 21.1% of applicants that submitted PSTs were interviewed versus 3.7% of nonsubmitters. 22.5% of ranked applicants and 19% of matched applicants submitted a PST to that program.LimitationsNot all programs responded, and PST submission restrictions could not be assessed.CONCLUSIONThe greatest PST impact was on the interview decision but had minimal subsequent impact. Given PSTs cannot be submitted to home programs or in-person away rotations, the actual impact was probably greater than found. Programs will continue to implement PSTs in future cycles.