Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) is a rare disorder characterized by extensive epidermal death. Almost all cases appear to be caused by an idiosyncratic drug reaction. Proposed pathogenic mechanisms are conflicting, and the evidence for the benefits of individual treatments is inadequate, and in some cases contradictory. The mortality rate remains high. We review the literature pertaining to the pathogenesis of TEN and drug reactions in general. The rationale for therapeutic interventions, together with reported evidence of efficacy, are considered. We present a composite model of TEN, based on previous work and suggested pathogeneses of TEN, mechanisms of drug reactions and reported cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) cytolytic pathways. In this system, TEN, like some other cutaneous drug eruptions, is an HLA class I-restricted, specific drug sensitivity, resulting in clonal expansion of CD8+ CTLs. Cytotoxicity is mediated by CTL granzyme and possibly death receptor (DR) ligand (DR-L), probably Fas ligand (FasL). Particular to TEN, there is then an amplification sequence involving further DR-L expression. FasL is likely to be particularly important but tumour necrosis factor (TNF) may well contribute, via the TNF receptor 1 (TNF-R1) death pathway. Alternatively, we suggest the possibility of upregulation of an antiapoptotic TNF-R1-nuclear factor kappaB pathway, which would proscribe treatments which downregulate this pathway. None of the published data on individual treatment efficacies is sufficiently strong to suggest a definitive single treatment. Currently a multifaceted regimen appears indicated, targeting various likely intermediary mechanisms, including elimination of residual drug, immunosuppression, inhibition of DR pathways, general antiapoptotic strategies, and aggressive supportive care. Particular attention has been directed at avoiding potential conflicts between different treatments and avoiding agents that theoretically might have a net proapoptotic rather than antiapoptotic effect. Nursing on a specialized unit is of paramount importance.

Few treatments for alopecia areata have been well evaluated in randomised trials. We found no RCTs on the use of diphencyprone, dinitrochlorobenzene, intralesional corticosteroids or dithranol although they are commonly used for the treatment of alopecia areata. Similarly although topical steroids and minoxidil are widely prescribed and appear to be safe, there is no convincing evidence that they are beneficial in the long-term. Most trials have been reported poorly and are so small that any important clinical benefits are inconclusive. There is a desperate need for large well conducted studies that evaluate long-term effects of therapies on quality of life. Considering the possibility of spontaneous remission especially for those in the early stages of the disease, the options of not being treated therapeutically or, depending on individual preference wearing a wig may be alternative ways of dealing with this condition.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous melanoma accounts for 75% of skin cancer deaths. Standard treatment is surgical excision with a safety margin some distance from the borders of the primary tumour. The purpose of the safety margin is to remove both the complete primary tumour and any melanoma cells that might have spread into the surrounding skin. Excision margins are important because there could be trade-off between a better cosmetic result but poorer long-term survival if margins become too narrow. The optimal width of excision margins remains unclear. This uncertainty warrants systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: In August 2009 we searched for relevant randomised trials in the Cochrane Skin Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2009), Medline, Embase, Lilacs, and other databases including Ongoing Trials Registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical excision of melanoma comparing different width excision margins. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed trial quality, and extracted and analyzed data on survival and recurrence. We collected adverse effects information from included trials. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five trials. There were 1633 participants in the narrow excision margin group and 1664 in the wide excision margin group. Narrow margin definition ranged from 1 to 2 cm; wide margins ranged from 3 to 5 cm. Median follow-up ranged from 5 to 16 years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review summarises the evidence regarding width of excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma. None of the five published trials, nor our meta-analysis, showed a statistically significant difference in overall survival between narrow or wide excision. The summary estimate for overall survival favoured wide excision by a small degree [Hazard Ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.15; P = 0.40], but the result was not significantly different. This result is compatible with both a 5% relative reduction in overall mortality favouring narrower excision and a 15% relative reduction in overall mortality favouring wider excision. Therefore, a small (but potentially important) difference in overall survival between wide and narrow excision margins cannot be confidently ruled out. The summary estimate for recurrence free survival favoured wide excision [Hazard Ratio 1.13; P = 0.06; 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.28] but again the result did not reach statistical significance (P < 0.05 level). Current randomized trial evidence is insufficient to address optimal excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma.