No abstract

Skin cancer is the most common malignancy affecting solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR), and SOTR experience increased skin cancerassociated morbidity and mortality. There are no formal multidisciplinary guidelines for skin cancer screening after transplant, and current practices are widely variable. We conducted three rounds of Delphi method surveys with a panel of 84 U.S. dermatologists and transplant physicians to establish skin cancer screening recommendations for SOTR. The transplant team should risk stratify SOTR for screening, and dermatologists should perform skin cancer screening by full-body skin examination. SOTR with a history of skin cancer should continue regular follow-up with dermatology for skin cancer surveillance. High-risk transplant patients include thoracic organ recipients, SOTR age 50 and above, and male SOTR. High-risk Caucasian patients should be screened within 2 years after transplant, all Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic, and high-risk African American patients should be screened within 5 years after transplant. No consensus was reached regarding screening for low-risk African American SOTR. We propose a standardized approach to skin cancer screening in SOTR based on multidisciplinary expert consensus. These guidelines prioritize and emphasize the need for screening for SOTR at greatest risk for skin cancer. ª 2019 Steunstichting ESOT

HRQoL in CTCL appears related to a number of factors, including presence of a psychiatric condition, use of systemic (particularly high grade) therapy, number of medical comorbidities, and income.

Microneedles (MNs) allow transdermal delivery of skin-impermeable drugs by creating transient epidermal micropores, and micropore lifetime directly affects drug diffusion timeframes. Healthy subjects (n = 111) completed the study, self-identifying as Asian (n = 32), Bi-/multi-racial (n = 10), Black (n = 22), White (n = 23), Latino (n = 23), and Native American/Hawaiian (n = 1). L* was measured with tristimulus colorimetry to objectively describe skin lightness/darkness. MNs were applied to the upper arm; impedance and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) were measured at baseline and post-MN to confirm micropore formation. Impedance was repeated for 4 days to determine micropore lifetime. Post-MN changes in TEWL and impedance were significant in all groups (p < 0.05), confirming micropore formation regardless of skin type. Micropore lifetime was significantly longer in Blacks (66.5 ± 19.5 h) versus Asians (44.1 ± 14.0 h), Bi-/multi-racial (48.0 ± 16.0 h), and Whites (50.2 ± 2.6 h). Latinos (61.1 ± 16.1 h) had significantly longer micropore closure time versus Asians (44.1 ± 14.0 h). When categorizing data according to L*, micropore lifetime was significantly longer in darker skin. We report for the first time that micropore lifetime differences are present in human subjects of different ethnic/racial backgrounds, with longer micropore lifetime in skin of color. These results also suggest that objectively measured skin color is a better predictor of micropore lifetime than self-identified race/ethnicity.

This case highlights a rare polymorphic variant of primary cutaneous EBV-associated PTLD and increases awareness of this uncommon posttransplant complication. Cutaneous PTLD is reviewed, therefore dermatologists are aware of this uncommon disorder.