No abstract

IMPORTANCE Despite the growing popularity of cosmetic procedures, the sociocultural and quality-of-life factors that motivate patients to undergo such procedures are not well understood. OBJECTIVE To estimate the relative importance of factors that motivate patients to seek minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective, multicenter observational study was performed at 2 academic and 11 private dermatology practice sites that represented all US geographic regions. Adult patients presenting for cosmetic consultation or treatment from December 4, 2016, through August 9, 2017, were eligible for participation. EXPOSURES Participants completed a survey instrument based on a recently developed subjective framework of motivations and a demographic questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcomes were the self-reported most common motivations in each quality-of-life category. Secondary outcomes were other frequently reported motivations and those associated with specific procedures. RESULTS Of 529 eligible patients, 511 agreed to participate, were enrolled, and completed the survey. Typical respondents were female (440 [86.1%]), 45 years or older (286 [56.0%]), white (386 [75.5%]), and college educated (469 [91.8%]) and had previously received at least 2 cosmetic procedures (270 [52.8%]). Apart from motivations pertaining to aesthetic appearance, including the desire for beautiful skin and a youthful, attractive appearance, motives related to physical health, such as preventing worsening of condition or symptoms (253 of 475 [53.3%]), and psychosocial well-being, such as the desire to feel happier and more confident or improve total quality of life (314 of 467 [67.2%]), treat oneself or celebrate (284 of 463 [61.3%]), and look good professionally (261 of 476 [54.8%]) were commonly reported. Motivations related to cost and convenience were rated as less important (68 of 483 [14.1%]). Most motivations were internally generated, designed to please the patients and not others, with patients making the decision to undergo cosmetic procedures themselves and spouses seldom being influential. Patients younger than 45 years were more likely to undertake procedures to prevent aging (54 of 212 [25.5%] vs 42 of 286 [14.7%] among patients Ն45 years; P < .001). Patients seeking certain procedures, such as body contouring (19 of 22 [86.4%]), acne scar treatment (36 of 42 [85.7%]), and tattoo removal (8 of 11 [72.7%]), were more likely to report psychological and emotional motivations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This initial prospective, multicenter study comprehensively assessed why patients seek minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. Common reasons included emotional, psychological, and practical motivations in addition to the desire to enhance physical appearance. Differences relative to patient age and procedures sought may need further exploration.

No abstract

disease (EMPD) is a frequently recurring malignant neoplasm with metastatic potential that presents in older adults on the genital, perianal, and axillary skin. Extramammary Paget disease can precede or occur along with internal malignant neoplasms. OBJECTIVE To develop recommendations for the care of adults with EMPD.EVIDENCE REVIEW A systematic review of the literature on EMPD from January 1990 to September 18, 2019, was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Libraries. Analysis included 483 studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel evaluation of the findings led to the development of clinical care recommendations for EMPD. FINDINGSThe key findings were as follows: (1) Multiple skin biopsies, including those of any nodular areas, are critical for diagnosis. (2) Malignant neoplasm screening appropriate for age and anatomical site should be performed at baseline to distinguish between primary and secondary EMPD. (3) Routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy or lymph node dissection is not recommended. (4) For intraepidermal EMPD, surgical and nonsurgical treatments may be used depending on patient and tumor characteristics, although cure rates may be superior with surgical approaches. For invasive EMPD, surgical resection with curative intent is preferred. ( 5) Patients with unresectable intraepidermal EMPD or patients who are medically unable to undergo surgery may receive nonsurgical treatments, including radiotherapy, imiquimod, photodynamic therapy, carbon dioxide laser therapy, or other modalities. (6) Distant metastatic disease may be treated with chemotherapy or individualized targeted approaches. (7) Close follow-up to monitor for recurrence is recommended for at least the first 5 years.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Clinical practice guidelines for EMPD provide guidance regarding recommended diagnostic approaches, differentiation between invasive and noninvasive disease, and use of surgical vs nonsurgical treatments. Prospective registries may further improve our understanding of the natural history of the disease in primary vs secondary EMPD, clarify features of high-risk tumors, and identify superior management approaches.

IMPORTANCE Microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC) occurs primarily in older adults of white race/ethnicity on sun-exposed skin of the head and neck. There are no formal guiding principles based on expert review of the evidence to assist clinicians in providing the highest-quality care for patients. OBJECTIVE To develop recommendations for the care of adults with MAC.EVIDENCE REVIEW A systematic review of the literature (1990 to June 2018) was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The keywords searched were microcystic adnexal carcinoma, sclerosing sweat gland carcinoma, sclerosing sweat duct carcinoma, syringomatous carcinoma, malignant syringoma, sweat gland carcinoma with syringomatous features, locally aggressive adnexal carcinoma, and combined adnexal tumor. A multidisciplinary expert committee critically evaluated the literature to create recommendations for clinical practice. Statistical analysis was used to estimate optimal surgical margins.

No abstract

IMPORTANCEThe notion that systemic isotretinoin taken within 6 to 12 months of cutaneous surgery contributes to abnormal scarring or delayed wound healing is widely taught and practiced; however, it is based on 3 small case series from the mid-1980s.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the body of literature to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the safety of procedural interventions performed either concurrently with, or immediately following the cessation of systemic isotretinoin therapy.EVIDENCE REVIEW A panel of national experts in pediatric dermatology, procedural/cosmetic dermatology, plastic surgery, scars, wound healing, acne, and isotretinoin was convened. A systematic PubMed review of English-language articles published from 1982 to 2017 was performed using the following search terms: isotretinoin, 13-cis-retinoic acid, Accutane, retinoids, acitretin, surgery, surgical, laser, ablative laser, nonablative laser, laser hair removal, chemical peel, dermabrasion, wound healing, safety, scarring, hypertrophic scar, and keloid. Evidence was graded, and expert consensus was obtained.FINDINGS Thirty-two relevant publications reported 1485 procedures. There was insufficient evidence to support delaying manual dermabrasion, superficial chemical peels, cutaneous surgery, laser hair removal, and fractional ablative and nonablative laser procedures for patients currently receiving or having recently completed isotretinoin therapy. Based on the available literature, mechanical dermabrasion and fully ablative laser are not recommended in the setting of systemic isotretinoin treatment.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Physicians and patients may have an evidence-based discussion regarding the known risk of cutaneous surgical procedures in the setting of systemic isotretinoin therapy. For some patients and some conditions, an informed decision may lead to earlier and potentially more effective interventions.

The task force concluded that there is insufficient evidence to justify delaying treatment with superficial chemical peels and nonablative lasers, including hair removal lasers and lights, vascular lasers, and nonablative fractional devices for patients currently or recently exposed to isotretinoin. Superficial and focal dermabrasion may also be safe when performed by a well-trained clinician.