Timely diagnosis and management of periocular malignancies is essential because of their proximity to and potential to invade vital structures such as the orbit, sinuses, and brain. Surgical excision remains the standard of care for the majority of periorbital malignancies, but given the sensitive anatomic location, tissue-sparing techniques with margin control such as Mohs micrographic surgery are the preferred method for most nonmelanoma skin cancers. Depending on tumor type, other treatment modalities may include radiation, chemotherapy, cryosurgery, topical medications, and photodynamic therapy.

Large congenital melanocytic nevi (LCMN) in neonates can cause considerable concern for parents, family members, and physicians. A detailed understanding of the medical risks, including cutaneous melanoma (CM), extracutaneous melanoma (ECM), and neurocutaneous melanocytosis (NCM), as well as the psychological stress that these lesions can cause in patients, will guide informed management decisions as well as provide comfort to parents. Current data indicate that LCMN greater than 20 cm, and more likely greater than 40 to 60 cm, are the lesions at greatest risk for complications such as CM, ECM, and NCM. Additionally, lesions on the trunk are at greater risk for developing CM, and LCMN in association with numerous satellite nevi are at greatest risk for NCM. Individualized management plans, including clinical observation, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and possibly surgery should be based on the risk versus benefit ratio, taking into account the size of the LCMN, its location, the number of satellite nevi, symptoms, and numerous other factors which will be reviewed. This paper will provide a detailed analysis of the risks associated with LCMN, as well as a discussion regarding management and treatment options.

Recent guidelines from the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have been proposed for the assessment of “high-risk” cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs). Though different in perspective, both guidelines share the common goals of trying to identify “high-risk” cSCCs and improving patient outcomes. Thus, in theory, both definitions should identify a similar proportion of “high-risk” tumors. We sought to evaluate the AJCC and NCCN definitions of “high-risk” cSCCs and to assess their concordance. Methods. A retrospective review of head and neck cSCCs seen by an academic dermatology department from July 2010 to November 2011 was performed. Results. By AJCC criteria, most tumors (n = 211,82.1%) were of Stage 1; 46 tumors (13.9%) were of Stage 2. Almost all were of Stage 2 due to size alone (≥2 cm); one tumor was “upstaged” due to “high-risk features.” Using the NCCN taxonomy, 231 (87%) of tumors were “high-risk.” Discussion. This analysis demonstrates discordance between AJCC and NCCN definitions of “high-risk” cSCC. Few cSCCs are of Stage 2 by AJCC criteria, while most are “high-risk” by the NCCN guidelines. While the current guidelines represent significant progress, further studies are needed to generate a unified definition of “high-risk” cSCC to optimize management.

No abstract

No abstract