No abstract

PURPOSE We have previously reported on the 3-year results of the phase III German Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group trial (DeCOG; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02434107 ) comparing distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients with positive sentinel lymph-node biopsy who were randomly assigned to complete lymph node dissection (CLND) or observation. Here, we report the final analysis with 72 months of median follow up. PATIENTS AND METHODS The multicenter randomized phase III trial included patients with cutaneous melanoma of the trunk and extremities who were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo CLND or observation. DMFS was analyzed as the primary end point, and RFS, OS, and recurrences in the regional lymph node basin were secondary end points. The analysis was by intention to treat. Disease and survival information were collected quarterly. RESULTS From January 2006 to December 2014, 5,547 patients were screened to identify 1,256 with metastases in the sentinel lymph node (SLN). Of these, 483 (39%) were included: 241 in the observation arm and 242 in the CLND arm. In the final analysis, median follow up was 72 months (interquartile range, 67-77 months). No significant treatment-related difference was seen in the 5-year DMFS between the observation and CLND arms (67.6% v 64.9%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; P = .87). The 5-year RFS and OS also showed no difference (HR, 1.01 and 0.99, respectively). Grade 3 and 4 adverse effects occurred in 32 patients (13%) in the CLND arm; lymphedema (n = 20) and delayed wound healing (n = 5) were most common and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION The final results of the German Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group trial with a median follow up of 72 months showed higher event rates, but similar HRs compared with those at the 3-year analysis. These results confirm that immediate CLND in SLN-positive patients is not superior to observation in terms of DMFS, RFS, or OS and support not recommending CLND in patients with SLN metastasis.

Nicotinic acid (also generally known as niacin) and niacinamide (also known as nicotinamide) are similarly effective as a vitamin because they can be converted into each other within the organism. The blanket term vitamin B(3) is used for both. Niacinamide is a component of important coenzymes involved in hydrogen transfer. Here, the two codehydrogenases, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADP) are of central importance. Topical application of niacinamide has a stabilizing effect on epidermal barrier function, seen as a reduction in transepidermal water loss and an improvement in the moisture content of the horny layer. Niacinamide leads to an increase in protein synthesis (e.g. keratin), has a stimulating effect on ceramide synthesis, speeds up the differentiation of keratinocytes, and raises intracellular NADP levels. In ageing skin, topical application of niacinamide improves the surface structure, smoothes out wrinkles and inhibits photocarcinogenesis. It is possible to demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects in acne, rosacea and nitrogen mustard-induced irritation. Because of its verifiable beneficial effects, niacinamide would be a suitable component in cosmetic products for use in disorders of epidermal barrier function, for ageing skin, for improving pigmentary disorders and for use on skin prone to acne.

Background: Topical retinoic acid (RA) causes irritation of the skin. To prevent this side effect, natural precursors of RA have been proposed. The aim of the present study was to compare the local tolerance profiles of retinol (ROL), retinaldehyde (RAL) and RA. Methods: ROL, RAL and RA were studied using repeated insult patch tests for 14 days (n = 6). Similarly, RAL and RA were assessed in long-term clinical use for 44 weeks (n = 355). Clinical scoring on irritation, measurement of transepidermal water loss (barrier function) and laser Doppler blood flow perfusion units (irritation) were performed. Results: Under maximized conditions, an equally low irritation potential for ROL and RAL and a more pronounced irritant effect with RA could be demonstrated clinically (p < 0.05 in the intergroup analysis). Furthermore, RAL and RA induced more scaling than ROL (p < 0.05), and ROL and RA tended to induce more burning/pruritus than RAL (nonsignificant). The TEWL values were low with ROL and high with RAL and RA (nonsignificant, intergroup analysis). The laser Doppler measurements confirmed pro-irritating effects of RA and the nonirritating effects of ROL and RAL (p = 0.001, intergroup analysis). The long-term clinical study showed that the study population developed a high frequency of erythema (44% of the population), scaling (35%) and burning/pruritus (29%) with RA in the first 4 weeks of treatment, whereas these 3 parameters were significantly less frequent with RAL (p < 0.0001 in the intergroup analysis). Conclusion: The natural retinoids ROL and RAL do have a good tolerance profile, in contrast with the irritating potential of RA.

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study the effect of topical dexpanthenol (CAS 81-13-0) formulated in two different lipophilic vehicles on epidermal barrier function in vivo was carried out. Seven days' treatment with dexpanthenol improved stratum corneum hydration and reduced transepidermal water loss. Active treatment was statistically different from the vehicle control on both measures. Our results suggest that topical dexpanthenol formulated in either lipophilic vehicle stabilizes the skin barrier function.