Importance Multiple patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for health-related quality of life (HRQL) exist for patients with psoriasis. Evidence for the content validity and other measurement... Show moreImportance Multiple patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for health-related quality of life (HRQL) exist for patients with psoriasis. Evidence for the content validity and other measurement properties of these PROMs is critical to determine which HRQL PROMs could be recommended for use.Objective To systematically review the validity of HRQL-focused PROMs used in patients with psoriasis.Evidence Review Using PubMed and Embase, full-text articles published in English or Spanish on development or validation studies for psoriasis-specific, dermatology-specific, or generic HRQL PROMs were included. Development studies included original development studies, even if not studied in psoriasis patients per Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) recommendations. If a study included multiple diagnoses, more than 50% of patients had to have psoriasis or psoriasis-specific subgroup analyses available. Data extraction and analysis followed the COSMIN guidelines. Two independent reviewers extracted and analyzed the data, including PROM characteristics, quality of measurement properties (structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, construct validity, and responsiveness), and level of evidence. PROMs were classified into 3 levels of recommendations: (1) PROM recommended for use; (2) PROM requires further validation; and (3) PROM not recommended for use.Findings Overall, 97 articles were identified for extraction. This included 19 psoriasis-specific, 8 skin-specific, and 6 generic PROMs. According to COSMIN standards, most measures identified received a B recommendation for use, indicating their potential but requiring further validation. Only the Rasch reduced version of the Impact of Psoriasis Questionnaire (IPSO-11 Rasch) received an A recommendation for use given that it had sufficient content validity, structural validity, and internal consistency.Conclusions and Relevance This study identified a significant lack of information concerning the quality of HRQL measures in psoriasis. This gap in knowledge can be attributed to the fact that traditional measures were developed using validation criteria that differ from the current standards in use. Consequently, additional validation studies in accordance with contemporary standards will be useful in aiding researchers and clinicians in determining the most suitable measure for assessing HRQL in patients with psoriasis. Show less
Importance Knowledge about the prevalence and tumor types of CDKN2A-related melanoma-astrocytoma syndrome (MAS) is limited and could improve disease recognition.Objective To estimate the... Show moreImportance Knowledge about the prevalence and tumor types of CDKN2A-related melanoma-astrocytoma syndrome (MAS) is limited and could improve disease recognition.Objective To estimate the prevalence and describe the tumor types of MAS.Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study analyzed all available MAS cases from medical centers in the US (2 sites) and Europe (2 sites) and from biomedical population genomic databases (UK Biobank [United Kingdom], Geisinger MyCode [US]) between January 1, 1976, and December 31, 2020. Patients with MAS with CDKN2A germline pathogenic variants and 1 or more neural tumors were included. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023.Main Outcomes and Measures Disease prevalence and tumor frequency.Results Prevalence of MAS ranged from 1 in 170 503 (n = 1 case; 95% CI, 1:30 098-1:965 887) in Geisinger MyCode (n = 170 503; mean [SD] age, 58.9 [19.1] years; 60.6% women; 96.2% White) to 1 in 39 149 (n = 12 cases; 95% CI, 1:22 396-1:68 434) in UK Biobank (n = 469 789; mean [SD] age, 70.0 [8.0] years; 54.2% women; 94.8% White). Among UK Biobank patients with MAS (n = 12) identified using an unbiased genomic ascertainment approach, brain neoplasms (4 of 12, 33%; 1 glioblastoma, 1 gliosarcoma, 1 astrocytoma, 1 unspecified type) and schwannomas (3 of 12, 25%) were the most common malignant and benign neural tumors, while cutaneous melanoma (2 of 12, 17%) and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (2 of 12, 17%) were the most common nonneural malignant neoplasms. In a separate case series of 14 patients with MAS from the US and Europe, brain neoplasms (4 of 14, 29%; 2 glioblastomas, 2 unspecified type) and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (2 of 14, 14%) were the most common neural cancers, while cutaneous melanoma (4 of 14, 29%) and sarcomas (2 of 14, 14%; 1 liposarcoma, 1 unspecified type) were the most common nonneural cancers. Cutaneous neurofibromas (7 of 14, 50%) and schwannomas (2 of 14, 14%) were also common. In 1 US family, a father and son with MAS had clinical diagnoses of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). Genetic testing of the son detected a pathogenic CDKN2A splicing variant (c.151-1G>C) and was negative for NF1 genetic alterations. In UK Biobank, 2 in 150 (1.3%) individuals with clinical NF1 diagnoses had likely pathogenic variants in CDKN2A, including 1 individual with no detected variants in the NF1 gene.Conclusions and Relevance This cohort study estimates the prevalence and describes the tumors of MAS. Additional studies are needed in genetically diverse populations to further define population prevalence and disease phenotypes. Show less
Importance Systemic sclerosis (SSc) sine scleroderma (ssSSc) is a subset of SSc defined by the absence of skin fibrosis. Little is known about the natural history and skin manifestations among... Show moreImportance Systemic sclerosis (SSc) sine scleroderma (ssSSc) is a subset of SSc defined by the absence of skin fibrosis. Little is known about the natural history and skin manifestations among patients with ssSSc.Objective To characterize the clinical phenotype of patients with ssSSc compared with patients with limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc) and diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) within the EUSTAR database.Design, Setting, and Participants This longitudinal observational cohort study based on the international EUSTAR database included all patients fulfilling the classification criteria for SSc assessed by the modified Rodnan Skin score (mRSS) at inclusion and with at least 1 follow-up visit; ssSSc was defined by the absence of skin fibrosis (mRSS = 0 and no sclerodactyly) at all available visits. Data extraction was performed in November 2020, and data analysis was performed from April 2021 to April 2023.Main Outcomes and Measures Main outcomes were survival and skin manifestations (onset of skin fibrosis, digital ulcers, telangiectasias, puffy fingers).Results Among the 4263 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria, 376 (8.8%) were classified as having ssSSc (mean [SD] age, 55.3 [13.9] years; 345 [91.8%] were female). At last available visit, in comparison with 708 patients with lcSSc and 708 patients with dcSSc with the same disease duration, patients with ssSSc had a lower prevalence of previous or current digital ulcers (28.2% vs 53.1% in lcSSc; P < .001; and 68.3% in dcSSc; P < .001) and puffy fingers (63.8% vs 82.4% in lcSSc; P < .001; and 87.6% in dcSSc; P < .001). By contrast, the prevalence of interstitial lung disease was similar in ssSSc and lcSSc (49.8% and 57.1%; P = .03) but significantly higher in dcSSc (75.0%; P < .001). Skin telangiectasias were associated with diastolic dysfunction in patients with ssSSc (odds ratio, 4.778; 95% CI, 2.060-11.081; P < .001). The only independent factor for the onset of skin fibrosis in ssSSc was the positivity for anti–Scl-70 antibodies (odds ratio, 3.078; 95% CI, 1.227-7.725; P = .02). Survival rate was higher in patients with ssSSc (92.4%) compared with lcSSc (69.4%; P = .06) and dcSSc (55.5%; P < .001) after up to 15 years of follow-up.Conclusions and Relevance Systemic sclerosis sine scleroderma should not be neglected considering the high prevalence of interstitial lung disease (>40%) and SSc renal crisis (almost 3%). Patients with ssSSc had a higher survival than other subsets. Dermatologists should be aware that cutaneous findings in this subgroup may be associated with internal organ dysfunction. In particular, skin telangiectasias in ssSSc were associated with diastolic heart dysfunction. Show less
Gomez-Tomas, A.; Bouwes Bavinck, J.N.; Genders, R.; Gonzalez-Cruz, C.; Jong, E. de; Arron, S.; ... ; Ferrandiz-Pulido, C. 2022
Key Points Question: Is the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator (SUNTRAC) tool valid for guiding skin cancer screening in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs)? Findings... Show moreKey Points Question: Is the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator (SUNTRAC) tool valid for guiding skin cancer screening in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs)? Findings: This prognostic study found good prognostic discrimination in a European cohort of 3421 SOTRs. The observed skin cancer incidences were similar to those predicted from the US SOTR population for each risk group. Meaning: These findings suggest that the SUNTRAC tool can be transported to different populations to stratify SOTRs into distinct skin cancer risk groups and identify those at a very high risk, opening the door to efficient and effective preventive measures.This prognostic study assesses the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator (SUNTRAC) tool to validate it in different populations of solid organ transplant recipients.Importance: The Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator (SUNTRAC) tool has been developed in the US to facilitate the identification of solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) at a higher risk of developing skin cancer. However, it has not yet been validated in populations other than the one used for its creation. Objective: To provide an external validation of the SUNTRAC tool in different SOTR populations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective external validation prognostic study used data from a prospectively collected cohort of European SOTRs from transplant centers at teaching hospitals in the Netherlands (1995-2016) and Spain (2011-2021). Participants were screened and followed up at dermatology departments. Data were analyzed from September to October 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The discrimination ability of the SUNTRAC tool was assessed via a competing risk survival analysis, cumulative incidence plots, and Wolbers concordance index. Calibration of the SUNTRAC tool was assessed through comparison of projected skin cancer incidences. Skin cancer diagnoses included squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, and Merkel cell carcinoma. Results: A total of 3421 SOTRs (median age at transplant, 53 [quartile 1: 42; quartile 3: 62] years; 2132 [62.3%] men) were assessed, including 72 Asian patients (2.1%), 137 Black patients (4.0%), 275 Latinx patients (8.0%), 109 Middle Eastern and North African patients (3.2%), and 2828 White patients (82.7%). With a total of 23213 years of follow-up time, 603 patients developed skin cancer. The SUNTRAC tool classified patients into 4 groups with significantly different risks of developing skin cancer during follow-up. Overall, the relative rate for developing skin cancer estimated using subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs) and using the low-risk group as the reference group, increased according to the proposed risk group (medium-risk group: SHR, 6.8 [95% CI, 3.8-12.1]; P<.001; high-risk group: SHR, 15.9 [95% CI, 8.9-28.4]; P<.001; very-high-risk group: SHR, 54.8 [95% CI, 29.1-102.9]; P<.001), with a concordance index of 0.72. Actual skin cancer incidences were similar to those predicted by the SUNTRAC tool (5-year skin cancer cumulative incidence for medium-risk group: predicted, 6.2%; observed, 7.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this external validation prognostic study support the use of the SUNTRAC tool in European populations for stratifying SOTRs based on their skin cancer risk and also detecting patients at a high risk of developing skin cancer. This can be helpful in prioritizing and providing better screening and surveillance for these patients. Show less
