Development of an international core domain set for medium, large and giant congenital melanocytic naevi as a first step towards a core outcome set for clinical practice and research

A review of core outcome sets (COS) developed for different settings finds there is a subset of outcomes relevant for both research and routine care

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes selected for the same condition in core outcome sets (COSs) for research with those in COS for the routine care setting.

METHODS

A sample of COS was created from the most frequent five health areas within previous systematic reviews of COS for research and COS for routine care. Outcomes were extracted and categorized using an outcome taxonomy. Frequency of outcome domains included within COS were analyzed in subgroups according to research or care setting, patient involvement in COS development and health area. Matched sets of COS were created, where at least one research COS and one routine care COS exist for the same health condition, to identify the outcomes that were recommended for both settings. A similar process was used for a subset of paired COS matched in scope for both intervention and population as well as health condition.

RESULTS

The sample of COS comprised: 246 COS for research only, 76 COS for routine care only and 55 COS for both research and routine care. Across the 18 sets matched by health condition the median number (range) of outcomes included in both research COS and routine care COS was 6 (3-15), with differences noted across health areas. For the 11 paired COS matched by scope and health condition, the corresponding figures were 2 (2-8). Across all settings, COS that did not include patients as participants were less likely to include life impact outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Within a given health condition, a small number of core outcomes were found to be relevant for both research and care, offering a meaningful starting point for linking research and real-world evaluation.

Protocol of a scoping review of outcome domains in dermatology

INTRODUCTION

Core outcome sets (COSs) are agreed outcomes (domains (subdomains) and instruments) that should be measured as a minimum in clinical trials or practice in certain diseases or clinical fields. Worldwide, the number of COSs is increasing and there might be conceptual overlaps of domains (subdomains) and instruments within disciplines. The aim of this scoping review is to map and to classify all outcomes identified with COS projects relating to skin diseases.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a scoping review of outcomes of skin disease-related COS initiatives to identify all concepts and their definitions. We will search PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. The search dates will be 1 January 2010 (the point at which Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) was established) to 1 January 2024. We will also review the COMET database and C3 website to identify parts of COSs (domains and/or instruments) that are being developed and published. This review will be supplemented by querying relevant stakeholders from COS organisations, dermatology organisations and patient organisations for additional COSs that were developed. The resulting long lists of outcomes will then be mapped into conceptually similar concepts.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was supported by departmental research funds from the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University. An ethics committee review was waived since this protocol was done by staff researchers with no involvement of patient care. Conflicts of interests, if any, will be addressed by replacing participants with relevant conflicts or reassigning them. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, social media posts and promotion by COS organisations.

Safety and effectiveness of surgical excision of medium, large, and giant congenital melanocytic nevi: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatment indications of congenital melanocytic naevi (CMN) have shifted from the prevention of malignant transformation more towards the improvement of appearance and psychosocial health. Surgical excision is often preferred, but its safety and effectiveness remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the outcomes of surgical excision of medium-to-giant CMN.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

safety (complications).

SECONDARY OUTCOME

effectiveness (satisfaction and CMN core outcomes).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for studies on the excision of medium-to-giant CMN and/or CMN requiring reconstruction or serial excision. Meta-analyses of safety per patient were conducted, and pooled outcomes of safety and effectiveness were presented in summary-of-findings tables.

RESULTS

A total of 1444 studies were found, of which 22 were included, evaluating 643 eligible patients. Study quality varied, and reporting of baseline characteristics and outcomes was heterogeneous. Pooled proportions were overall 9.8% for major wound-related complications, 1.2% for minor wound-related complications, 1.2% for scar-related complications, and 4.3% for anatomical deformities. For large/giant CMN, complication rates were, respectively, 23.1%, 2.9%, 12.9%, and 2.4%; and for CMN with eyelid involvement, 0.5%, 3.3%, 0.4%, and 54.2%. Patients rated their satisfaction with the cosmetic outcome as 24.4% excellent, 71.0% good, and 4.6% poor/moderate. Physicians rated this as 18.3% excellent, 70.1% good, and 11.7% poor/moderate. Thirty-five other outcomes of effectiveness were summarized. However, many were rarely reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical excision of CMN appears to be safe and effective in many cases, depending on CMN size and location. Major wound-related complications and scar-related complications occurred more frequently with large/giant CMN, whereas anatomical deformities occurred with the majority of CMN with eyelid involvement.

Core outcomes for pressure ulcer prevention trials: results of an international consensus study

BACKGROUND

There is substantial heterogeneity between trial outcomes in pressure ulcer prevention research. The development of core outcome sets (COS) is one strategy to improve comparability between trial results and thus increase the quality of evidence.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify core outcomes for pressure ulcer prevention trials.

METHODS

A workshop was held with service users to discuss their views and understanding of the outcomes identified by a scoping review and to identify any missing outcomes. In a next step a Delphi survey comprising three rounds was conducted to evaluate a compiled list of outcomes by their importance. Afterwards the preselection from the Delphi survey was discussed in a virtual consensus meeting with the aim of agreeing on a final set of core outcomes. Individuals who had completed all three rounds of the Delphi survey were eligible to participate in this meeting. Participants included practitioners, service users, researchers and industry representatives.

RESULTS

The workshop did not reveal any missing outcomes, but the need for further efforts to make lay people understand what an outcome is in a study setting. The Delphi survey took place between December 2020 and June 2021. After the three rounds, 18 out of 37 presented outcomes were rated to be critically important. In the following consensus meeting six outcomes were prioritized to be included in the COS for pressure ulcer prevention trials: (1) pressure ulcer occurrence, (2) pressure ulcer precursor signs and symptoms, (3) mobility, (4) acceptability and comfort of intervention, (5) adherence/compliance and (6) adverse events/safety.

CONCLUSION

Based on a comprehensive list of outcomes in pressure ulcer prevention research, there was clear agreement on the six identified core outcomes in three international Delphi rounds and in the consensus meeting. Although outcome measurement instruments need to be identified next, the six identified core outcomes should already be considered in future trials, as service users, practitioners, researchers and industry representatives have agreed that they are critically important.

Neurological signs, symptoms and MRI abnormalities in patients with congenital melanocytic naevi and evaluation of routine MRI-screening: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A congenital melanocytic naevus (CMN) is a rare skin condition that can be associated with abnormalities of the central nervous system (CNS). These anomalies can sometimes cause severe complications, and rarely death. Adequate information about aetiology and management is therefore crucial. To identify how to monitor patients with CMN, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of neurological involvement in patients with CMN and to summarize what specific neurological signs and symptoms and MRI abnormalities are reported in the medical literature. In addition, we summarized and evaluated the recommendations regarding MRI-screening reported in the medical literature.

METHODS

This review was registered in PROSPERO and reported according to the MOOSE checklist. A search was conducted in EMBASE (Ovid), PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. We included studies with 10 or more patients with CMN, reporting on neurological signs and symptoms or CNS MRI. Study selection, data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. A meta-analysis was used to assess the prevalence of neurological signs and symptoms.

RESULTS

Out of 1287 studies, fourteen studies were eligible for inclusion of which eight were included in the meta-analysis. Neurological signs and symptoms prevalence was 7.04% (CI 95% 4.47-10.93%) in the meta-analysis group and 6.26% (95% CI 3.85-10%) in a subgroup of patients with a CMN > 6 cm, evaluated in seven studies. Neurodevelopmental delay and seizures were the most frequently reported signs and symptoms. CNS melanocytosis and hydrocephalus were the most frequently reported MRI abnormalities. It was not possible to estimate the increased risk of neurological involvement in patients with CMN due to low quality of evidence and clinical heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

Standardization in CMN studies and a multi-centre prospective study are needed to evaluate neurological involvement. Based on current literature, it is not possible to make strong recommendations on routine MRI-screening. For now, every clinical centre should decide on its own policy and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of routine MRI.

A Clinicopathological Analysis of Melanocytic Nevi: A Retrospective Series

Purpose: Melanocytic nevi are common cutaneous lesions. This study aimed to demonstrate the concordance and discordance between clinical and histopathological diagnoses of melanocytic nevi and the importance of histological evaluation in differentiating malignant lesions from diseases with similar clinical manifestations.

Patients and Methods: We studied 4,561 consecutive patients with a clinical diagnosis of melanocytic nevi from 2014 to 2019. We compared the clinical diagnosis with the histopathological diagnosis to establish a histopathological concordance rate and then investigated the effects of clinical characteristics and the reasons for removal on misclassification.

Results: Among 4,561 patients who were clinically diagnosed with melanocytic nevi, the overall histopathological concordance rate was 82.11% (3,745 of 4,561 patients), while the histopathological discordance rate was 17.89% (816 of 4,561 patients). The histopathological concordance included 90.25% common acquired melanocytic nevi (3,380 of 3,745 patients) and 9.75% other benign melanocytic neoplasms (365 of 3,745 patients). The most common diagnostic change was to seborrheic keratosis (n = 470, 10.30%), followed by basal cell carcinoma (n = 64, 1.40%), vascular tumor (n = 53, 1.16%), fibroma (n = 43, 0.94%), epidermoid cyst (n = 34, 0.75%), wart (n = 30, 0.66%), melanoma (n = 24, 0.53%), Bowen's disease (n = 16, 0.35%), squamous cell carcinoma (n = 4, 0.09%), keratoacanthoma (n = 2, 0.04%), and other neoplasms (n = 76, 1.67%). Male sex, old age, location of the lesion, and the reasons for removal have a potential effect on misclassification. The percentages of misclassified lesions on the trunk and limbs and the perineum and buttocks were higher than those in lesions without a change in diagnosis. Importantly, locations of lesions on the head and neck were significantly related to a change in diagnosis to non-melanoma skin cancer, while locations on the hands and feet were significantly related to a change in diagnosis to melanoma. In addition to a typical clinical features, removal due to lesion changes or repeated stimulation was significantly associated with a change in diagnosis to melanoma.

Conclusions: Our study emphasizes the clinical differential diagnosis of melanocytic nevi, especially the possibility of malignant tumors. The occurrence of clinical features associated with clinicopathological discordance should raise the clinical suspect and be carefully differentiated from malignant tumors.