PLACEBO-CONTROLLED EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB THROUGH ONE YEAR IN PATIENTS WITH NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor, was effective and well tolerated in patients (pts) with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) through 14 weeks (wks) of treatment.[1]ObjectivesThis analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of UPA vs placebo (PBO) through 1 year.MethodsThe SELECT-AXIS 2 nr-axSpA study included a 52-wk randomized, double-blind, PBO-controlled period. Enrolled adults had a clinical diagnosis of active nr-axSpA fulfilling the 2009 ASAS classification criteria, objective signs of inflammation based on MRI sacroiliitis and/or elevated C-reactive protein, and an inadequate response to NSAIDs. One-third of pts had an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs. Pts were randomized 1:1 to UPA 15 mg once daily or PBO. Concomitant medications, including NSAIDs, had to be kept stable through wk 52. The study protocol outlined that pts who did not achieve ASAS20 at any two consecutive study visits between wks 24 to 52 should receive rescue therapy with NSAIDs, corticosteroids, conventional synthetic/biologic DMARDs, or analgesics. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation (NRI-MI) was used to handle missing data and intercurrent events for binary efficacy endpoints. Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to assess continuous efficacy endpoints. NRI was used for binary endpoints after rescue and as observed analysis excluding data after rescue for continuous endpoints. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported through wk 52.ResultsOf the 314 pts randomized, 259 (82%;UPA, n=130;PBO, n=129) completed wk 52 on study drug. More pts achieved an ASAS40 response with UPA vs PBO from wks 14 to 52 with a 20% treatment difference at wk 52 (63% vs 43%;nominal P <.001;Figure 1). The proportion of pts achieving ASDAS inactive disease with UPA remained higher than PBO at wk 52 (33% vs 11%;nominal P <.0001;Figure 1). Consistent improvements and maintenance of efficacy were also seen across other disease activity measures. Between wks 24 and 52, fewer pts on UPA (9%) than PBO (17%) received rescue therapy. A similar proportion of pts in each treatment group had a TEAE (Table 1). Infections were the most common TEAE;the rates of serious infections and herpes zoster were higher with UPA vs PBO, although no new serious infections were reported from wks 14 to 52. COVID-19 events were balanced between treatment groups. No opportunistic infections, malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events, inflammatory bowel disease, or deaths were reported. Two pts (1.3%) on PBO had adjudicated venous thromboembolic events.ConclusionUPA showed consistent improvement and maintenance of efficacy vs PBO through 1 year across multiple disease activity measures. No new safety risks were identified with longer-term UPA exposure. These results continue to support the benefit of UPA in pts with active nr-axSpA.Reference[1]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet. 2022;400(10349):369–379.Table 1.Safety through week 52Event, n (%)PBO (n = 157)UPA 15 mg QD (n = 156)Any AE103 (66%)107 (69%)Serious AE6 (3.8%)6 (3.8%)AE leading to D/C4 (2.5%)6 (3.8%)COVID-19-related AE22 (14%)24 (15%)Deaths00Infection60 (38%)68 (44%) Serious infection1 (0.6%)2 (1.3%) Herpes zoster1 (0.6%)5 (3.2%)Malignancy other than NMSC00NMSC1 (0.6%)0Hepatic disorder7 (4.5%)6 (3.8%)Neutropenia1 (0.6%)8 (5.1%)MACE (adjudicated)00VTE (adjudicated)2 (1.3%)a0Uveitisb3 (1.9%)2 (1.3%)Inflammatory bowel disease00aBoth patients had non-serious events of deep vein thrombosis in the lower limb with risk factors including obesity and prior deep vein thrombosis in one patient and concomitant COVID-19 infection in the other patient.bThree events of uveitis occurred in each treatment group (among n = 3 patients in the PBO group and n = 2 patients in the UPA group);two events in the PBO group and one in the UPA group occurred in patients with a history of uveitis.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, res arch, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, review, and approval of the . All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Julia Zolotarjova, MSc, MWC, of AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsFilip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Atul Deodhar Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Medscape, MoonLake, Novartis, Peervoice, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Medscape, MoonLake, Novartis, Peervoice, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer., Walter P Maksymowych Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Tae-Hwan Kim Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celltrion, Kirin, Lilly, and Novartis., Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB., Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Novartis, Yuanyuan Duan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Kristin D'Silva Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Peter Wung Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie.

LONG-TERM EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 3-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 SELECT-PsA 1 STUDY

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA) improved symptoms in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (nbDMARD-IR) through week (wk) 104 or 2 years of treatment in SELECT-PsA 1 [1].ObjectivesTo evaluate efficacy and safety of UPA vs adalimumab (ADA) through wk 152 or 3 years from the ongoing long-term open-label extension of SELECT-PsA 1.MethodsPts were randomized to receive UPA 15 mg (UPA15) or UPA 30 mg (UPA30) once daily, ADA 40 mg (ADA) every other wk, or placebo (PBO). At wk 24, PBO pts switched to UPA15 or UPA30. Following approval of UPA15, the protocol was amended so pts on UPA30 switched to UPA15 (earliest at wk 104). Efficacy was assessed through wk 152, and safety through June 13, 2022.ResultsOf 1704 pts randomized, 911 completed 152 wks of treatment. The proportions of pts achieving.≥20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/50/70), minimal disease activity (MDA), and ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at wk 152 were generally consistent with those at wk 1041. UPA had greater ACR20/50/70 and MDA responses vs ADA, and a greater mean change from baseline (BL) in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, pt's assessment of pain, and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index vs ADA. Change from BL in modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score were similar between UPA30 and ADA, and numerically higher with UPA15 (Table 1). The overall UPA safety profile remained unchanged (Figure 1) [1,2]. UPA had numerically higher rates of serious infection (SI), herpes zoster (HZ), anemia, lymphopenia, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevation, and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) vs ADA. Increases for SI, HZ, anemia, and CPK elevation with UPA were dose dependent. Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy excluding NMSC were low and generally similar across groups. The most common cause of death was COVID-19.ConclusionEfficacy of UPA in nbDMARD-IR pts with PsA was maintained through 3 years of treatment. No new safety signals were identified.References[1]McInnes IB, et al. Rheumatol Ther 2022;1–18 [Epub ahead of print].[2]McInnes IB, et al. RMD Open 2021;7(3):e001838.Table 1.Efficacy endpoints at wk 152UPA15 (n=429)UPA30a (n=423)ADA (n=429)Proportion of pts (%)NRIAONRIAONRIAOACR20/50/7064.6/52.0/35.9*89.8/71.6/ 48.263.1/54.1*/ 35.787.9/74.4/ 47.861.1/46.6/ 28.786.2/65.2/ 39.8Minimal disease activity37.555.143.5*60.335.950.2PASI75/90/100b50.5/42.5/32.269.2/58.5/ 43.458.1/46.7/3 7.678.6/63.5/ 50.954.0/40.8/ 30.379.6/59.9/ 44.6Resolution of enthesitis by Leeds Enthesitis Indexc50.475.248.973.846.077.0Resolution of dactylitis by Leeds Dactylitis Indexd65.495.266.197.965.497.1Change from BLeMMRMAOMMRMAOMMRMAOHealth Assessment Questionnaire- Disability Index-0.51-0.55-0.53*-0.58-0.45-0.49Pt's assessment of pain (numeric rating scale)-3.3*-3.5-3.3*-3.6-2.8-3.0Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Indexf-3.09-3.27-3.16-3.54-2.81-2.71Modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score0.210.190.050.040.090.09aFollowing a protocol amendment, all pts on UPA30 switched to UPA15 (earliest switch at wk 104);data are presented by originally randomized group. bPts with psoriasis affecting ≥3% of body surface area at BL. cPts with LEI >0 at BL;resolution LEI=0. dPts with LDI >0 at BL;resolution LDI=0. eData shown as MMRM (least squares mean) and AO (mean). fPts with psoriatic spondylitis at BL. n value ranges: UPA15 (99–429), UPA30 (95–423), ADA (89–429). Nominal *p<0.05 UPA vs ADA.ACR20/50/70, ≥20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria;ADA, adalimumab;AO, as observed;BL, baseline;MMRM, mixed effect model repeated measurement;NRI, non-responder imputation;PASI75/90/100, ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index;pt, patient;UPA15/30, upadacitinib 15/30 mg once daily;wk, weekAcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, and the review and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Carl Davies, MSc, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsIain McInnes Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Evelo, Causeway Therapeutics, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB Pharma, Koji Kato Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Marina Magrey Consultant of: BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, and UCB Pharma, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Avotres, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EMD Sorono, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB Pharma, Derek Haaland Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Adiga Life Sciences, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Can-Fite Biopharma, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB;and has received honoraria or other fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, and UCB Pharma, Yihan Li Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Yanxi Liu Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Jianzhong Liu Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Ralph Lippe Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Peter Wung Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options.

Reducing your risk cancer-focused health events to meaningfully engage the medically underserved and diminish future cancer disparities

Lack of access to cancer prevention education, early screening, and timely treatment, particularly in low socioeconomic, underserved communities, are cited as substantial barriers to improving survivorship. Outreach educational efforts with on-site screenings offered in partnership with community groups are known to be valuable in encouraging community members' uptake of healthy behaviors and adherence to screening recommendation. To create more engaging events, a community-academic partnership, We Engage 4 Health (WE4H), co-created 11 unique 4-panel comic-style stories designed to be read aloud together as attendees visit each event table. These colorful stories are shared on boards that stand on each table and are offered in both English and Spanish at this time. Many tables also have an accompanying hands-on activity. Together, they lead to meaningful "low stakes" discussions which support understanding of seemingly complex health information. Story topics include the cause of cancer (Cells Gone Wrong), cancer risk factors (Reducing Your Risk), the role of primary care in cancer screening (Primary Care for Prevention), the purpose of research (short Research Ready) and details about specific cancer types (Combatting Colon Cancer, Blocking Breast Cancer, Looking for Lung Cancer, Silencing Skin Cancer, Hindering HPV, and Professional Prostate Protection) and COVID-19 (Take Your Best Shot FAQs). A health passport is used to facilitate table visitation and survey collection at each table enables meaningful evaluation of the event as well as provides the community hosts and their partners baseline cancer data to inform future programing. In 2022, WE4H and the University of Cincinnati Cancer Center partnered with three different communities to co-host pilot events that served over 100 adult residents. Community, research interns and university students volunteered to work the tables at the event and received training prior. Post event surveys and discussions indicated that community partners appreciated the different take on a health fair event. Most volunteers indicated that they would enjoy volunteering again. Attendees indicated that they liked the graphic-style story format used and most preferred it to text and text with graphics approaches. Taken together, the data indicates that Reducing Your Risk events are useful in meaningfully engaging hard to reach, at risk attendees. Additional in-person and virtual events are being planned for 2023 as an approach to reach the medically underserved throughout our region.

Store-and-Forward Teledermatology for Assessing Skin Cancer in 2023: Literature Review

Background: The role of teledermatology for skin lesion assessment has been a recent development, particularly, since the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the ability to assess patients in person. The growing number of studies relating to this area reflects the evolving interest. Objective: This literature review aims to analyze the available research on store-and-forward teledermatology for skin lesion assessment. Methods: MEDLINE was searched for papers from January 2010 to November 2021. Papers were searched for assessment of time management, effectiveness, and image quality. Results: The reported effectiveness of store-and-forward teledermatology for skin lesion assessment produces heterogeneous results likely due to significant procedure variations. Most studies show high accuracy and diagnostic concordance of teledermatology compared to in-person dermatologist assessment and histopathology. This is improved through the use of teledermoscopy. Most literature shows that teledermatology reduces time to advice and definitive treatment compared to outpatient clinic assessment. Conclusions: Overall, teledermatology offers a comparable standard of effectiveness to in-person assessment. It can save significant time in expediting advice and management. Image quality and inclusion of dermoscopy have a considerable bearing on the overall effectiveness. © Leah Kirsten Jones, Amanda Oakley.

Metastatic Melanoma: A Consequence of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Metastatic melanoma, though less common than other skin cancers, remains one of the deadliest, particularly in late-stage disease. Our report aims to highlight the importance of early detection and treatment to reduce the morbidity, mortality, and significant disfigurement associated with advanced melanoma. The subject of this case is an 81-year-old female who presented to our emergency department as a trauma patient after being found lying down by a neighbor for an unknown amount of time. She was discovered to have a large fungating nasal mass which was subsequently diagnosed as highly invasive melanoma. A thorough workup revealed a metastatic cerebellar lesion, a large ulcerated basal cell carcinoma eroding her calvarium, and a hemorrhagic lesion within her internal capsule that left her with right-sided hemiparesis. During hospitalization, she underwent palliative resection of the primary nasal mass with flap reconstruction, radiation therapy for her cerebellar lesion, and daily physical therapy. Additional surgery was required for hematoma evacuation and pedicle dissection. Though lockdowns were an important part of the pandemic, they were not without their drawbacks, many of which are still being elucidated. Particularly, by utilizing telehealth services, our patient may have had earlier recognition of her melanoma and a better outcome. Regardless, enhancing patient education and maintaining access to care even through lockdowns poses a potential target for improving melanoma survivability while decreasing associated morbidity.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in medical decision systems (MDSSs): healthcare systems perspective

The healthcare sector is very interested in machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI). Nevertheless, applying AI applications in scientific contexts is difficult due to explainability issues. Explainable AI (XAI) has been studied as a potential remedy for the problems with current AI methods. The usage of ML with XAI may be capable of both explaining models and making judgments, in contrast to AI techniques like deep learning. Computer applications called medical decision support systems (MDSS) affect the decisions doctors make regarding certain patients at a specific moment. MDSS has played a crucial role in systems' attempts to improve patient safety and the standard of care, particularly for non-communicable illnesses. They have moreover been a crucial prerequisite for effectively utilizing electronic healthcare (EHRs) data. This chapter offers a broad overview of the application of XAI in MDSS toward various infectious diseases, summarizes recent research on the use and effects of MDSS in healthcare with regard to non-communicable diseases, and offers suggestions for users to keep in mind as these systems are incorporated into healthcare systems and utilized outside of contexts for research and development.

Impact of Covid19 Infection in Patients with Cancer

Background: coronaviral pandemic (COVID-19) induced by severe acute coronaviral syndrome 2 has imminent consequences for COVID-19 patients. To determine the effect of this pandemic on oncological treatment, Netherlands cancer patients performed a national study . Method(s): From 11 April 2020 to 11 Jan 2021, the oncological care perspective was discussed by an online study. The survey included 20 questions on four topics: patient characteristics, hospital engagement, COVID-19 and COVID-19 problems. Result(s): A total of 2418 (64.53%) patients were female and the remainder (57.5%) were <50 years of age. The most prevalent cancer diagnosis were haematological malignancies (26.1%), breast cancer (22.8%) and other cancers (19.2%). Depending on their illness environment, 34.7% of patients had incurable conditions while 21.6% and 31.8% had curable or healed diseases. The (expected) result of their illness was 'unknown' for 11.9% of patients. According to outpatient environment, 1691 (45.1%) patients have been oncologically examined and have taken follow-up, contrasted with 529 (14.1%) and 1527 (40.8%) patients presently or pending for therapy. Conclusion(s): This is the first research exploring cancer patients' experiences after the COVID-19 pandemic in Iraq. The research indicates the major effect of COVID-19 on oncological treatment, showing the need for psycho-oncological assistance during this pandemic.Copyright © 2020 Ubiquity Press. All rights reserved.

The role of mobile teledermoscopy in skin cancer triage and management during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The unprecedented onset of the COVID-19 crisis poses a significant challenge to all fields of medicine, including dermatology. Since the start of the coronavirus outbreak, a stark decline in new skin cancer diagnoses has been reported by countries worldwide. One of the greatest challenges during the pandemic has been the reduced access to face-to-face dermatologic evaluation and non-urgent procedures, such as biopsies or surgical excisions. Teledermatology is a well-integrated alternative when face-to-face dermatological assistance is not available. Teledermoscopy, an extension of teledermatology, comprises consulting dermoscopic images to improve the remote assessment of pigmented and non-pigmented lesions when direct visualisation of lesions is difficult. One of teledermoscopy's greatest strengths may be its utility as a triage and monitoring tool, which is critical in the early detection of skin cancer, as it can reduce the number of unnecessary referrals, wait times, and the cost of providing and receiving dermatological care. Mobile teledermoscopy may act as a communication tool between medical practitioners and patients. By using their smartphone (mobile phone) patients can monitor a suspicious skin lesion identified by their medical practitioner, or alternatively self-detect concerning lesions and forward valuable dermoscopic images for remote medical evaluation. Several mobile applications that allow users to photograph suspicious lesions with their smartphones and have them evaluated using artificial intelligence technology have recently emerged. With the growing popularity of mobile apps and consumer-involved healthcare, this will likely be a key component of skin cancer screening in the years to come. However, most of these applications apply artificial intelligence technology to assess clinical images rather than dermoscopic images, which may lead to lower diagnostic accuracy. Incorporating the direct-to-consumer mobile dermoscopy model in combination with mole-scanning artificial intelligence as a mobile app may be the future of skin cancer detection.

Developing Contemporary Survivorship Clinic for Recipients of Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Single Center Experience

Introduction: Survival after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has improved tremendously over the last few decades. HCT survivors are at increased risk of long-term complications and secondary cancers. This poses unique challenges to the HCT-related healthcare system given the growing need for survivorship care. Developing a HCT survivorship program with a dedicated clinic to survivors ensures equitable access to care and ongoing patient education. Herein, we describe our program survivorship model and our initial experience. Method(s): The Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC) survivorship clinic (SC) planning committee was initiated in September 2019. The SC was launched in January 2021 with the mission to provide high-quality, comprehensive, and personalized survivorship care and to empower patients and community health care providers with education and a roadmap for screening for late effects. The SC initially focused on allogeneic (allo) HCT patients and later opened to autologous (auto) HCT recipients in February 2022. HCT patients are referred by primary HCT team after HCT with an emphasis on preferred timeframe of initial SC visit no earlier than 3 months but less than 12 months from HCT. SC is located at 2 physical locations: main campus and satellite, with virtual visit options to account for the distance from MCC and COVID considerations. SC applies a consultative model. SC is staffed by dedicated advanced practice professional (APP), supervised by SC faculty. The scope of SC care includes but is not limited to prevention of infections (education, vaccinations), surveillance of late effects (endocrine, pulmonary function, cardiac, bone health), and general cancer screenings (breast, colon, skin cancer). Patients' clinical data from SC inception to August 2022 were reviewed. Result(s): From January 2021 to August 2022, a total of 138 patients were seen in SC. The majority were seen in person (62% in clinic, 38% by virtual visit). Median age was 58 years (range, 19-82). Median time to first SC visit was 21 months (range, 3-1464) after HCT. Allo HCT was the most common type of HCT seen in clinic (87%, n=120). Most common diagnoses were acute myeloid leukemia (43%, n=59), myelodysplastic syndrome (17%, n=23), and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (10%, n=14). Only 17 patients (12%) were seen in 2021 but the volume increased significantly in 2022. Currently there are more than 10 patients seen in SC per month. Conclusion(s): We report successful experience in launching a contemporary HCT SC despite the challenges of an ongoing COVID pandemic. As a stand-alone cancer center, we serve a wide geographical location with subspecialty and primary care providers dispersed throughout the community. Our consultative model and experience could provide a useful guide for other programs. In 2023, we plan to expand our SC to a broader population of patients receiving other cellular immunotherapies.Copyright © 2023 American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy

Teledermoscopy-Aided Self-Skin Examinations for Remote Triage of Skin Lesions

Purpose of Study: Teledermatology, defined as the use of technology to provide dermatology services to individuals in a remote setting, has grown considerably in popularity since the onset of the COVID-19 era. Teledermoscopy utilizes a dermatoscope attachment paired with a smartphone camera to visualize colors and microstructures within the epidermis and superficial dermis that cannot be seen with the naked eye alone. When combined with store-and-forward technology, teledermoscopy of lesions concerning for skin cancer can improve virtual referral and triage workflow. Methods Used: Our retrospective case-control study evaluated the efficacy of a smartphone dermatoscope borrow program in the remote triage of individuals with self-selected skin lesions of concern and its effect on subsequent in-person follow-up visits. A retrospective medical record review was conducted of all Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) Department of Dermatology spot check image submissions utilizing the smartphone dermatoscopes between August 2020-2022. Dermoscopic images of skin lesions that included corresponding non-dermoscopic clinical images in their submission were included in our review (n=70). A blinded expert dermoscopist then reviewed the clinical and dermoscopic images separately and utilized standard clinical algorithms for skin cancer (ABCD criteria: asymmetry, irregular borders, multiple colors, diameter>= 6mm for clinical images;3-point checklist: dermoscopic asymmetry, atypical network, blue-white structures for dermoscopy images) to determine whether the imaged lesion should translate to an in-person visit for further evaluation. Summary of Results: Of the 70 skin lesions submitted, 59 warranted in-person evaluation from clinical (non-dermoscopic) image review compared to 29 warranting in-person evaluation from dermoscopic images of the same lesion. Thus, this is a 51% reduction of conversion to in-person consultation with the addition of smartphone dermatoscope images in virtual lesion triage (P<0.001, McNemar's Test). Conclusion(s): Implementing patient-led teledermoscopy may reduce frequency of in-person visits for benign lesions, and thus, may decrease wait times for other patients with concerning and possibly malignant lesions. Decreasing the frequency of unnecessary visits may not only improve patient quality of life, but also promote cost-effective expenditures for health systems at large.

Football, dementia, . . . and other stories

The increased risk of dementia didn't apply to goalkeepers, which is compatible with the hypothesis that repeated head impacts sustained when heading the ball are part of the cause (Lancet doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00027-0). Mental illness and septic shock A nationwide study of 200 000 adults admitted to intensive care units in French hospitals with septic shock reveals that those with severe mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder) have substantially lower case fatality, assessed at 30, 90, and 365 days after admission, than controls matched for age, sex, and social deprivation. For vascular dementia, the most consistent precursors were an abnormal electrocardiogram, cardiac dysrhythmias, cerebrovascular disease, non-epithelial skin cancer, depression, and hearing loss (Ann Neurol doi:10.1002/ana.26584).

Benign and Malignant Skin Lesion Detection from Melanoma Skin Cancer Images

Skin cancer is the most dangerous and lethal cancer that affects millions of people each year. The accurate identification of skin cancers can not be accomplished without expert dermatologists. However, specific research studies of WHO in Canada, US and Australia, show that in the year 1960s to 1980s, the cases of skin cancer has noted more than two times increased in comparison with the previous years. The identification of skin cancer in its early stage is an expensive and difficult task because it doesn't cause too much bad in the initial phase. Whereas, the growth of skin cancer requires biopsy and many other treatments each time which is quite costly as per the statistics of India. This challenge makes it a necessary step to identify the existence of skin cancer in the early stages to increase immortality. With the evolution and progression in technology, there are various methods which have participated in and solved medical issues including covid19, pneumonia and many others. Similarly, machine learning(ML) and deep learning(DL) models are applicable to diagnosing skin cancer in its early stages. In this work, the support vector machine (SVM), naive bayes (NB), K-nearest neighbour (KNN) and neural networks(NN) have been used for classifying benign and malignant lesions. Furthermore, for the feature extraction from the dataset, a pre-trained SqueezeNet model has been used. The classification results of KNN, SVM, NB and NN have been shown in the accuracy, recall, F1-Measure, precision, AUC and ROC. The comparison of the models has resulted that the NN model outperforms all other models when applied with the SqueezeNet feature extractor with the highest accuracy, F1-Measure, recall, precision and AUC as 88.2%, 0.882, 0.882, 0.882 and 0.957, respectively. Lastly, the performance metrics analogies results of each model have been illustrated for the classification of benign and malignant lesions. © 2023 IEEE.

A Disguising Fast-Growing Metachronous Melanoma and COVID-19.

An unusual case of a 52-year-old female with two metachronous melanomas is presented. An atypical fast-growing nodular melanoma appeared 18 months after the complete excision of an in situ melanoma and one month afterward a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Intra-nodal melanocytic proliferations were identified during lymph node assessment, raising important diagnostic and prognostic concerns. No melanoma susceptibility genes were found. This case report raises the question about the COVID-19 immunosuppression effect on the tumor microenvironment and the oncogenic potential of SARS-CoV-2. It also highlights the importance of clinical follow-up in melanoma patients, which was significantly delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lesions in lockdown: mobile dermoscopy in virtual dermatology clinics

Teledermatology is a useful tool in facilitating dermatology outpatient services since the advent of COVID-19. Assessment of lesions has become difficult to facilitate in large numbers. Teledermoscopy has been used for remote lesion assessment. However, the majority of teledermoscopy has been facilitated by healthcare professionals rather than the patient themselves (Vestergaard T, Prasad S, Schuster A et al. Introducing teledermoscopy of possible skin cancers in general practice in Southern Denmark. Fam Pract 2020;37: 513-18). Patients referred with lesions deemed to be low risk are now often initially assessed via telephone consultation in conjunction with photographs of the lesion. The majority of patients are subsequently called for dermoscopy. However, many of those referred have benign lesions and could be safely discharged if dermoscopy images of the lesion were available. Low-cost mobile dermoscopy attachments are available and have been marketed to patients for self-monitoring. We compared a smartphone-compatible dermoscopy device (Dermlite HUD) with traditional dermoscopic photography to assess the feasibility of using this device to photograph skin lesions. This device has equivalent magnification (x 10) to dermatoscopes, a smaller field of view (which in all lesions still allowed complete visualization) and employs polarized light. Dermoscopic photography using the Dermlite HUD was taken of 30 consecutive lesions over a 1-month period by dermatology registrars in the dermatology department. Lesions assessed included pigmented lesions, vascular lesions, nonulcerated skin cancers and benign lesions. Images were assessed by a consultant dermatologist and compared to dermoscopic photographs taken using the standard method employed in the department. Images were compared in terms of resolution, field of view and colour quality between the two instruments as per validated image analysis (Celebi M, Mendonca T, Marques J. Dermoscopy Image Analysis, 1st edn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2015). The photographed lesions were assessed by a consultant dermatologist and compared with the standard method. Photos taken with the smartphone attachment were found to be 97% equivalent in terms of resolution, field of view and colour quality to those taken using the standard method and 29 of 30 were deemed suitable for remote lesion assessment. Low-cost smartphone dermatoscope attachments provide images of comparable quality to those taken with a dermatoscope and camera. This offers an opportunity to facilitate fully virtual assessment of low-risk skin lesions and is of use in patients unable to travel to clinics or during lockdowns to facilitate virtual clinics.

'To see or not to see?' That is the question: teleconsultations in primary care and the impact on 2-week-wait referrals and outcomes

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented change to service delivery within the National Health Service (NHS). After the UK government advised general practitioners to conduct consultations remotely where possible, remote consultations rose from < 30% before the pandemic to almost 80% of consultations at the height of the pandemic. After the national lockdown was lifted, remote consultations continued to account for > 70% of consultations. Telemedicine has previously been shown to be an effective model for triaging referrals from primary care to 2-week-wait (2WW) skin cancer clinics. However, to our knowledge, no study has assessed the impact of telemedicine in assessing patients remotely at their initial primary care consultation prior to referral to secondary care. Our study aimed to assess whether the mode of consultation [face to face (F2F) or remote] in primary care affected the outcomes of consultations in 2WW skin cancer clinics. In total, 988 patients were referred to the 2WW clinic in September 2020. Of these, 37 9% (n = 375) were referred after F2F consultations in primary care. Thirty-seven per cent (n = 364) were referred after remote consultations, with the majority being telephone consultations with photographs (76%). The mode of primary care consultation was unclear in 21 1% (n = 209) of patients. A higher proportion of patients who had remote consultations were discharged (43 4%;n = 158/364) from the 2WW clinic than patients who had F2F consultations (36 2%;n = 136/375). There was a significantly higher number of benign lesions referred following a remote consultation in primary care compared with a F2F consultation (70% vs. 59%;P = 0 004). Interestingly, there was a higher proportion of benign lesions referred after telephone consultations with photographs vs. those without. The accelerated use of telemedicine in the COVID-19 era will provide useful information on how telemedicine can be optimized in the future. Lessons learnt during this time will inevitably shape the future digital landscape within the NHS. A key ambition set out in the NHS Long Term Plan published in January 2019 was to increase remote consultations within primary care. While remote consulting certainly has a role in some settings, our study highlights the value of F2F consultations for the initial assessment of patients presenting with lesions in primary care, in order to reduce the number of unnecessary referrals and hospital visits.

Is a hybrid skin cancer surveillance service for organ transplant recipients feasible? Lessons from the pandemic

Organ transplant recipients (OTRs) are highly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection and routine transplant consultations were converted primarily to virtual (VC) rather than face to face (F2F) from the outset of the pandemic. A similar strategy was adopted in our tertiary OTR dermatology clinic, but the implications of this on safe and effective skin cancer surveillance are uncertain. We audited clinical and patient experiences of our hybrid service with the aim of identifying the benefits and limitations of this approach, and improvements required to optimize a future hybrid VC-F2F model for skin cancer surveillance. All OTRs consultations held between 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021 were identified through electronic patient records. Data collected included proportions and reasons for VC and F2F consultations, teledermatology requests, VC to F2F conversion rate, rates of skin cancer diagnoses and adherence to established follow-up protocols. All patients were invited to complete an online service evaluation. In total, 554 encounters (80.3% VC, 19.7% F2F) were recorded in 247 OTRs (42% with previous skin cancer). Of routine F2F consultations, this was patient preference in 17 of 109 (16%) and clinician-based risk assessment for the remainder. In 108 (25%) VCs, photographs were requested and received for 63%, of which 82% were adequate for diagnosis. Overall, 12% of VCs were converted to F2F and in 19 of 45 (42%) OTRs this was due to suspected skin cancer, which was confirmed in nine of 19 (47%). All other skin cancers were diagnosed in routine F2F consultations. Surveillance in 167 of 192 (87%) assessable OTRs adhered to established follow-up protocols. Of patients who responded to the online survey, 74% felt that there were benefits to VCs, but 41% expressed concern about the lack of skin examination and 57% reported little/no confidence in self-monitoring. Despite this, 59% expressed a preference to continue hybrid VC-F2F surveillance, with VC as routine and F2F consultation when required. Our audit provides preliminary evidence supporting the effectiveness, safety and patient acceptability of a VC-F2F hybrid model for the delivery of OTR skin cancer surveillance. We did not identify major delays in skin cancer diagnosis, although not all patients have yet been seen F2F. Certain aspects of service delivery will require optimization. In particular, despite routine skin cancer education, many patients expressed concerns about self-monitoring. Programmes specifically tailored to address this need will be required, as will information technology support for some OTRs. With this information we are redesigning our service to incorporate a VC-F2F model for routine skin cancer surveillance and are evaluating the incorporation of a patient-initiated follow-up pathway.