Encuesta sobre el manejo del nevus displásico por los dermatólogos de la sección Centro de la Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología (AEDV) / Survey on the Management of Dysplastic Nevus by Dermatologists in the Center-Spain section of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV)

Antecedentes y objetivos No existen guías clínicas para el manejo del nevus displásico (ND). Determinaremos el porcentaje de dermatólogos de la sección Centro de la Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología (AEDV) que ampliarían márgenes o tendrían actitud conservadora en un ND, y si los antecedentes personales (AP) y/o familiares (AF) de melanoma modificarían la actitud tomada frente a un paciente sin antecedentes de interés. Material y métodos Se difundió la encuesta a 738 dermatólogos y se recogieron datos de forma anónima del 15 de junio de 2022 al 31 de julio de 2022. Las variables de exposición fueron el grado de displasia (bajo/alto), los márgenes (afecto/libre) y los antecedentes de melanoma (sin antecedentes/AF/AP). Las variables dependientes (actitud) incluyeron observación/márgenes de 1-4mm /márgenes 5-10mm. Resultados Se recibieron 86 respuestas. Si el patólogo informase bordes afectos en un ND de bajo grado, el 60,5% ampliarían márgenes de 1 a 4mm, mientras que si los márgenes están libres el 97,7%, tendrían una actitud conservadora. Si el patólogo informara bordes afectos en un ND de alto grado, solo el 1,2% tendrían una actitud conservadora, porcentaje que se incrementa notablemente si los márgenes están libres (68,6%). El AF o el AP de melanoma no influirían en la actitud de la mayoría. Conclusiones El manejo del ND no es uniforme entre los dermatólogos de la sección centro de la AEDV, especialmente en el caso de ND de bajo grado con bordes afectos y ND de alto grado con bordes libres. El AF o el AP de melanoma no modifican en la mayor parte de los casos la actitud clínica (AU)

Background and objectives There are no clinical guidelines on the management of dysplastic nevus (DN). The aims of this study were to determine the percentage of dermatologists in the center-Spain section of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV) who would manage a histologically confirmed DN with a watch-and-wait approach or with wider surgical margins and to investigate whether their attitudes would vary depending on whether or not the patient had a personal and/or family history of melanoma. Material and methods We collected data from an anonymous survey sent to 738 dermatologists between June 15 and July 31, 2022. The independent variables were degree of dysplasia (low vs. high), margin status (positive vs. negative), and a personal or family history of melanoma (yes vs. no in both cases). The dependent variables were attitude towards management (watch-and-wait vs. re-excision with a surgical margin of 1 to 4mm or re-excision with a surgical margin of 5 to 10mm). Results We obtained 86 responses to the questionnaire. When pathology indicated a low-grade DN, 60.5% of dermatologists stated they would obtain a surgical margin of 1 to 4mm if the first margins were positive, and 97.7% would watch and wait if the report described negative margins. For high-grade DNs, 1.2% of dermatologists would watch and wait to manage DN with positive margins; 68.8% would use this approach for negative margins. A family or personal history of melanoma had no influence on most of the dermatologists’ attitudes. Conclusions Management strategies for DN among dermatologists from the center-Spain section of the AEDV varied, particularly when faced with low-grade DN with positive margins and high-grade DN with negative margins. A family or personal history of melanoma did not influence clinical attitudes in most cases (AU)

[Translated article] Survey on the Management of Dysplastic Nevus by Dermatologists in the Center-Spain Section of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV) / Encuesta sobre el manejo del nevus displásico por los dermatólogos de la sección Centro de la Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología (AEDV)

Background and objectives There are no clinical guidelines on the management of dysplastic nevus (DN). The aims of this study were to determine the percentage of dermatologists in the center-Spain section of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV) who would manage a histologically confirmed DN with a watch-and-wait approach or with wider surgical margins and to investigate whether their attitudes would vary depending on whether or not the patient had a personal and/or family history of melanoma. Material and methods We collected data from an anonymous survey sent to 738 dermatologists between June 15 and July 31, 2022. The independent variables were degree of dysplasia (low vs. high), margin status (positive vs. negative), and a personal or family history of melanoma (yes vs. no in both cases). The dependent variables were attitude towards management (watch-and-wait vs. re-excision with a surgical margin of 1 to 4mm or re-excision with a surgical margin of 5 to 10mm). Results We obtained 86 responses to the questionnaire. When pathology indicated a low-grade DN, 60.5% of dermatologists stated they would obtain a surgical margin of 1 to 4mm if the first margins were positive, and 97.7% would watch and wait if the report described negative margins. For high-grade DNs, 1.2% of dermatologists would watch and wait to manage DN with positive margins; 68.8% would use this approach for negative margins. A family or personal history of melanoma had no influence on most of the dermatologists’ attitudes. Conclusions Management strategies for DN among dermatologists from the center-Spain section of the AEDV varied, particularly when faced with low-grade DN with positive margins and high-grade DN with negative margins. A family or personal history of melanoma did not influence clinical attitudes in most cases (AU)

Antecedentes y objetivos No existen guías clínicas para el manejo del nevus displásico (ND). Determinaremos el porcentaje de dermatólogos de la sección Centro de la Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología (AEDV) que ampliarían márgenes o tendrían actitud conservadora en un ND, y si los antecedentes personales (AP) y/o familiares (AF) de melanoma modificarían la actitud tomada frente a un paciente sin antecedentes de interés. Material y métodos Se difundió la encuesta a 738 dermatólogos y se recogieron datos de forma anónima del 15 de junio de 2022 al 31 de julio de 2022. Las variables de exposición fueron el grado de displasia (bajo/alto), los márgenes (afecto/libre) y los antecedentes de melanoma (sin antecedentes/AF/AP). Las variables dependientes (actitud) incluyeron observación/márgenes de 1-4mm /márgenes 5-10mm. Resultados Se recibieron 86 respuestas. Si el patólogo informase bordes afectos en un ND de bajo grado, el 60,5% ampliarían márgenes de 1 a 4mm, mientras que si los márgenes están libres el 97,7%, tendrían una actitud conservadora. Si el patólogo informara bordes afectos en un ND de alto grado, solo el 1,2% tendrían una actitud conservadora, porcentaje que se incrementa notablemente si los márgenes están libres (68,6%). El AF o el AP de melanoma no influirían en la actitud de la mayoría. Conclusiones El manejo del ND no es uniforme entre los dermatólogos de la sección centro de la AEDV, especialmente en el caso de ND de bajo grado con bordes afectos y ND de alto grado con bordes libres. El AF o el AP de melanoma no modifican en la mayor parte de los casos la actitud clínica (AU)

Survey on the Management of Dysplastic Nevus by Dermatologists in the Center-Spain section of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV). / Encuesta sobre el manejo del nevus displásico por los dermatólogos de la sección Centro de la Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología (AEDV).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are no clinical guidelines on the management of dysplastic nevus (DN). The aims of this study were to determine the percentage of dermatologists in the center-Spain section of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV) who would manage a histologically confirmed DN with a watch-and-wait approach or with wider surgical margins and to investigate whether their attitudes would vary depending on whether or not the patient had a personal and/or family history of melanoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We collected data from an anonymous survey sent to 738 dermatologists between June 15 and July 31, 2022. The independent variables were degree of dysplasia (low vs. high), margin status (positive vs. negative), and a personal or family history of melanoma (yes vs. no in both cases). The dependent variables were attitude towards management (watch-and-wait vs. re-excision with a surgical margin of 1 to 4mm or re-excision with a surgical margin of 5 to 10mm). RESULTS: We obtained 86 responses to the questionnaire. When pathology indicated a low-grade DN, 60.5% of dermatologists stated they would obtain a surgical margin of 1 to 4mm if the first margins were positive, and 97.7% would watch and wait if the report described negative margins. For high-grade DNs, 1.2% of dermatologists would watch and wait to manage DN with positive margins; 68.8% would use this approach for negative margins. A family or personal history of melanoma had no influence on most of the dermatologists' attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: Management strategies for DN among dermatologists from the center-Spain section of the AEDV varied, particularly when faced with low-grade DN with positive margins and high-grade DN with negative margins. A family or personal history of melanoma did not influence clinical attitudes in most cases.

Cutaneous reactions after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: a cross-sectional Spanish nationwide study of 405 cases.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous reactions after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are poorly characterized. OBJECTIVE: To describe and classify cutaneous reactions after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: A nationwide Spanish cross-sectional study was conducted. We included patients with cutaneous reactions within 21 days of any dose of the approved vaccines at the time of the study. After a face-to-face visit with a dermatologist, information on cutaneous reactions was collected via an online professional survey and clinical photographs were sent by email. Investigators searched for consensus on clinical patterns and classification. RESULTS: From 16 February to 15 May 2021, we collected 405 reactions after vaccination with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech; 40·2%), mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 36·3%) and AZD1222 (AstraZeneca; 23·5%) vaccines. Mean patient age was 50·7 years and 80·2% were female. Cutaneous reactions were classified as injection site ('COVID arm', 32·1%), urticaria (14·6%), morbilliform (8·9%), papulovesicular (6·4%), pityriasis rosea-like (4·9%) and purpuric (4%) reactions. Varicella zoster and herpes simplex virus reactivations accounted for 13·8% of reactions. The COVID arm was almost exclusive to women (95·4%). The most reported reactions in each vaccine group were COVID arm (mRNA-1273, Moderna, 61·9%), varicella zoster virus reactivation (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech, 17·2%) and urticaria (AZD1222, AstraZeneca, 21·1%). Most reactions to the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine were described in women (90·5%). Eighty reactions (21%) were classified as severe/very severe and 81% required treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Cutaneous reactions after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are heterogeneous. Most are mild-to-moderate and self-limiting, although severe/very severe reactions are reported. Knowledge of these reactions during mass vaccination may help healthcare professionals and reassure patients.