Try a new search

Format these results:

Searched for:



Total Results:


SPF 100+ sunscreen is more protective against sunburn than SPF 50+ in actual-use: Results of a randomized, double-blind, split-face, natural sunlight exposure, clinical trial

Williams, Joshua D; Maitra, Prithwiraj; Atillasoy, Evren; Wu, Mei-Miau; Farberg, Aaron S; Rigel, Darrell S
BACKGROUND:The value of additional photoprotection provided by use of high SPF sunscreens is controversial and limited clinical evidence exists. OBJECTIVE:To compare the sunburn protection provided by SPF100+ and SPF50+ sunscreen in conditions of actual use. METHODS:199 healthy men and women (≥18 years) participated in a natural sunlight, single exposure, split face, randomized, double blind study in Vail, Colorado. Each participant wore both sunscreens simultaneously during activities with no usage restrictions other than treatment area designation. Erythema was clinically assessed the day following exposure. Comparative efficacy was evaluated through bilateral comparison of sunburn between treatment areas and erythema score as evaluated separately for each treatment area. RESULTS:Following an average 6.1 ± 1.3 hours of sun exposure, investigator blinded evaluation identified 55.3% (110/199) of the participants as more sunburned on the SPF50+ and 5% (10/199) on the SPF100+ protected side. Post exposure, 40.7% (81/199) of the participants exhibited increased erythema scores ≥ 1 on the SPF50+ protected side as compared to 13.6% (27/199) on the SPF100+. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Single day exposure may not extrapolate to benefits of longer-term protection. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:SPF100+ sunscreen was significantly more effective in protecting against sunburn than SPF50+ sunscreen in actual-use conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION/
PMID: 29291958
ISSN: 1097-6787
CID: 2899642

Skin Self-examination for Skin Cancer Prevention

Svoboda, Ryan M; Friedman, Robert J; Rigel, Darrell S
PMID: 30140870
ISSN: 1538-3598
CID: 3246222

The Importance of Early Recognition of Skin Cancer [Editorial]

Farberg, Aaron S; Rigel, Darrell S
PMID: 28886816
ISSN: 1558-0520
CID: 2688472

Response to Marchetti et al

Rigel, Darrell S; Whitaker, John W; Skelsey, Maral K; Peck, Gary; Howell, Michael D; Jansen, Burkhard
PMID: 34273350
ISSN: 1523-1747
CID: 4947692

Impact of Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy on Dermatologists' Number-Needed-to-Biopsy Metric and Biopsy Decisions for Pigmented Skin Lesions

Litchman, Graham H; Teplitz, Rebeca W; Marson, Justin; Rigel, Darrell S
PMID: 32926981
ISSN: 1097-6787
CID: 4592652

Passing of Robert J. Friedman, MD MSc

Rigel, Darrell S; Heilman, Edward
PMID: 34182048
ISSN: 1097-6787
CID: 4926302

The Magnitude of Increased US Melanoma Incidence Attributable to Ground-Level Ultraviolet Radiation Intensity Trends

Marson, Justin W; Litchman, Graham H; Rigel, Darrell S
PMID: 32871162
ISSN: 1097-6787
CID: 4583142

The Magnitude of COVID-19's Effect on the Timely Management of Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancers

Marson, Justin W; Maner, Brittany S; Harding, Tanner P; Meisenheimer, John; Solomon, James A; Leavitt, Matt; Levin, Nicole J; Dellavalle, Robert; Brooks, Ian; Rigel, Darrell S
PMID: 33482258
ISSN: 1097-6787
CID: 4761022

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Physician-Pharmaceutical Office-Based Interactions

Marson, Justin W; Litchman, Graham H; Rigel, Darrell S
BACKGROUND:COVID-19 has had significant negative economic ramifications on dermatologic care delivery, including curtailing live on-site physician-pharmaceutical-representative interactions (PPRI). OBJECTIVE:To determine the impact of COVID-19 and pandemic regulations on current and future PPRI. METHODS:Cross-sectional survey-based study that analyzed data from 400 surveyed dermatologists using a pre-validated questionnaire sent via email. Data regarding PPRI were collected over 1 week in July 2020 to compare demographics and practice standards from April 2019, April 2020, July 2020, and predictions for 2021. RESULTS:Virtual-only PPRI increased from 7.8% in April 2019 to 26.5% during April 2020 (mean difference, 18.8%; 95% confidence interval, 13.6%–23.9%). Virtual-only PPRI remained elevated at 24.5% while hybrid PPRI increased, eventually surpassing the April 2019 mark (27.0%). These trends persisted among all studied practice types and levels of experience. Practices predicted no significant percent differences in participation in PPRI (87.3% vs 90.3%; P=0.0834), but a significant shift in method of delivery where the odds ratio of incorporating a virtual component into PPRI in 2021 increased by a factor of 3. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Relatively small sample size, especially among subgroups. Responses may have been retrospective estimates. There may also be selection bias given slightly increased representation of more experienced dermatologists. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:PPRI materially decreased during the initial COVID-19 peak but will likely return to baseline volume moving forward with a significant component being hybrid PPRI. Further studies may better elucidate the economic and clinical impact associated with these changes and their effect on dermatologists’ ability to provide patients with samples and educational materials. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(2):215-223. doi:10.36849/JDD.2021.5651.
PMID: 33538568
ISSN: 1545-9616
CID: 4776552

Validation of a 40-Gene Expression Profile Test to Predict Metastatic Risk in Localized High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Wysong, Ashley; Newman, Jason G; Covington, Kyle R; Kurley, Sarah J; Ibrahim, Sherrif F; Farberg, Aaron S; Bar, Anna; Cleaver, Nathan J; Somani, Ally-Khan; Panther, David; Brodland, David G; Zitelli, John; Toyohara, Jennifer; Maher, Ian A; Xia, Yang; Bibee, Kristin; Griego, Robert; Rigel, Darrell S; Plasseraud, Kristen Meldi; Estrada, Sarah; Sholl, Lauren Meldi; Johnson, Clare; Cook, Robert W; Schmults, Chrysalyne D; Arron, Sarah T
BACKGROUND:Current staging systems for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) have limited positive predictive value (PPV) for identifying patients who will experience metastasis. OBJECTIVE:To develop and validate a gene expression profile (GEP) test for predicting risk for metastasis in localized, high-risk cSCC with the goal of improving risk-directed patient management. METHODS:Archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary cSCC tissue and clinicopathologic data (n=586) were collected from 23 independent centers in a prospectively designed study. A GEP signature was developed using a discovery cohort (n=202) and validated in a separate, non-overlaping, independent cohort (n=324). RESULTS:A prognostic, 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test was developed and validated, stratifying high-risk cSCC patients into classes based on metastasis risk: Class 1 (low-risk), Class 2A (high-risk), and Class 2B (highest-risk). For the validation cohort, 3-year metastasis-free survival (MFS) rates were 91.4%, 80.6%, and 44.0%, respectively. A PPV of 60% was achieved for the highest-risk group (Class 2B), an improvement over staging systems; while negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were comparable to staging systems. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Potential understaging of cases could affect metastasis rate accuracy. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The 40-GEP test is an independent predictor of metastatic risk that can complement current staging systems for patients with high-risk cSCC.
PMID: 32344066
ISSN: 1097-6787
CID: 4412182