Adam R Schmitt1, Beverly J Long2, Amy L Weaver3, Michaela E McGree3, Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez2, Jerry D Brewer4, William A Cliby5. 1. Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 3. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 4. Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Division of Dermatologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 5. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Electronic address: cliby.william@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify the rates of associated and occult cancers in patients with extramammary Paget disease (EMPD) discovered using cancer screening methods at a tertiary medical center; to propose evidence-based cancer screening guidelines at the time of diagnosis of EMPD; and to clarify terminology associating EMPD with underlying malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with histologically confirmed EMPD presenting for care at our institution between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 2015, was performed. Both male and female patients were included. Descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients met the inclusion criteria. Most (59.6%) were female patients, and the mean age at the time of EMPD diagnosis was 70.8±10.1 years. Most (82%) of the 161 patients had at least 1 cancer screening test performed, though screening practices varied widely. Of those screened for an underlying malignancy, 17 distant, noncontiguous malignancies were identified in 15 patients (11.4%), with prostate (n=5), urinary tract (n=5), and breast (n=2) malignancies found most frequently. Most malignancies were identified by urine cytology, mammography, and prostate-specific antigen blood test. Of all patients, 37 (23.0%) had an underlying contiguous malignancy identified by pathology. CONCLUSION: All patients diagnosed with EMPD should undergo cancer screening. At minimum, evaluation should include age-appropriate screening and the addition of urine cytology, mammography, and prostate-specific antigen blood test-if not already performed-may be of particular use. An algorithm for evaluation of patients with newly diagnosed EMPD is proposed.
OBJECTIVES: To identify the rates of associated and occult cancers in patients with extramammary Paget disease (EMPD) discovered using cancer screening methods at a tertiary medical center; to propose evidence-based cancer screening guidelines at the time of diagnosis of EMPD; and to clarify terminology associating EMPD with underlying malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with histologically confirmed EMPD presenting for care at our institution between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 2015, was performed. Both male and female patients were included. Descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients met the inclusion criteria. Most (59.6%) were female patients, and the mean age at the time of EMPD diagnosis was 70.8±10.1 years. Most (82%) of the 161 patients had at least 1 cancer screening test performed, though screening practices varied widely. Of those screened for an underlying malignancy, 17 distant, noncontiguous malignancies were identified in 15 patients (11.4%), with prostate (n=5), urinary tract (n=5), and breast (n=2) malignancies found most frequently. Most malignancies were identified by urine cytology, mammography, and prostate-specific antigen blood test. Of all patients, 37 (23.0%) had an underlying contiguous malignancy identified by pathology. CONCLUSION: All patients diagnosed with EMPD should undergo cancer screening. At minimum, evaluation should include age-appropriate screening and the addition of urine cytology, mammography, and prostate-specific antigen blood test-if not already performed-may be of particular use. An algorithm for evaluation of patients with newly diagnosed EMPD is proposed.