Rohan Singh1, Ayman Grada2, Alan Fleischer3, Steven R Feldman4. 1. Mr. Singh is with the Center for Dermatology Research, Department of Dermatology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 2. Dr. Grada is with Grada Dermatology Research in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania. 3. Dr. Fleischer is with the Department of Dermatology at University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Cincinnati, Ohio. 4. Dr. Feldman is with the Center for Dermatology Research, Department of Dermatology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina; the Department of Pathology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina; the Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and the Department of Dermatology at University of Southern Denmark in Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
Objective: A nationally representative database was used to assess how soon patients were informed to return to clinic after cryosurgical treatment or prescription of topical 5-fluoruracil (5-FU) for actinic keratosis (AK). Methods: The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey was used to capture diagnoses and medications associated with visits to U.S. outpatient physicians for the treatment of AKs between 2011-2016. Results: Patients treated with topical 5-FU were commonly told to return in two months or more (53%) or were not given a specific time to return at all (23%). Patients treated with cryosurgery were commonly told to return in two months or more (60%) or were not given a specific time to return at all (23%). Limitations: This study was limited by the accuracy of AK diagnosis and treatment recording. Conclusion: Adequate follow-up after cryosurgical or topical 5-FU treatment of AK allows physicians to assess response to treatment. When treatment for AKs fail due to lack of efficacy or intolerance, it is anticipated that patients may not return to clinic for long periods as return visits are scheduled months after cryosurgery or topical 5-FU is prescribed. Additionally, premature follow-up may not be adequate to ensure treatment-related inflammation has subsided. According to recently defined core outcome sets for AKs, if treatment fails due to intolerability, evaluation at 2 to 4 months could allow physicians to switch AK treatments. Follow-up 6 to 12 months post-treatment might better assess efficacy and potential reoccurrence of AKs.
Objective: A nationally representative database was used to assess how soon patients were informed to return to clinic after cryosurgical treatment or prescription of topical 5-fluoruracil (5-FU) for actinic keratosis (AK). Methods: The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey was used to capture diagnoses and medications associated with visits to U.S. outpatient physicians for the treatment of AKs between 2011-2016. Results: Patients treated with topical 5-FU were commonly told to return in two months or more (53%) or were not given a specific time to return at all (23%). Patients treated with cryosurgery were commonly told to return in two months or more (60%) or were not given a specific time to return at all (23%). Limitations: This study was limited by the accuracy of AK diagnosis and treatment recording. Conclusion: Adequate follow-up after cryosurgical or topical 5-FU treatment of AK allows physicians to assess response to treatment. When treatment for AKs fail due to lack of efficacy or intolerance, it is anticipated that patients may not return to clinic for long periods as return visits are scheduled months after cryosurgery or topical 5-FU is prescribed. Additionally, premature follow-up may not be adequate to ensure treatment-related inflammation has subsided. According to recently defined core outcome sets for AKs, if treatment fails due to intolerability, evaluation at 2 to 4 months could allow physicians to switch AK treatments. Follow-up 6 to 12 months post-treatment might better assess efficacy and potential reoccurrence of AKs.
Authors: Maud H E Jansen; Janneke P H M Kessels; Patty J Nelemans; Nina Kouloubis; Aimee H M M Arits; Han P A van Pelt; Patricia J F Quaedvlieg; Brigitte A B Essers; Peter M Steijlen; Nicole W J Kelleners-Smeets; Klara Mosterd Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hein A W van Onzenoort; Frederique E Menger; Cees Neef; Willem J Verberk; Abraham A Kroon; Peter W de Leeuw; Paul-Hugo M van der Kuy Journal: Hypertension Date: 2011-08-08 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Hyemin Pomerantz; Daniel Hogan; David Eilers; Susan M Swetter; Suephy C Chen; Sharon E Jacob; Erin M Warshaw; George Stricklin; Robert P Dellavalle; Navjeet Sidhu-Malik; Nellie Konnikov; Victoria P Werth; Jonette Keri; Robert Lew; Martin A Weinstock Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Vincent D Criscione; Martin A Weinstock; Mark F Naylor; Claudia Luque; Melody J Eide; Stephen F Bingham Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860