Luis Ríos-Buceta

Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment of basal cell carcinoma

Numerous therapeutic options are now available for the treatment of basal cell carcinoma. However, few randomized controlled trials with 5-year follow-up have compared the effectiveness of the different treatments. Such a comparison is difficult, probably because efficacy depends on several factors: those related to the tumor, the patient, the technique, and the dermatologists experience. We first describe the available therapeutic options, including certain innovative treatments. We have divided them into 2 main groups-surgical and nonsurgical-and focus on the indications, advantages, and disadvantages of each one, as well as on the cure and recurrence rates. Then, based on the evidence reviewed, we attempt to provide an outline of the therapeutic strategies recommended in basal cell carcinoma, and the approach to be used in specific situations. We also describe our own experience.

Classic Kaposi's sarcoma treated with topical rapamycin

Kaposis sarcoma (KS) is an angioproliferative disorder caused by human herpesvirus 8 (HHV‐8). Current research efforts have focused on the study of the relative role of KSHV‐encoded genes in Kaposis sarcomagenesis in order to identify novel mechanism‐based therapies for patients suffering from this tumor. Although several viral genes have potential for KS pathogenesis, compelling data point to the KSHV‐encoded G protein‐coupled receptor (vGPCR) as a leading candidate viral gene for the initiation of KS. Interestingly, the oncogenic potential of vGPCR seems to correlate with its capacity to activate the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling pathway. Rapamycin, the prototypical inhibitor of the mTOR signaling pathway, has recently emerged as an effective treatment for KS when administered orally. In this case report, we present an immunocompetent patient with KS lesions treated with topical rapamycin achieving clinical and histologic healing after 16 weeks of treatment. The topical application of rapamycin could be a novel therapeutic option for the treatment of KS.

Teledermatología diferida: análisis de validez en una serie de 2.000 observaciones

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the validity of store-and-forward teledermatology as a tool to support physicians in primary care and hospital emergency services and reduce the requirement for face-to-face appointments. Diagnostic validity and the approach chosen for patient management (face-to-face vs teledermatology) were compared according to patient origin and diagnostic group. MATERIAL AND METHODS Digital images from 100 patients were assessed by 20 different dermatologists and the diagnoses offered were compared with those provided in face-to-face appointments (gold standard). The proposed management of the different groups of patients was also compared. RESULTS The percentage complete agreement was 69.05% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.9%-71.0%). The aggregate agreement was 87.80% (95% CI, 86.1%-89.0%). When questioned about appropriate management of the patients, observers elected face-to-face consultation in 60% of patients (95% CI, 58%-61%) and teledermatology in 40% (95% CI, 38%-41%). Diagnostic validity was higher in patients from primary care (76.1% complete agreement and 91.8% aggregate agreement) than those from hospital emergency services (61.8% complete agreement, 83.4% aggregate agreement) (p < 0.001) and teledermatology was also chosen more often in patients from primary care compared with those from emergency services (42% vs 38%; p=0.003). In terms of diagnostic group, higher validity was observed for patients with infectious diseases (73.3% complete agreement and 91.3% aggregate agreement) compared to those with inflammatory disease (70.8% complete agreement and 86.4% aggregate agreement) or tumors (63.0% complete agreement and 87.2% aggregate agreement) (p <0.001). Teledermatology was also chosen more often in patients with infectious diseases (52%) than in those with inflammatory disease (40%) or tumors (28%) (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS Store-and-forward teledermatology has a high level of diagnostic validity, particularly in those cases referred from primary care and in infectious diseases. It can be considered useful for the diagnosis and management of patients at a distance and would reduce the requirement for face-to-face consultation by 40%.

Store-and-Forward Teledermatology: Assessment of Validity in a Series of 2000 Observations

Background and objectives: the aim of this study was to assess the validity of store- and-forward teledermatology as a tool to support physicians in primary care and hospital emergency services and reduce the requirement for face-to-face appointments. Diagnostic validity and the approach chosen for patient management (face-to-face vs teledermatology) were compared according to patient origin and diagnostic group. Material and methods: Digital images from 100 patients were assessed by 20 different dermatologists and the diagnoses offered were compared with those provided in face-to- face appointments (gold standard). the proposed management of the different groups of patients was also compared. Results: the percentage complete agreement was 69.05% (95% confidence interval (ci), 66.9%-71.0%). the aggregate agreement was 87.80% (95% ci, 86.1%-89.0%). When questioned about appropriate management of the patients, observers elected face-to- face consultation in 60% of patients (95% ci, 58%-61%) and teledermatology in 40% (95% ci, 38%-41%). Diagnostic validity was higher in patients from primary care (76.1% complete agreement and 91.8% aggregate agreement) than those from hospital emergency services (61.8% complete agreement, 83.4% aggregate agreement) (P<.001) and teledermatology was also chosen more often in patients from primary care compared with those from emergency services (42% vs 38%; P =.003). in terms of diagnostic group, higher validity was observed for patients with infectious diseases (73.3% complete agreement and 91.3% aggregate agreement) compared to those with inflammatory disease (70.8% complete agreement and 86.4% aggregate agreement) or tumors (63.0% complete agreement and