Search

ImportanceThe notion that systemic isotretinoin taken within 6 to 12 months of cutaneous surgery contributes to abnormal scarring or delayed wound healing is widely taught and practiced; however, it is based on 3 small case series from the mid-1980s.ObjectiveTo evaluate the body of literature to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the safety of procedural interventions performed either concurrently with, or immediately following the cessation of systemic isotretinoin therapy.Evidence reviewA panel of national experts in pediatric dermatology, procedural/cosmetic dermatology, plastic surgery, scars, wound healing, acne, and isotretinoin was convened. A systematic PubMed review of English-language articles published from 1982 to 2017 was performed using the following search terms: isotretinoin, 13-cis-retinoic acid, Accutane, retinoids, acitretin, surgery, surgical, laser, ablative laser, nonablative laser, laser hair removal, chemical peel, dermabrasion, wound healing, safety, scarring, hypertrophic scar, and keloid. Evidence was graded, and expert consensus was obtained.FindingsThirty-two relevant publications reported 1485 procedures. There was insufficient evidence to support delaying manual dermabrasion, superficial chemical peels, cutaneous surgery, laser hair removal, and fractional ablative and nonablative laser procedures for patients currently receiving or having recently completed isotretinoin therapy. Based on the available literature, mechanical dermabrasion and fully ablative laser are not recommended in the setting of systemic isotretinoin treatment.Conclusions and relevancePhysicians and patients may have an evidence-based discussion regarding the known risk of cutaneous surgical procedures in the setting of systemic isotretinoin therapy. For some patients and some conditions, an informed decision may lead to earlier and potentially more effective interventions.

Background: Although immunocompromised patients have a higher risk of developing cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas, it is unknown whether immune status is an independent risk factor for poor outcomes.Objective: To compare cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma outcomes in immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients when controlling for T-stage.Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study at 2 tertiary care centers, examining 989 primary tumors from 814 immunocompromised patients (solid organ transplant: 259 [31.7%], chronic lymphocytic leukemia: 113 [13.9%]) and 6608 tumors from 4198 immunocompetent patients. Our primary outcome was the composite of disease-specific death or tumor metastasis ("poor outcomes").Results: Immunocompromised patients had 50% more high T-stage tumors (ie, Brigham and Women's Hospital stage T2b and T3), than immunocompetent patients (3.3% vs 4.9%, respectively; P < .001). Significant predictors of poor outcomes included tumor stage (sub hazards ratio [SHR], 14.8 for high T-stage tumors; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0-27.6; P < .001) and male sex (SHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.8; P = .002). Immune status was not a significant predictor (SHR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.69-1.6; P = .85).Limitations: This study is retrospective.Conclusion: Although immunocompromised patients had 50% more high T-stage tumors than immunocompetent patients, immunocompromised patients had a similar chance of metastasis and disease-specific death when adjusting for T-stage in our cohort of primary tumors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]