Background

Chronic wounds represent a worldwide problem. For laboratory and clinical research to adequately address this problem, a common language needs to exist.

Observation

This language should include a system of wound classification, a lexicon of wound descriptors, and a description of the processes that are likely to affect wound healing and wound healing end points.

Conclusions

The report that follows defines wound, acute wound, chronic wound, healing and forms of healing, wound assessment, wound extent, wound burden, and wound severity. The utility of these definitions is demonstrated as they relate to the healing of a skin wound, but these definitions are broadly applicable to all wounds.

Background

In focused radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PC), a full dose of radiation is delivered to the index lesion while reduced dose is delivered to the remaining prostate to reduce morbidity. As PC is commonly multifocal, we investigated whether baseline clinical characteristics or multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may be useful to predict the actual pathologic distribution of PC in men with intermediate- or high-risk PC, which may better inform how to deliver focused radiotherapy.

Methods

A retrospective single-institutional study was performed on 71 consecutive men with clinically localized, intermediate- or high-risk PC who underwent mpMRI followed by radical prostatectomy (RP) from January 2012 to December 2012. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate preoperative predictors for satellite lesions. Performance characteristics of mpMRI to detect satellite lesions and the extent of prostate disease (one hemi-gland vs both) were also evaluated.

Results

In all, 50.7% had satellite lesions on mpMRI. On RP specimen analysis, 66.2% had satellite lesions and 55.3% of these satellite lesions had pathologic Gleason score (pGS)⩾3+4. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy for mpMRI detecting a satellite lesion being present in the RP specimen were 59.6%, 66.7%, 77.8%, 45.7% and 62.0%, respectively. The presence of MRI satellite lesions was the only preoperative predictor significantly associated with finding satellite lesions on final pathology (hazard ratio (HR), 2.95, P=0.040). There was agreement in 76.1% of the entire cohort for unilateral vs bilateral disease when incorporating both biopsy and mpMRI information and comparing with the RP specimen.

Conclusions

In intermediate risk or greater PC, only the presence of mpMRI satellite lesions could predict for pathologic satellite lesions. While combining biopsy and mpMRI information may improve preoperative disease localization, the relatively high incidence of bilateral hemi-gland involvement with pGS ⩾7 satellite lesions makes it challenging to appropriately select men eligible for hemi-gland therapy.

Background

Routinely collected electronic health data obtained for administrative and clinical purposes are increasingly used to study atopic dermatitis (AD). Methods for identifying AD patients in routinely collected electronic health data differ, and it is unknown how this might affect study results.

Objectives

To evaluate how patients with AD have been identified in studies using routinely collected electronic health data, to determine whether these methods were validated and to estimate how the method for identifying patients with AD affected variability in prevalence estimates.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for studies using routinely collected electronic health data that reported on AD as a primary outcome. Studies of localized AD and other types of dermatitis were excluded. The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016037968).

Results

In total, 59 studies met eligibility criteria. Medical diagnosis codes for inclusion and exclusion, number of occasions of a code, type of provider associated with a code and prescription data were used to identify patients with AD. Only two studies described validation of their methods and no study reported on disease severity. Prevalence estimates ranged from 0·18% to 38·33% (median 4·91%) and up to threefold variation in prevalence was introduced by differences in the method for identifying patients with AD.

Conclusions

This systematic review highlights the need for clear reporting of methods for identifying patients with AD in routinely collected electronic health data to allow for meaningful interpretation and comparison of results.

Purpose

To define the role of focal laser ablation (FLA) as clinical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) using the Delphi consensus method.

Methods

A panel of international experts in the field of focal therapy (FT) in PCa conducted a collaborative consensus project using the Delphi method. Experts were invited to online questionnaires focusing on patient selection and treatment of PCa with FLA during four subsequent rounds. After each round, outcomes were displayed, and questionnaires were modified based on the comments provided by panelists. Results were finalized and discussed during face-to-face meetings.

Results

Thirty-seven experts agreed to participate, and consensus was achieved on 39/43 topics. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as any volume Grade Group 2 [Gleason score (GS) 3+4]. Focal therapy was specified as treatment of all csPCa and can be considered primary treatment as an alternative to radical treatment in carefully selected patients. In patients with intermediate-risk PCa (GS 3+4) as well as patients with MRI-visible and biopsy-confirmed local recurrence, FLA is optimal for targeted ablation of a specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible focus. However, FLA should not be applied to candidates for active surveillance and close follow-up is required. Suitability for FLA is based on tumor volume, location to vital structures, GS, MRI-visibility, and biopsy confirmation.

Conclusion

Focal laser ablation is a promising technique for treatment of clinically localized PCa and should ideally be performed within approved clinical trials. So far, only few studies have reported on FLA and further validation with longer follow-up is mandatory before widespread clinical implementation is justified.

This report provides a summary of the third meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative held in San Diego, CA, U.S.A., 6-7 April 2013 (HOME III). The meeting addressed the four domains that had previously been agreed should be measured in every eczema clinical trial: clinical signs, patient-reported symptoms, long-term control and quality of life. Formal presentations and nominal group techniques were used at this working meeting, attended by 56 voting participants (31 of whom were dermatologists). Significant progress was made on the domain of clinical signs. Without reference to any named scales, it was agreed that the intensity and extent of erythema, excoriation, oedema/papulation and lichenification should be included in the core outcome measure for the scale to have content validity. The group then discussed a systematic review of all scales measuring the clinical signs of eczema and their measurement properties, followed by a consensus vote on which scale to recommend for inclusion in the core outcome set. Research into the remaining three domains was presented, followed by discussions. The symptoms group and quality of life groups need to systematically identify all available tools and rate the quality of the tools. A definition of long-term control is needed before progress can be made towards recommending a core outcome measure.