ArticlePostepy dermatologii i alergologii2018
Dermoscopic assessment of skin toxicities in patients with melanoma during treatment with vemurafenib.
Article in Postepy dermatologii i alergologii, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Atypical fibroxanthoma mimicking amelanotic melanoma in dermoscopy.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe use of vemurafenib in melanoma has improved the survival of patients; however, it is associated with skin toxicities.
aimTo assess skin toxicities by dermoscopy in patients treated with vemurafenib. MATERIAL AND
methodsEight patients with BRAF V600 mutation positive metastatic melanoma were examined dermoscopically during vemurafenib treatment. All skin lesions occurring during therapy were assessed clinically and dermoscopically using a hand-held dermoscope with polarised and non-polarised light. Skin lesions suspected for malignancy appearing during therapy were totally surgically excised with consecutive histopathological examination.
resultsAll 8 examined patients developed skin toxicity. The majority of patients (7/8) presented G1 skin toxicity according to CTCAE version 4.3. Only 1 of them had G2 skin toxicity. The most common dermoscopy findings in our study were hyperkeratotic verrucas in 5 patients (5/8) with structureless pattern. In some of them we also observed central dots, exophytic proliferation, hairpin vessels and homogeneous haemorrhage. Other findings were hyperkeratosis of the nipples (5/8) with brownish to yellowish, angular clods with a tendency to be more confluent in dermoscopy. Palmar plantar erythrodysaesthesia (3/8) showed dermoscopically a yellowish, homogeneous pattern. Four melanocytic skin lesions in 2 patients were surgically excised due to suspected malignant transformation. In most of them we observed an atypical pigmented network (abrupt cut-off, big holes), atypical globules and a homogeneous blue pattern; however, histopathological diagnosis excluded any malignancy.
conclusionsDermoscopy seems to be an easily performed and valuable method for assessment of skin toxicities during oncological therapy, at any time of the treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.