Pathophysiology and management of sensitive skin: position paper from the special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI)

The special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch previously defined sensitive skin as a syndrome defined by the occurrence of unpleasant sensations (stinging, burning, pain, pruritus and tingling sensations) in response to stimuli that normally should not provoke such sensations. This additional paper focuses on the pathophysiology and the management of sensitive skin. Sensitive skin is not an immunological disorder but is related to alterations of the skin nervous system. Skin barrier abnormalities are frequently associated, but there is no cause and direct relationship. Further studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology of sensitive skin – as well as the inducing factors. Avoidance of possible triggering factors and the use of well-tolerated cosmetics, especially those containing inhibitors of unpleasant sensations, might be suggested for patients with sensitive skin. The role of psychosocial factors, such as stress or negative expectations, might be relevant for subgroups of patients. To date, there is no clinical trial supporting the use of topical or systemic drugs in sensitive skin. The published data are not sufficient to reach a consensus on sensitive skin management. In general, patients with sensitive skin require a personalized approach, taking into account various biomedical, neural and psychosocial factors affecting sensitive skin.     

Maximizing Breast Cancer Therapy with Awareness of Potential Treatment-Related Blood Disorders

In this review we summarize the impact of the various modalities of breast cancer therapy coupled with intrinsic patient factors on incidence of subsequent treatment-induced myelodysplasia and acute myelogenous leukemia (t-MDS/AML). It is clear that risk is increased for patients treated with radiation and chemotherapy at younger ages. Radiation is associated with modest risk, whereas chemotherapy, particularly the combination of an alkylating agent and an anthracycline, carries higher risk and radiation and chemotherapy combined increase the risk markedly. Recently, treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), but not pegylated G-CSF, has been identified as a factor associated with increased t-MDS/AML risk. Two newly identified associations may link homologous DNA repair gene deficiency and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment to increased t-MDS/AML risk. When predisposing factors, such as young age, are combined with an increasing number of potentially leukemogenic treatments that may not confer large risk singly, the risk of t-MDS/AML appears to increase. Patient and treatment factors combine to form a biological cascade that can trigger a myelodysplastic event. Patients with breast cancer are often exposed to many of these risk factors in the course of their treatment, and triple-negative patients, who are often younger and/or BRCA positive, are often exposed to all of them. It is important going forward to identify effective therapies without these adverse associated effects and choose existing therapies that minimize the risk of t-MDS/AML without sacrificing therapeutic gain.

Implications for Practice

Breast cancer is far more curable than in the past but requires multimodality treatment. Great care must be taken to use the least leukemogenic treatment programs that do not sacrifice efficacy. Elimination of radiation and anthracycline/alkylating agent regimens will be helpful where possible, particularly in younger patients and possibly those with homologous repair deficiency (HRD). Use of colony-stimulating factors should be limited to those who truly require them for safe chemotherapy administration. Further study of a possible leukemogenic association with HRD and the various forms of colony-stimulating factors is badly needed.

     

Impact and Predictors of Noncircular Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Shapes on Estimating Aortic Stenosis Severity by Means of Continuity Equations

Determining aortic stenosis (AS) severity is clinically important. Calculating aortic valve (AV) area by means of the continuity equation assumes a circular left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). The full impact of this assumption in calculating AV area is unknown. Predictors of noncircular LVOT shape in patients with AS are undefined.In 109 adult patients with AS who underwent multiplanar transesophageal echocardiography, we calculated AV area by means of the standard continuity method and by a modified method involving planimetric LVOT area.We found 54 circular, 37 horizontal-oval, 8 vertical-oval, and 10 irregular LVOTs. Area derived by direct planimetry correlated better with the modified than the standard continuity method (r=0.89 vs r=0.85; both P=0.0001). Valve areas of patients with mild, moderate, or severe AS by planimetry were more often mischaracterized with use of the standard than modified method (29 vs 18; P <0.0001). Horizontal-oval AV area derived by planimetry (1.28 ± 0.55 cm²) was underestimated by the standard method (1.05 ± 0.47 cm²; P=0.001), but not by the modified method. Congenital AV morphology and low cardiac index were the only multivariate predictors of horizontal-oval shape. Low cardiac index was the only predictor of noncircular shape.More than half our patients with AS had noncircular LVOTs. Using the modified method reduces mischaracterizations of AS severity. Congenital AV morphology and low cardiac index predict horizontal-oval or noncircular shape. These data suggest the value of direct LVOT measurement to calculate AS severity in patients who have congenital AV or a low cardiac index.