Michael P. Ryan, MD

The Diagnosis: Scabies Infestation

Direct microscopy revealed the presence of a live scabies mite and numerous eggs (Figure), confirming the diagnosis of a scabies infestation. Scabies, caused by the Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis mite, characteristically presents in adults as pruritic hyperkeratotic plaques of the interdigital web spaces of the hands, flexor surfaces of the wrists and elbows, axillae, male genitalia, and breasts; however, an atypical presentation is common in immunocompromised or immunosuppressed individuals, such as our patient. In children, the palms, soles, and head (ie, face, scalp, neck) are common sites of involvement. Although dermatologists generally are familiar with severe atypical presentations such as Norwegian crusted scabies or bullous scabies, it is important that they are aware of other atypical presentations, such as the diffuse papulonodular variant observed in our patient.¹ As such, a low threshold of suspicion for scabies infestations should be employed in immunocompromised patients with new-onset pruritic eruptions.

Direct microscopy is widely accepted as the gold standard for the diagnosis of scabies infestations; it is a fast and low-cost diagnostic tool. However, this technique displays variable sensitivity in clinical practice, requiring experience and a skilled hand.^1,2 Other more sensitive diagnostic options for suspected scabies infestations include histopathology, serology, and molecular-based techniques such as DNA isolation and polymerase chain reaction. Although these tests do demonstrate greater sensitivity, they also are more invasive, time intensive, and costly.² Therefore, they typically are not the first choice for a suspected scabies infestation. Dermoscopy has emerged as another tool to aid in the diagnosis of a suspected scabies infestation, enabling visualization of scaly burrows, eggs, and live mites. Classically, findings resembling a delta wing with contrail are seen on dermoscopic examination. The delta wing represents the brown triangular structure of the pigmented scabies mite head and anterior legs; the contrail is the lighter linear structures streaming behind the scabies mite (similar to visible vapor streams occurring behind flying jets), representing the burrow of the mite.

Although treatment of scabies infestations typically can be accomplished with permethrin cream 5%, the diffuse nature of our patient’s lesions in combination with his immunocompromised state made oral therapy a more appropriate choice. Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, the patient received 2 doses of oral weight-based ivermectin (200 μg/kg per dose) administered 1 week apart.^1,3 The initial dose at day 1 serves to eliminate any scabies mites that are present, while the second dose 1 week later eliminates any residual eggs. Our patient experienced complete resolution of the symptoms following this treatment regimen.

It was important to differentiate our patient’s scabies infestation from other intensely pruritic conditions and morphologic mimics including papular urticaria, lichenoid drug eruptions, tinea corporis, and prurigo nodularis. Papular urticaria is an intensely pruritic hypersensitivity reaction to insect bites that commonly affects the extremities or other exposed areas. Visible puncta may be present.⁴ Our patient’s lesion distribution involved areas covered by clothing, no puncta were present, and he had no history of a recent arthropod assault, making the diagnosis of papular urticaria less likely.

Lichenoid drug eruptions classically present with symmetric, diffuse, pruritic, violaceous, scaling papules and plaques that present 2 to 3 months after exposure to an offending agent.⁵ Our patient’s eruption was papulonodular with no violaceous plaques, and he did not report changes to his medications, making a lichenoid drug eruption less likely.

Tinea corporis is another intensely pruritic condition that should be considered, especially in immunocompromised patients. It is caused by dermatophytes and classically presents as erythematous pruritic plaques with an annular, advancing, scaling border.⁶ Although immunocompromised patients may display extensive involvement, our patient’s lesions were papulonodular with no annular morphology or scale, rendering tinea corporis less likely.

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic condition characterized by pruritic, violaceous, dome-shaped, smooth or crusted nodules secondary to repeated scratching or pressure. Although prurigo nodules can develop as a secondary change due to chronic excoriations in scabies infestations, prurigo nodules usually do not develop in areas such as the midline of the back that are not easily reached by the fingernails,⁷ which made prurigo nodularis less likely in our patient.

This case describes a unique papulonodular variant of scabies presenting in an immunocompromised cancer patient. Timely recognition and diagnosis of atypical scabies infestations can decrease morbidity and improve the quality of life of these patients.

The Diagnosis: Scabies Infestation

Direct microscopy revealed the presence of a live scabies mite and numerous eggs (Figure), confirming the diagnosis of a scabies infestation. Scabies, caused by the Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis mite, characteristically presents in adults as pruritic hyperkeratotic plaques of the interdigital web spaces of the hands, flexor surfaces of the wrists and elbows, axillae, male genitalia, and breasts; however, an atypical presentation is common in immunocompromised or immunosuppressed individuals, such as our patient. In children, the palms, soles, and head (ie, face, scalp, neck) are common sites of involvement. Although dermatologists generally are familiar with severe atypical presentations such as Norwegian crusted scabies or bullous scabies, it is important that they are aware of other atypical presentations, such as the diffuse papulonodular variant observed in our patient.¹ As such, a low threshold of suspicion for scabies infestations should be employed in immunocompromised patients with new-onset pruritic eruptions.

Direct microscopy is widely accepted as the gold standard for the diagnosis of scabies infestations; it is a fast and low-cost diagnostic tool. However, this technique displays variable sensitivity in clinical practice, requiring experience and a skilled hand.^1,2 Other more sensitive diagnostic options for suspected scabies infestations include histopathology, serology, and molecular-based techniques such as DNA isolation and polymerase chain reaction. Although these tests do demonstrate greater sensitivity, they also are more invasive, time intensive, and costly.² Therefore, they typically are not the first choice for a suspected scabies infestation. Dermoscopy has emerged as another tool to aid in the diagnosis of a suspected scabies infestation, enabling visualization of scaly burrows, eggs, and live mites. Classically, findings resembling a delta wing with contrail are seen on dermoscopic examination. The delta wing represents the brown triangular structure of the pigmented scabies mite head and anterior legs; the contrail is the lighter linear structures streaming behind the scabies mite (similar to visible vapor streams occurring behind flying jets), representing the burrow of the mite.

Although treatment of scabies infestations typically can be accomplished with permethrin cream 5%, the diffuse nature of our patient’s lesions in combination with his immunocompromised state made oral therapy a more appropriate choice. Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, the patient received 2 doses of oral weight-based ivermectin (200 μg/kg per dose) administered 1 week apart.^1,3 The initial dose at day 1 serves to eliminate any scabies mites that are present, while the second dose 1 week later eliminates any residual eggs. Our patient experienced complete resolution of the symptoms following this treatment regimen.

It was important to differentiate our patient’s scabies infestation from other intensely pruritic conditions and morphologic mimics including papular urticaria, lichenoid drug eruptions, tinea corporis, and prurigo nodularis. Papular urticaria is an intensely pruritic hypersensitivity reaction to insect bites that commonly affects the extremities or other exposed areas. Visible puncta may be present.⁴ Our patient’s lesion distribution involved areas covered by clothing, no puncta were present, and he had no history of a recent arthropod assault, making the diagnosis of papular urticaria less likely.

Lichenoid drug eruptions classically present with symmetric, diffuse, pruritic, violaceous, scaling papules and plaques that present 2 to 3 months after exposure to an offending agent.⁵ Our patient’s eruption was papulonodular with no violaceous plaques, and he did not report changes to his medications, making a lichenoid drug eruption less likely.

Tinea corporis is another intensely pruritic condition that should be considered, especially in immunocompromised patients. It is caused by dermatophytes and classically presents as erythematous pruritic plaques with an annular, advancing, scaling border.⁶ Although immunocompromised patients may display extensive involvement, our patient’s lesions were papulonodular with no annular morphology or scale, rendering tinea corporis less likely.

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic condition characterized by pruritic, violaceous, dome-shaped, smooth or crusted nodules secondary to repeated scratching or pressure. Although prurigo nodules can develop as a secondary change due to chronic excoriations in scabies infestations, prurigo nodules usually do not develop in areas such as the midline of the back that are not easily reached by the fingernails,⁷ which made prurigo nodularis less likely in our patient.

This case describes a unique papulonodular variant of scabies presenting in an immunocompromised cancer patient. Timely recognition and diagnosis of atypical scabies infestations can decrease morbidity and improve the quality of life of these patients.

The Diagnosis: Scabies Infestation

Direct microscopy revealed the presence of a live scabies mite and numerous eggs (Figure), confirming the diagnosis of a scabies infestation. Scabies, caused by the Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis mite, characteristically presents in adults as pruritic hyperkeratotic plaques of the interdigital web spaces of the hands, flexor surfaces of the wrists and elbows, axillae, male genitalia, and breasts; however, an atypical presentation is common in immunocompromised or immunosuppressed individuals, such as our patient. In children, the palms, soles, and head (ie, face, scalp, neck) are common sites of involvement. Although dermatologists generally are familiar with severe atypical presentations such as Norwegian crusted scabies or bullous scabies, it is important that they are aware of other atypical presentations, such as the diffuse papulonodular variant observed in our patient.¹ As such, a low threshold of suspicion for scabies infestations should be employed in immunocompromised patients with new-onset pruritic eruptions.

Direct microscopy is widely accepted as the gold standard for the diagnosis of scabies infestations; it is a fast and low-cost diagnostic tool. However, this technique displays variable sensitivity in clinical practice, requiring experience and a skilled hand.^1,2 Other more sensitive diagnostic options for suspected scabies infestations include histopathology, serology, and molecular-based techniques such as DNA isolation and polymerase chain reaction. Although these tests do demonstrate greater sensitivity, they also are more invasive, time intensive, and costly.² Therefore, they typically are not the first choice for a suspected scabies infestation. Dermoscopy has emerged as another tool to aid in the diagnosis of a suspected scabies infestation, enabling visualization of scaly burrows, eggs, and live mites. Classically, findings resembling a delta wing with contrail are seen on dermoscopic examination. The delta wing represents the brown triangular structure of the pigmented scabies mite head and anterior legs; the contrail is the lighter linear structures streaming behind the scabies mite (similar to visible vapor streams occurring behind flying jets), representing the burrow of the mite.

Although treatment of scabies infestations typically can be accomplished with permethrin cream 5%, the diffuse nature of our patient’s lesions in combination with his immunocompromised state made oral therapy a more appropriate choice. Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, the patient received 2 doses of oral weight-based ivermectin (200 μg/kg per dose) administered 1 week apart.^1,3 The initial dose at day 1 serves to eliminate any scabies mites that are present, while the second dose 1 week later eliminates any residual eggs. Our patient experienced complete resolution of the symptoms following this treatment regimen.

It was important to differentiate our patient’s scabies infestation from other intensely pruritic conditions and morphologic mimics including papular urticaria, lichenoid drug eruptions, tinea corporis, and prurigo nodularis. Papular urticaria is an intensely pruritic hypersensitivity reaction to insect bites that commonly affects the extremities or other exposed areas. Visible puncta may be present.⁴ Our patient’s lesion distribution involved areas covered by clothing, no puncta were present, and he had no history of a recent arthropod assault, making the diagnosis of papular urticaria less likely.

Lichenoid drug eruptions classically present with symmetric, diffuse, pruritic, violaceous, scaling papules and plaques that present 2 to 3 months after exposure to an offending agent.⁵ Our patient’s eruption was papulonodular with no violaceous plaques, and he did not report changes to his medications, making a lichenoid drug eruption less likely.

Tinea corporis is another intensely pruritic condition that should be considered, especially in immunocompromised patients. It is caused by dermatophytes and classically presents as erythematous pruritic plaques with an annular, advancing, scaling border.⁶ Although immunocompromised patients may display extensive involvement, our patient’s lesions were papulonodular with no annular morphology or scale, rendering tinea corporis less likely.

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic condition characterized by pruritic, violaceous, dome-shaped, smooth or crusted nodules secondary to repeated scratching or pressure. Although prurigo nodules can develop as a secondary change due to chronic excoriations in scabies infestations, prurigo nodules usually do not develop in areas such as the midline of the back that are not easily reached by the fingernails,⁷ which made prurigo nodularis less likely in our patient.

This case describes a unique papulonodular variant of scabies presenting in an immunocompromised cancer patient. Timely recognition and diagnosis of atypical scabies infestations can decrease morbidity and improve the quality of life of these patients.

To the Editor:

Ongoing concern about the high costs of dermatology residency interviews has led to several cost-saving proposals, as presented by Hussain¹ in the Cutis article, “Reducing the Cost of Dermatology Residency Applications: An Applicant’s Perspective.” Additional strategies to reduce applicant costs include eliminating travel costs through video or telephone interviews, interviewing students who are visiting during their away rotation, and developing and implementing a mechanism to exempt students from participating in the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP).² A potential mechanism for the latter suggestion could be a binding early decision program for dermatology residency. Binding early decision has been successfully employed by medical schools for many years.³ Under this model for dermatology residency, applicants may apply to 1 dermatology residency program by the early deadline and the program would have the option of accepting as many of the early-decision applicants as the number of residency positions in their program permits, allowing nonadmitted and nonparticipating applicants time to apply through the usual ERAS/NRMP cycle. There are several potential advantages to this model that would decrease the number of applicants applying to all the available dermatology residency programs each cycle.

First, because applicants would be limited to 1 application to participate in the early decision program, they must realistically consider the strength of their application and weigh their chances for acceptance to that program. Programs could facilitate the process by becoming more transparent about the type of applicants that have previously matched in their program.² If an early-decision applicant successfully matches, that applicant would be prohibited from applying to additional dermatology residency programs through ERAS and NRMP during that application cycle.

Second, early-decision actions by programs—probably by August 1, a time when most third-year medical students have completed their academic year—would be determined before ERAS releases applications to residency programs. This timeline would remove successful applicants in the early decision program from going to additional interviews and incurring the associated travel costs.

Third, early decision could be potentially beneficial to applicants who are tied to a specific geographic region for training and to programs with specific program needs, such as expertise in specific areas of dermatology research or areas of clinical need (eg, adding a dermatopathologist, plastic surgeon, internist, or a pediatrician to the residency program who now wants dermatology training) or other program needs.

Fourth, application costs could potentially be lower for early-decision applicants than through the present application process if participating institutions waived application fees. Applicants would still be responsible for submitting requested academic transcripts, letters of recommendation, and travel expenses if an on-site interview is requested by the program.

Finally, highly desirable applicants who are offered a position through early decision would result in more opportunities for other applicants to interview for the remaining available residency positions through ERAS/NRMP.

Downsides to early decision for dermatology residency include the inability of applicants to compare programs to one another through their personal experiences, such as prior rotations or interviews, and for programs to compare applicants though the interview process and away rotations. In addition, US Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 scores and Alpha Omega Alpha honor medical society status and other academic honors may not be available to programs to consider at the time of early decision. Cooperation would be needed with ERAS and NRMP to create an early decision program for dermatology residency.

One other potential consequence of the early match could involve instances of strained relationships between research fellows and their sponsoring institution or dermatology program. Research fellows often match at their research institution, and failing to early match could potentially sour the relationship between the applicant and the program, thus leading to a less productive year. However, many programs participating in an early match will probably have additional residency positions remaining in the traditional match that would be still available to the fellows.

The concept of an early-binding residency match process has the potential to save both time and money for programs and applicants. Although an early-match process would have many positive effects, there also would be inherent downsides that accompany such a system. Nonetheless, an early-match process in dermatology has the prospect of efficiently pairing applicants and programs that feel strongly about each other while simplifying the match process and reducing costs for all parties involved.

References

1. Hussain AN. Reducing the cost of dermatology residency applications: an applicant’s perspective. Cutis. 2019;104:352-353.

2. Weisert E, Phan M. Thoughts on reducing the cost for dermatology residency applications. DIG@UTMB blog. http://digutmb.blogspot.com/2019/12/thoughts-on-reducing-cost-for.html. Published December 23, 2019. Accessed April 17, 2020.

3. Early decision program. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-medical-school/article/early-decision-program/. Accessed April 8, 2020.

Author’s Response

The early decision option for dermatology residency applications would be a welcomed addition to the process but may be complicated by 2 recent events: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the change of US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score reporting to a pass/fail system.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused remarkable economic distress and likely affects medical students more acutely given their high levels of debt. As Ryan and Wagner observed, one advantage of the early-decision option would be financial relief for certain students. If applicants successfully match during the early-decision phase, they will not need to apply to any additional dermatology programs and also can target their preliminary-year applications to the geographic region where they have already matched.

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic may further reduce early applicants’ ability to visit programs in person. Various medical schools have curtailed away rotations, and programs may opt for virtual interviews in accordance with social distancing guidelines.¹ Thus, early applicants will have even fewer opportunities to compare programs before they must make a binding decision about their residency placement. Although away rotations and interview travel are some of the largest drivers of application cost,² reducing costs in this way might shortchange both students and programs.

Arguably, the change in USMLE Step 1 score reporting beginning in 2022 may impact residency selection for a longer period of time than the COVID-19 pandemic. Program directors cited USMLE Step 1 scores as one of the main factors determining which applicants may be invited to interview.³ The lack of numerical USMLE Step 1 scores may encourage programs to place more weight on other metrics such as USMLE Step 2 CK scores or Alpha Omega Alpha membership.⁴ However, as Ryan and Wagner point out, such metrics may not be available in time for early-decision applicants.

As such, future program directors will have precious little information to screen early-decision applicants and may need to conduct holistic application review. This would require increased time and manpower compared to screening based on traditional metrics but may lead to a better “fit” for an applicant with a residency.

In general, implementation of any early decision program would benefit dermatology applicants as a group by removing elite candidates from the applicant pool. According to National Resident Matching Program data, just 3% of dermatology applicants account for more than 12% of overall interviews.⁵ In other words, a small group of the strongest applicants receives a lion’s share of interviews, crowding out many other candidates. Removing these top-tier applicants likely would provide remaining applicants with a higher return on investment per application, and students may choose to save money by applying to fewer programs.

Adopting early-decision options within the dermatology match may be complicated given the COVID-19 pandemic and USMLE score changes but may spur positive changes in the process while also reducing the financial burden on applicants.

Aamir N. Hussain, MD, MAPP

From Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Aamir N. Hussain, MD, MAPP (aamir.nav.hussain@gmail.com).

References

1. Coronavirus (COVID-19) and the VSLO program. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://students-residents.aamc.org/attending-medical-school/article/coronavirus-covid-19-and-vslo-program/. Accessed April 17, 2020.

2. Mansouri B, Walker GD, Mitchell J, et al. The cost of applying to dermatology residency: 2014 data estimates. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:754-756.

3. National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee. Results of the 2018 NRMP Program Director Survey. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2018. https://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NRMP-2018-Program-Director-Survey-for-WWW.pdf. Published June 2018. Accessed April 17, 2020.

4. Crane MA, Chang HA, Azamfirei R. Medical education takes a step in the right direction: where does that leave students? [published online March 6, 2020]. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2950.

5. Lee AH, Young P, Liao R, et al. I dream of Gini: quantifying inequality in otolaryngology residency interviews. Laryngoscope. 2019;129:627-633.

To the Editor:

Ongoing concern about the high costs of dermatology residency interviews has led to several cost-saving proposals, as presented by Hussain¹ in the Cutis article, “Reducing the Cost of Dermatology Residency Applications: An Applicant’s Perspective.” Additional strategies to reduce applicant costs include eliminating travel costs through video or telephone interviews, interviewing students who are visiting during their away rotation, and developing and implementing a mechanism to exempt students from participating in the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP).² A potential mechanism for the latter suggestion could be a binding early decision program for dermatology residency. Binding early decision has been successfully employed by medical schools for many years.³ Under this model for dermatology residency, applicants may apply to 1 dermatology residency program by the early deadline and the program would have the option of accepting as many of the early-decision applicants as the number of residency positions in their program permits, allowing nonadmitted and nonparticipating applicants time to apply through the usual ERAS/NRMP cycle. There are several potential advantages to this model that would decrease the number of applicants applying to all the available dermatology residency programs each cycle.

First, because applicants would be limited to 1 application to participate in the early decision program, they must realistically consider the strength of their application and weigh their chances for acceptance to that program. Programs could facilitate the process by becoming more transparent about the type of applicants that have previously matched in their program.² If an early-decision applicant successfully matches, that applicant would be prohibited from applying to additional dermatology residency programs through ERAS and NRMP during that application cycle.

Second, early-decision actions by programs—probably by August 1, a time when most third-year medical students have completed their academic year—would be determined before ERAS releases applications to residency programs. This timeline would remove successful applicants in the early decision program from going to additional interviews and incurring the associated travel costs.

Third, early decision could be potentially beneficial to applicants who are tied to a specific geographic region for training and to programs with specific program needs, such as expertise in specific areas of dermatology research or areas of clinical need (eg, adding a dermatopathologist, plastic surgeon, internist, or a pediatrician to the residency program who now wants dermatology training) or other program needs.

Fourth, application costs could potentially be lower for early-decision applicants than through the present application process if participating institutions waived application fees. Applicants would still be responsible for submitting requested academic transcripts, letters of recommendation, and travel expenses if an on-site interview is requested by the program.

Finally, highly desirable applicants who are offered a position through early decision would result in more opportunities for other applicants to interview for the remaining available residency positions through ERAS/NRMP.

Downsides to early decision for dermatology residency include the inability of applicants to compare programs to one another through their personal experiences, such as prior rotations or interviews, and for programs to compare applicants though the interview process and away rotations. In addition, US Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 scores and Alpha Omega Alpha honor medical society status and other academic honors may not be available to programs to consider at the time of early decision. Cooperation would be needed with ERAS and NRMP to create an early decision program for dermatology residency.

One other potential consequence of the early match could involve instances of strained relationships between research fellows and their sponsoring institution or dermatology program. Research fellows often match at their research institution, and failing to early match could potentially sour the relationship between the applicant and the program, thus leading to a less productive year. However, many programs participating in an early match will probably have additional residency positions remaining in the traditional match that would be still available to the fellows.

The concept of an early-binding residency match process has the potential to save both time and money for programs and applicants. Although an early-match process would have many positive effects, there also would be inherent downsides that accompany such a system. Nonetheless, an early-match process in dermatology has the prospect of efficiently pairing applicants and programs that feel strongly about each other while simplifying the match process and reducing costs for all parties involved.

References

1. Hussain AN. Reducing the cost of dermatology residency applications: an applicant’s perspective. Cutis. 2019;104:352-353.

2. Weisert E, Phan M. Thoughts on reducing the cost for dermatology residency applications. DIG@UTMB blog. http://digutmb.blogspot.com/2019/12/thoughts-on-reducing-cost-for.html. Published December 23, 2019. Accessed April 17, 2020.

3. Early decision program. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-medical-school/article/early-decision-program/. Accessed April 8, 2020.

Author’s Response

The early decision option for dermatology residency applications would be a welcomed addition to the process but may be complicated by 2 recent events: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the change of US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score reporting to a pass/fail system.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused remarkable economic distress and likely affects medical students more acutely given their high levels of debt. As Ryan and Wagner observed, one advantage of the early-decision option would be financial relief for certain students. If applicants successfully match during the early-decision phase, they will not need to apply to any additional dermatology programs and also can target their preliminary-year applications to the geographic region where they have already matched.

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic may further reduce early applicants’ ability to visit programs in person. Various medical schools have curtailed away rotations, and programs may opt for virtual interviews in accordance with social distancing guidelines.¹ Thus, early applicants will have even fewer opportunities to compare programs before they must make a binding decision about their residency placement. Although away rotations and interview travel are some of the largest drivers of application cost,² reducing costs in this way might shortchange both students and programs.

Arguably, the change in USMLE Step 1 score reporting beginning in 2022 may impact residency selection for a longer period of time than the COVID-19 pandemic. Program directors cited USMLE Step 1 scores as one of the main factors determining which applicants may be invited to interview.³ The lack of numerical USMLE Step 1 scores may encourage programs to place more weight on other metrics such as USMLE Step 2 CK scores or Alpha Omega Alpha membership.⁴ However, as Ryan and Wagner point out, such metrics may not be available in time for early-decision applicants.

As such, future program directors will have precious little information to screen early-decision applicants and may need to conduct holistic application review. This would require increased time and manpower compared to screening based on traditional metrics but may lead to a better “fit” for an applicant with a residency.

In general, implementation of any early decision program would benefit dermatology applicants as a group by removing elite candidates from the applicant pool. According to National Resident Matching Program data, just 3% of dermatology applicants account for more than 12% of overall interviews.⁵ In other words, a small group of the strongest applicants receives a lion’s share of interviews, crowding out many other candidates. Removing these top-tier applicants likely would provide remaining applicants with a higher return on investment per application, and students may choose to save money by applying to fewer programs.

Adopting early-decision options within the dermatology match may be complicated given the COVID-19 pandemic and USMLE score changes but may spur positive changes in the process while also reducing the financial burden on applicants.

Aamir N. Hussain, MD, MAPP

From Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Aamir N. Hussain, MD, MAPP (aamir.nav.hussain@gmail.com).

References

1. Coronavirus (COVID-19) and the VSLO program. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://students-residents.aamc.org/attending-medical-school/article/coronavirus-covid-19-and-vslo-program/. Accessed April 17, 2020.

2. Mansouri B, Walker GD, Mitchell J, et al. The cost of applying to dermatology residency: 2014 data estimates. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:754-756.

3. National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee. Results of the 2018 NRMP Program Director Survey. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2018. https://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NRMP-2018-Program-Director-Survey-for-WWW.pdf. Published June 2018. Accessed April 17, 2020.

4. Crane MA, Chang HA, Azamfirei R. Medical education takes a step in the right direction: where does that leave students? [published online March 6, 2020]. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2950.

5. Lee AH, Young P, Liao R, et al. I dream of Gini: quantifying inequality in otolaryngology residency interviews. Laryngoscope. 2019;129:627-633.

To the Editor:

Ongoing concern about the high costs of dermatology residency interviews has led to several cost-saving proposals, as presented by Hussain¹ in the Cutis article, “Reducing the Cost of Dermatology Residency Applications: An Applicant’s Perspective.” Additional strategies to reduce applicant costs include eliminating travel costs through video or telephone interviews, interviewing students who are visiting during their away rotation, and developing and implementing a mechanism to exempt students from participating in the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP).² A potential mechanism for the latter suggestion could be a binding early decision program for dermatology residency. Binding early decision has been successfully employed by medical schools for many years.³ Under this model for dermatology residency, applicants may apply to 1 dermatology residency program by the early deadline and the program would have the option of accepting as many of the early-decision applicants as the number of residency positions in their program permits, allowing nonadmitted and nonparticipating applicants time to apply through the usual ERAS/NRMP cycle. There are several potential advantages to this model that would decrease the number of applicants applying to all the available dermatology residency programs each cycle.

First, because applicants would be limited to 1 application to participate in the early decision program, they must realistically consider the strength of their application and weigh their chances for acceptance to that program. Programs could facilitate the process by becoming more transparent about the type of applicants that have previously matched in their program.² If an early-decision applicant successfully matches, that applicant would be prohibited from applying to additional dermatology residency programs through ERAS and NRMP during that application cycle.

Second, early-decision actions by programs—probably by August 1, a time when most third-year medical students have completed their academic year—would be determined before ERAS releases applications to residency programs. This timeline would remove successful applicants in the early decision program from going to additional interviews and incurring the associated travel costs.

Third, early decision could be potentially beneficial to applicants who are tied to a specific geographic region for training and to programs with specific program needs, such as expertise in specific areas of dermatology research or areas of clinical need (eg, adding a dermatopathologist, plastic surgeon, internist, or a pediatrician to the residency program who now wants dermatology training) or other program needs.

Fourth, application costs could potentially be lower for early-decision applicants than through the present application process if participating institutions waived application fees. Applicants would still be responsible for submitting requested academic transcripts, letters of recommendation, and travel expenses if an on-site interview is requested by the program.

Finally, highly desirable applicants who are offered a position through early decision would result in more opportunities for other applicants to interview for the remaining available residency positions through ERAS/NRMP.

Downsides to early decision for dermatology residency include the inability of applicants to compare programs to one another through their personal experiences, such as prior rotations or interviews, and for programs to compare applicants though the interview process and away rotations. In addition, US Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 scores and Alpha Omega Alpha honor medical society status and other academic honors may not be available to programs to consider at the time of early decision. Cooperation would be needed with ERAS and NRMP to create an early decision program for dermatology residency.

One other potential consequence of the early match could involve instances of strained relationships between research fellows and their sponsoring institution or dermatology program. Research fellows often match at their research institution, and failing to early match could potentially sour the relationship between the applicant and the program, thus leading to a less productive year. However, many programs participating in an early match will probably have additional residency positions remaining in the traditional match that would be still available to the fellows.

The concept of an early-binding residency match process has the potential to save both time and money for programs and applicants. Although an early-match process would have many positive effects, there also would be inherent downsides that accompany such a system. Nonetheless, an early-match process in dermatology has the prospect of efficiently pairing applicants and programs that feel strongly about each other while simplifying the match process and reducing costs for all parties involved.

References

1. Hussain AN. Reducing the cost of dermatology residency applications: an applicant’s perspective. Cutis. 2019;104:352-353.

2. Weisert E, Phan M. Thoughts on reducing the cost for dermatology residency applications. DIG@UTMB blog. http://digutmb.blogspot.com/2019/12/thoughts-on-reducing-cost-for.html. Published December 23, 2019. Accessed April 17, 2020.

3. Early decision program. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-medical-school/article/early-decision-program/. Accessed April 8, 2020.

Author’s Response

The early decision option for dermatology residency applications would be a welcomed addition to the process but may be complicated by 2 recent events: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the change of US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score reporting to a pass/fail system.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused remarkable economic distress and likely affects medical students more acutely given their high levels of debt. As Ryan and Wagner observed, one advantage of the early-decision option would be financial relief for certain students. If applicants successfully match during the early-decision phase, they will not need to apply to any additional dermatology programs and also can target their preliminary-year applications to the geographic region where they have already matched.

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic may further reduce early applicants’ ability to visit programs in person. Various medical schools have curtailed away rotations, and programs may opt for virtual interviews in accordance with social distancing guidelines.¹ Thus, early applicants will have even fewer opportunities to compare programs before they must make a binding decision about their residency placement. Although away rotations and interview travel are some of the largest drivers of application cost,² reducing costs in this way might shortchange both students and programs.

Arguably, the change in USMLE Step 1 score reporting beginning in 2022 may impact residency selection for a longer period of time than the COVID-19 pandemic. Program directors cited USMLE Step 1 scores as one of the main factors determining which applicants may be invited to interview.³ The lack of numerical USMLE Step 1 scores may encourage programs to place more weight on other metrics such as USMLE Step 2 CK scores or Alpha Omega Alpha membership.⁴ However, as Ryan and Wagner point out, such metrics may not be available in time for early-decision applicants.

As such, future program directors will have precious little information to screen early-decision applicants and may need to conduct holistic application review. This would require increased time and manpower compared to screening based on traditional metrics but may lead to a better “fit” for an applicant with a residency.

In general, implementation of any early decision program would benefit dermatology applicants as a group by removing elite candidates from the applicant pool. According to National Resident Matching Program data, just 3% of dermatology applicants account for more than 12% of overall interviews.⁵ In other words, a small group of the strongest applicants receives a lion’s share of interviews, crowding out many other candidates. Removing these top-tier applicants likely would provide remaining applicants with a higher return on investment per application, and students may choose to save money by applying to fewer programs.

Adopting early-decision options within the dermatology match may be complicated given the COVID-19 pandemic and USMLE score changes but may spur positive changes in the process while also reducing the financial burden on applicants.

Aamir N. Hussain, MD, MAPP

From Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Aamir N. Hussain, MD, MAPP (aamir.nav.hussain@gmail.com).

References

1. Coronavirus (COVID-19) and the VSLO program. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://students-residents.aamc.org/attending-medical-school/article/coronavirus-covid-19-and-vslo-program/. Accessed April 17, 2020.

2. Mansouri B, Walker GD, Mitchell J, et al. The cost of applying to dermatology residency: 2014 data estimates. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:754-756.

3. National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee. Results of the 2018 NRMP Program Director Survey. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2018. https://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NRMP-2018-Program-Director-Survey-for-WWW.pdf. Published June 2018. Accessed April 17, 2020.

4. Crane MA, Chang HA, Azamfirei R. Medical education takes a step in the right direction: where does that leave students? [published online March 6, 2020]. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2950.

5. Lee AH, Young P, Liao R, et al. I dream of Gini: quantifying inequality in otolaryngology residency interviews. Laryngoscope. 2019;129:627-633.