User login
Yes - Surgeons Are Softening Criteria for Who Gets Mohs.
By David S. Becker, M.D.
The practice of Mohs micrographic surgery is in some cases drifting away from the classic indications that used to make up most of our practice.
There are different published criteria for cases indicated for Mohs surgery, but these often include patients with recurrent or incompletely excised skin cancers, aggressive histology, or poorly defined margins. Other classic indications include tumors larger than 0.4 cm in high-risk H-zone locations, larger than 1 cm elsewhere on the face, or larger than 2 cm on the trunk or extremities.
Some of these listed criteria would not include a 3-mm basal cell carcinoma on the nose or ear, an 8-mm basal cell carcinoma on the cheek or forehead, or a 1.5-cm lesion on the pretibial skin, but I often have had each of these referred to me for Mohs surgery.
What's driving us to soften these traditional indications for Mohs surgery? Patients, referring dermatologists, dermatopathologists, and Mohs surgeons each may play a role.
Patients love Mohs surgery for many reasons. For one, we do a good job. Perhaps they've had previous Mohs surgery with good results or their friends have, or they have looked online and found that Mohs has the best cure rate. Or, they may have had a bad experience with a prior treatment.
It's not uncommon for patients to do research, and then want to play a role in determining their medical care. If they demand Mohs surgery, and I don't think it's indicated, it can lead to a contentious consultation.
One young man with a squamous cell carcinoma on his chest recently told me that he had researched the cure rates of treatments and he wanted Mohs surgery. He was almost certainly correct that if the sole criteria for therapy were best cure rate, Mohs would be the choice.
There are only two downsides to Mohs versus excision in a case like this: One, the patient has to spend more time in the office for Mohs surgery; and two, it is perhaps overutilization of medical resources. Good luck trying to explain that to patients. They don't care about overutilization of resources.
Who else drives this drift toward enhanced Mohs utilization? Referring dermatologists. They may have an interest in maximizing utilization of a Mohs surgeon in their practice, while some dermatologists have truly been burned, that is, had a patient with a metastatic squamous cell carcinoma or difficult recurrences, and they want the greater certitude of cure from Mohs surgery.
Sometimes the referring dermatologist says the patient is a VIP or relative and asks me to make an exception. If you start making exceptions, pretty soon you're seeing a lot of patients who don't necessarily meet the classic criteria for Mohs surgery.
The next set of people who are driving this drift in overutilization is dermatopathologists. We have dermatopathologists being overly cautious and prudent in ways they may not have been 10-15 years ago. Something that might have been diagnosed as actinic keratosis 20 years ago might now be called actinic keratosis with extension to the base, "squamous cell carcinoma cannot be excluded," or superficially invasive squamous cell carcinoma.
Mohs surgeons also drive the drift in utilization. We do it because that's what we like to do, or because we work for someone and we want to do what they tell us to do, or we have a referring dermatologist whom we want to please. And we want to keep our patients happy too.
It may be time to reconceptualize the indications for Mohs surgery. Should patient demand or anxiety be an indication? Should the referring dermatologist's or Mohs surgeon's instincts about a given lesion be an indication? Should any small lesion on the face be an indication?
Finally, who should decide when to do Mohs surgery? Should it be patients? They want some autonomy and to play a role in managing their own care, and are often educated in doing so.
Should it be the referring dermatologist? They understand the history of a given lesion and know the patient and the response to prior therapies.
Should the Mohs surgeon decide? We have the most experience with cutaneous malignancies, and in many cases we're the best suited to decide who needs Mohs and who doesn't.
Or, finally, should it be the government or insurers? I think that because we have allowed this drift in utilization to go forward, that may be who ultimately is deciding.
Dr. Becker is a Mohs surgeon in private practice in New York. He said he has no relevant conflicts of interest. His comments were presented at the American College of Mohs Surgery meeting.
No - Mohs Surgery Is Being Properly Utilized.
By Gary Monheit, M.D.
Mohs micrographic surgery is not overutilized, it's increasingly utilized.
A recent study reported a twofold increase in the proportion of Mohs surgery being done in Medicare patients from 2001 to 2006, while the rate of excisions has remained stable. So what's driving this increased utilization of Mohs surgery?
Is it greedy surgeons applying Mohs micrographic surgery to actinic keratoses on the arms and trunk? The few surgeons who are utilizing it inappropriately need to be controlled, but I don't believe this is the main reason for the increased utilization.
In most cases, increased Mohs utilization is appropriate. Mohs is a superior and much more cost-effective modality than excision and it has a greater cure rate, which is now being recognized.
The vision of Dr. Frederic E. Mohs was a change in the treatment of skin cancer. He was tired of seeing recurrences with excision. He realized that if things were accurately mapped out, physicians would have a better understanding of how to treat tumors, spare tissue, and reduce costs.
Brilliantly, it was a merger of surgery and histopathology controlled by one practitioner, the Mohs surgeon. Results of surgical treatment approach 100% the first time.
Should this be done for all nonmelanoma skin cancers at all locations? Should patients be cured the first time rather than risk recurrences? Is this cost effective for most tumors?
Twenty years ago, 50% or more of the Mohs surgeries that I did were on patients with tumors that had undergone two surgical excisions with recurrences that were covered up with flaps. I'm very happy to say that now I'm curing patients with a primary basal cell carcinoma the first time I operate.
We are having a cancer epidemic. The annual incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer is a staggering 3.5 million, according to a recent study involving epidemiologic databases and the National Cancer Institute (Arch. Dermatol. 2010;146:283-7). And, I think the incidence is much higher.
The same study reported a 4.2% annual growth rate. That would predict a 23% growth rate in Mohs micrographic surgery from 2001 to 2006. Instead, we had a 70% growth rate.
What accounts for this? I believe the high growth rate is driven by what I call the "miracle of Mohs surgery." Five-year recurrence rates after Mohs are 1% for primary basal cell carcinomas, compared with 10% for surgical excision in well-controlled studies, and 4% after Mohs surgery for recurrent basal cell carcinomas, as opposed to 17% for excision.
Studies have found that 18%-32% of facial basal cell carcinomas are incompletely excised and require a second procedure. Repeat excisions create larger defects and worse cosmetic outcomes. Complete re-excisions are challenging after flap repairs. But with Mohs, one procedure does it all.
Studies have shown that Mohs surgery is superior financially because it is more cost effective than traditional excision if you include the costs of re-excision and pathology, and re-repair and treatment of recurrences after excisions.
Patients also are twice as satisfied with Mohs surgery, another study found (Dermatol. Surg. 2009;35:1041-9).
We've got an epidemic of cancer, and we have recognition that Mohs is the best technique for treatment. Patients with tumors that would have been excised and recurred are being referred initially for Mohs surgery. Simple primary lesions that are in the right areas should be treated with Mohs.
Does increased utilization of Mohs surgery translate to greater expense in treating skin cancer? The data show that for primary lesions and recurrences, the cost savings is greater with Mohs surgery. Insurance companies are starting to recognize that, but we can't let insurance companies govern simply by cost.
We really don't know for sure what's driving the increase in Mohs micrographic surgery utilization. However, I do believe that the superiority of the technique, which is becoming more recognized and established, and the epidemic of skin cancer have produced this high rate of utilization.
The growth rate reflects recognition of the unparalleled value of Mohs micrographic surgery as we confront the skin cancer epidemic.
Dr. Monheit is a Mohs surgeon in private practice in Birmingham, Ala., and has directed Mohs fellowship programs for 25 years. He said he has no other relevant conflicts of interest. These remarks were presented at the American College of Mohs Surgery meeting.
Yes - Surgeons Are Softening Criteria for Who Gets Mohs.
By David S. Becker, M.D.
The practice of Mohs micrographic surgery is in some cases drifting away from the classic indications that used to make up most of our practice.
There are different published criteria for cases indicated for Mohs surgery, but these often include patients with recurrent or incompletely excised skin cancers, aggressive histology, or poorly defined margins. Other classic indications include tumors larger than 0.4 cm in high-risk H-zone locations, larger than 1 cm elsewhere on the face, or larger than 2 cm on the trunk or extremities.
Some of these listed criteria would not include a 3-mm basal cell carcinoma on the nose or ear, an 8-mm basal cell carcinoma on the cheek or forehead, or a 1.5-cm lesion on the pretibial skin, but I often have had each of these referred to me for Mohs surgery.
What's driving us to soften these traditional indications for Mohs surgery? Patients, referring dermatologists, dermatopathologists, and Mohs surgeons each may play a role.
Patients love Mohs surgery for many reasons. For one, we do a good job. Perhaps they've had previous Mohs surgery with good results or their friends have, or they have looked online and found that Mohs has the best cure rate. Or, they may have had a bad experience with a prior treatment.
It's not uncommon for patients to do research, and then want to play a role in determining their medical care. If they demand Mohs surgery, and I don't think it's indicated, it can lead to a contentious consultation.
One young man with a squamous cell carcinoma on his chest recently told me that he had researched the cure rates of treatments and he wanted Mohs surgery. He was almost certainly correct that if the sole criteria for therapy were best cure rate, Mohs would be the choice.
There are only two downsides to Mohs versus excision in a case like this: One, the patient has to spend more time in the office for Mohs surgery; and two, it is perhaps overutilization of medical resources. Good luck trying to explain that to patients. They don't care about overutilization of resources.
Who else drives this drift toward enhanced Mohs utilization? Referring dermatologists. They may have an interest in maximizing utilization of a Mohs surgeon in their practice, while some dermatologists have truly been burned, that is, had a patient with a metastatic squamous cell carcinoma or difficult recurrences, and they want the greater certitude of cure from Mohs surgery.
Sometimes the referring dermatologist says the patient is a VIP or relative and asks me to make an exception. If you start making exceptions, pretty soon you're seeing a lot of patients who don't necessarily meet the classic criteria for Mohs surgery.
The next set of people who are driving this drift in overutilization is dermatopathologists. We have dermatopathologists being overly cautious and prudent in ways they may not have been 10-15 years ago. Something that might have been diagnosed as actinic keratosis 20 years ago might now be called actinic keratosis with extension to the base, "squamous cell carcinoma cannot be excluded," or superficially invasive squamous cell carcinoma.
Mohs surgeons also drive the drift in utilization. We do it because that's what we like to do, or because we work for someone and we want to do what they tell us to do, or we have a referring dermatologist whom we want to please. And we want to keep our patients happy too.
It may be time to reconceptualize the indications for Mohs surgery. Should patient demand or anxiety be an indication? Should the referring dermatologist's or Mohs surgeon's instincts about a given lesion be an indication? Should any small lesion on the face be an indication?
Finally, who should decide when to do Mohs surgery? Should it be patients? They want some autonomy and to play a role in managing their own care, and are often educated in doing so.
Should it be the referring dermatologist? They understand the history of a given lesion and know the patient and the response to prior therapies.
Should the Mohs surgeon decide? We have the most experience with cutaneous malignancies, and in many cases we're the best suited to decide who needs Mohs and who doesn't.
Or, finally, should it be the government or insurers? I think that because we have allowed this drift in utilization to go forward, that may be who ultimately is deciding.
Dr. Becker is a Mohs surgeon in private practice in New York. He said he has no relevant conflicts of interest. His comments were presented at the American College of Mohs Surgery meeting.
No - Mohs Surgery Is Being Properly Utilized.
By Gary Monheit, M.D.
Mohs micrographic surgery is not overutilized, it's increasingly utilized.
A recent study reported a twofold increase in the proportion of Mohs surgery being done in Medicare patients from 2001 to 2006, while the rate of excisions has remained stable. So what's driving this increased utilization of Mohs surgery?
Is it greedy surgeons applying Mohs micrographic surgery to actinic keratoses on the arms and trunk? The few surgeons who are utilizing it inappropriately need to be controlled, but I don't believe this is the main reason for the increased utilization.
In most cases, increased Mohs utilization is appropriate. Mohs is a superior and much more cost-effective modality than excision and it has a greater cure rate, which is now being recognized.
The vision of Dr. Frederic E. Mohs was a change in the treatment of skin cancer. He was tired of seeing recurrences with excision. He realized that if things were accurately mapped out, physicians would have a better understanding of how to treat tumors, spare tissue, and reduce costs.
Brilliantly, it was a merger of surgery and histopathology controlled by one practitioner, the Mohs surgeon. Results of surgical treatment approach 100% the first time.
Should this be done for all nonmelanoma skin cancers at all locations? Should patients be cured the first time rather than risk recurrences? Is this cost effective for most tumors?
Twenty years ago, 50% or more of the Mohs surgeries that I did were on patients with tumors that had undergone two surgical excisions with recurrences that were covered up with flaps. I'm very happy to say that now I'm curing patients with a primary basal cell carcinoma the first time I operate.
We are having a cancer epidemic. The annual incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer is a staggering 3.5 million, according to a recent study involving epidemiologic databases and the National Cancer Institute (Arch. Dermatol. 2010;146:283-7). And, I think the incidence is much higher.
The same study reported a 4.2% annual growth rate. That would predict a 23% growth rate in Mohs micrographic surgery from 2001 to 2006. Instead, we had a 70% growth rate.
What accounts for this? I believe the high growth rate is driven by what I call the "miracle of Mohs surgery." Five-year recurrence rates after Mohs are 1% for primary basal cell carcinomas, compared with 10% for surgical excision in well-controlled studies, and 4% after Mohs surgery for recurrent basal cell carcinomas, as opposed to 17% for excision.
Studies have found that 18%-32% of facial basal cell carcinomas are incompletely excised and require a second procedure. Repeat excisions create larger defects and worse cosmetic outcomes. Complete re-excisions are challenging after flap repairs. But with Mohs, one procedure does it all.
Studies have shown that Mohs surgery is superior financially because it is more cost effective than traditional excision if you include the costs of re-excision and pathology, and re-repair and treatment of recurrences after excisions.
Patients also are twice as satisfied with Mohs surgery, another study found (Dermatol. Surg. 2009;35:1041-9).
We've got an epidemic of cancer, and we have recognition that Mohs is the best technique for treatment. Patients with tumors that would have been excised and recurred are being referred initially for Mohs surgery. Simple primary lesions that are in the right areas should be treated with Mohs.
Does increased utilization of Mohs surgery translate to greater expense in treating skin cancer? The data show that for primary lesions and recurrences, the cost savings is greater with Mohs surgery. Insurance companies are starting to recognize that, but we can't let insurance companies govern simply by cost.
We really don't know for sure what's driving the increase in Mohs micrographic surgery utilization. However, I do believe that the superiority of the technique, which is becoming more recognized and established, and the epidemic of skin cancer have produced this high rate of utilization.
The growth rate reflects recognition of the unparalleled value of Mohs micrographic surgery as we confront the skin cancer epidemic.
Dr. Monheit is a Mohs surgeon in private practice in Birmingham, Ala., and has directed Mohs fellowship programs for 25 years. He said he has no other relevant conflicts of interest. These remarks were presented at the American College of Mohs Surgery meeting.
Yes - Surgeons Are Softening Criteria for Who Gets Mohs.
By David S. Becker, M.D.
The practice of Mohs micrographic surgery is in some cases drifting away from the classic indications that used to make up most of our practice.
There are different published criteria for cases indicated for Mohs surgery, but these often include patients with recurrent or incompletely excised skin cancers, aggressive histology, or poorly defined margins. Other classic indications include tumors larger than 0.4 cm in high-risk H-zone locations, larger than 1 cm elsewhere on the face, or larger than 2 cm on the trunk or extremities.
Some of these listed criteria would not include a 3-mm basal cell carcinoma on the nose or ear, an 8-mm basal cell carcinoma on the cheek or forehead, or a 1.5-cm lesion on the pretibial skin, but I often have had each of these referred to me for Mohs surgery.
What's driving us to soften these traditional indications for Mohs surgery? Patients, referring dermatologists, dermatopathologists, and Mohs surgeons each may play a role.
Patients love Mohs surgery for many reasons. For one, we do a good job. Perhaps they've had previous Mohs surgery with good results or their friends have, or they have looked online and found that Mohs has the best cure rate. Or, they may have had a bad experience with a prior treatment.
It's not uncommon for patients to do research, and then want to play a role in determining their medical care. If they demand Mohs surgery, and I don't think it's indicated, it can lead to a contentious consultation.
One young man with a squamous cell carcinoma on his chest recently told me that he had researched the cure rates of treatments and he wanted Mohs surgery. He was almost certainly correct that if the sole criteria for therapy were best cure rate, Mohs would be the choice.
There are only two downsides to Mohs versus excision in a case like this: One, the patient has to spend more time in the office for Mohs surgery; and two, it is perhaps overutilization of medical resources. Good luck trying to explain that to patients. They don't care about overutilization of resources.
Who else drives this drift toward enhanced Mohs utilization? Referring dermatologists. They may have an interest in maximizing utilization of a Mohs surgeon in their practice, while some dermatologists have truly been burned, that is, had a patient with a metastatic squamous cell carcinoma or difficult recurrences, and they want the greater certitude of cure from Mohs surgery.
Sometimes the referring dermatologist says the patient is a VIP or relative and asks me to make an exception. If you start making exceptions, pretty soon you're seeing a lot of patients who don't necessarily meet the classic criteria for Mohs surgery.
The next set of people who are driving this drift in overutilization is dermatopathologists. We have dermatopathologists being overly cautious and prudent in ways they may not have been 10-15 years ago. Something that might have been diagnosed as actinic keratosis 20 years ago might now be called actinic keratosis with extension to the base, "squamous cell carcinoma cannot be excluded," or superficially invasive squamous cell carcinoma.
Mohs surgeons also drive the drift in utilization. We do it because that's what we like to do, or because we work for someone and we want to do what they tell us to do, or we have a referring dermatologist whom we want to please. And we want to keep our patients happy too.
It may be time to reconceptualize the indications for Mohs surgery. Should patient demand or anxiety be an indication? Should the referring dermatologist's or Mohs surgeon's instincts about a given lesion be an indication? Should any small lesion on the face be an indication?
Finally, who should decide when to do Mohs surgery? Should it be patients? They want some autonomy and to play a role in managing their own care, and are often educated in doing so.
Should it be the referring dermatologist? They understand the history of a given lesion and know the patient and the response to prior therapies.
Should the Mohs surgeon decide? We have the most experience with cutaneous malignancies, and in many cases we're the best suited to decide who needs Mohs and who doesn't.
Or, finally, should it be the government or insurers? I think that because we have allowed this drift in utilization to go forward, that may be who ultimately is deciding.
Dr. Becker is a Mohs surgeon in private practice in New York. He said he has no relevant conflicts of interest. His comments were presented at the American College of Mohs Surgery meeting.
No - Mohs Surgery Is Being Properly Utilized.
By Gary Monheit, M.D.
Mohs micrographic surgery is not overutilized, it's increasingly utilized.
A recent study reported a twofold increase in the proportion of Mohs surgery being done in Medicare patients from 2001 to 2006, while the rate of excisions has remained stable. So what's driving this increased utilization of Mohs surgery?
Is it greedy surgeons applying Mohs micrographic surgery to actinic keratoses on the arms and trunk? The few surgeons who are utilizing it inappropriately need to be controlled, but I don't believe this is the main reason for the increased utilization.
In most cases, increased Mohs utilization is appropriate. Mohs is a superior and much more cost-effective modality than excision and it has a greater cure rate, which is now being recognized.
The vision of Dr. Frederic E. Mohs was a change in the treatment of skin cancer. He was tired of seeing recurrences with excision. He realized that if things were accurately mapped out, physicians would have a better understanding of how to treat tumors, spare tissue, and reduce costs.
Brilliantly, it was a merger of surgery and histopathology controlled by one practitioner, the Mohs surgeon. Results of surgical treatment approach 100% the first time.
Should this be done for all nonmelanoma skin cancers at all locations? Should patients be cured the first time rather than risk recurrences? Is this cost effective for most tumors?
Twenty years ago, 50% or more of the Mohs surgeries that I did were on patients with tumors that had undergone two surgical excisions with recurrences that were covered up with flaps. I'm very happy to say that now I'm curing patients with a primary basal cell carcinoma the first time I operate.
We are having a cancer epidemic. The annual incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer is a staggering 3.5 million, according to a recent study involving epidemiologic databases and the National Cancer Institute (Arch. Dermatol. 2010;146:283-7). And, I think the incidence is much higher.
The same study reported a 4.2% annual growth rate. That would predict a 23% growth rate in Mohs micrographic surgery from 2001 to 2006. Instead, we had a 70% growth rate.
What accounts for this? I believe the high growth rate is driven by what I call the "miracle of Mohs surgery." Five-year recurrence rates after Mohs are 1% for primary basal cell carcinomas, compared with 10% for surgical excision in well-controlled studies, and 4% after Mohs surgery for recurrent basal cell carcinomas, as opposed to 17% for excision.
Studies have found that 18%-32% of facial basal cell carcinomas are incompletely excised and require a second procedure. Repeat excisions create larger defects and worse cosmetic outcomes. Complete re-excisions are challenging after flap repairs. But with Mohs, one procedure does it all.
Studies have shown that Mohs surgery is superior financially because it is more cost effective than traditional excision if you include the costs of re-excision and pathology, and re-repair and treatment of recurrences after excisions.
Patients also are twice as satisfied with Mohs surgery, another study found (Dermatol. Surg. 2009;35:1041-9).
We've got an epidemic of cancer, and we have recognition that Mohs is the best technique for treatment. Patients with tumors that would have been excised and recurred are being referred initially for Mohs surgery. Simple primary lesions that are in the right areas should be treated with Mohs.
Does increased utilization of Mohs surgery translate to greater expense in treating skin cancer? The data show that for primary lesions and recurrences, the cost savings is greater with Mohs surgery. Insurance companies are starting to recognize that, but we can't let insurance companies govern simply by cost.
We really don't know for sure what's driving the increase in Mohs micrographic surgery utilization. However, I do believe that the superiority of the technique, which is becoming more recognized and established, and the epidemic of skin cancer have produced this high rate of utilization.
The growth rate reflects recognition of the unparalleled value of Mohs micrographic surgery as we confront the skin cancer epidemic.
Dr. Monheit is a Mohs surgeon in private practice in Birmingham, Ala., and has directed Mohs fellowship programs for 25 years. He said he has no other relevant conflicts of interest. These remarks were presented at the American College of Mohs Surgery meeting.