Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Oliver J. Wisco
Based on 5 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, Oliver J. Wisco wrote the following 5 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Guideline Guidelines of care for the management of primary cutaneous melanoma. 2019

Swetter, Susan M / Tsao, Hensin / Bichakjian, Christopher K / Curiel-Lewandrowski, Clara / Elder, David E / Gershenwald, Jeffrey E / Guild, Valerie / Grant-Kels, Jane M / Halpern, Allan C / Johnson, Timothy M / Sober, Arthur J / Thompson, John A / Wisco, Oliver J / Wyatt, Samantha / Hu, Shasa / Lamina, Toyin. ·Department of Dermatology, Stanford University Medical Center and Cancer Institute, Stanford, California; Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California. Electronic address: sswetter@stanford.edu. · Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Dermatology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan. · Division of Dermatology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, Arizona. · Department of Dermatology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Pathology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Cancer Biology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. · AIM at Melanoma Foundation, Plano, Texas. · Department of Dermatology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut; Department of Pathology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut; Department of Pediatrics, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut. · Department of Dermatology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. · Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. · Division of Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington. · Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. · Decatur Dermatology, Decatur, Alabama. · Department of Dermatology, University of Miami Health System, Miami, Florida. · American Academy of Dermatology, Rosemont, Illinois. ·J Am Acad Dermatol · Pubmed #30392755.

ABSTRACT: The incidence of primary cutaneous melanoma continues to increase each year. Melanoma accounts for the majority of skin cancer-related deaths, but treatment is usually curative following early detection of disease. In this American Academy of Dermatology clinical practice guideline, updated treatment recommendations are provided for patients with primary cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer stages 0-IIC and pathologic stage III by virtue of a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy). Biopsy techniques for a lesion that is clinically suggestive of melanoma are reviewed, as are recommendations for the histopathologic interpretation of cutaneous melanoma. The use of laboratory, molecular, and imaging tests is examined in the initial work-up of patients with newly diagnosed melanoma and for follow-up of asymptomatic patients. With regard to treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma, recommendations for surgical margins and the concepts of staged excision (including Mohs micrographic surgery) and nonsurgical treatments for melanoma in situ, lentigo maligna type (including topical imiquimod and radiation therapy), are updated. The role of sentinel lymph node biopsy as a staging technique for cutaneous melanoma is described, with recommendations for its use in clinical practice. Finally, current data regarding pregnancy and melanoma, genetic testing for familial melanoma, and management of dermatologic toxicities related to novel targeted agents and immunotherapies for patients with advanced disease are summarized.

2 Guideline AAD/ACMS/ASDSA/ASMS 2012 appropriate use criteria for Mohs micrographic surgery: a report of the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery. 2012

Anonymous2680736 / Anonymous2690736 / Anonymous2700736 / Anonymous2710736 / Anonymous2720736 / Connolly, Suzanne M / Baker, Diane R / Coldiron, Brett M / Fazio, Michael J / Storrs, Paul A / Vidimos, Allison T / Zalla, Mark J / Brewer, Jerry D / Begolka, Wendy S / Berger, Timothy G / Bigby, Michael / Bolognia, Jean L / Brodland, David G / Collins, Scott / Cronin, Terrence A / Dahl, Mark V / Grant-Kels, Jane M / Hanke, C W / Hruza, George J / James, William D / Lober, Clifford W / McBurney, Elizabeth I / Norton, Scott A / Roenigk, Randall K / Wheeland, Ronald G / Wisco, Oliver J. ·Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. ·Dermatol Surg · Pubmed #22958088.

ABSTRACT: The appropriate use criteria process synthesizes evidence-based medicine, clinical practice experience, and expert judgment. The American Academy of Dermatology in collaboration with the American College of Mohs Surgery, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery has developed appropriate use criteria for 270 scenarios for which Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is frequently considered based on tumor and patient characteristics. This document reflects the rating of appropriateness of MMS for each of these clinical scenarios by a ratings panel in a process based on the appropriateness method developed by the RAND Corp (Santa Monica, CA)/University of California-Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA). At the conclusion of the rating process, consensus was reached for all 270 (100%) scenarios by the Ratings Panel, with 200 (74.07%) deemed as appropriate, 24 (8.89%) as uncertain, and 46 (17.04%) as inappropriate. For the 69 basal cell carcinoma scenarios, 53 were deemed appropriate, 6 uncertain, and 10 inappropriate. For the 143 squamous cell carcinoma scenarios, 102 were deemed appropriate, 7 uncertain, and 34 inappropriate. For the 12 lentigo maligna and melanoma in situ scenarios, 10 were deemed appropriate, 2 uncertain, and 0 inappropriate. For the 46 rare cutaneous malignancies scenarios, 35 were deemed appropriate, 9 uncertain, and 2 inappropriate. These appropriate use criteria have the potential to impact health care delivery, reimbursement policy, and physician decision making on patient selection for MMS, and aim to optimize the use of MMS for scenarios in which the expected clinical benefit is anticipated to be the greatest. In addition, recognition of those scenarios rated as uncertain facilitates an understanding of areas that would benefit from further research. Each clinical scenario identified in this document is crafted for the average patient and not the exception. Thus, the ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of MMS should be determined by the expertise and clinical experience of the physician.

3 Editorial Commentary: Skin cancer in the military. 2018

Wisco, Oliver J / Hajar, Tamar / Grande, Donald J. ·Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon; Mystic Valley Dermatology, Stoneham, Massachusetts. Electronic address: wiscoj@gmail.com. · Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. · Mystic Valley Dermatology, Stoneham, Massachusetts. ·J Am Acad Dermatol · Pubmed #29438768.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

4 Review Prognostic factors for melanoma. 2012

Wisco, Oliver J / Sober, Arthur J. ·Dermatology Clinic, 81st Medical Group, 81 MDOS/SGOMD, 301 Fisher Street, Keesler AFB, MS 39534, USA. wiscooj@gmail.com ·Dermatol Clin · Pubmed #22800552.

ABSTRACT: The current melanoma staging system, as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), is the standard by which melanoma prognosis is determined. This article focuses on the components of the AJCC melanoma staging system regarding patient prognosis. In addition, this article summarizes the other commonly researched clinical and histologic melanoma prognostic factors and reviews the recent advancements in genetic biomarkers associated with prognosis.

5 Article AAD/ACMS/ASDSA/ASMS 2012 appropriate use criteria for Mohs micrographic surgery: a report of the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery. 2012

Anonymous3140736 / Connolly, Suzanne M / Baker, Diane R / Coldiron, Brett M / Fazio, Michael J / Storrs, Paul A / Vidimos, Allison T / Zalla, Mark J / Brewer, Jerry D / Smith Begolka, Wendy / Anonymous3150736 / Berger, Timothy G / Bigby, Michael / Bolognia, Jean L / Brodland, David G / Collins, Scott / Cronin, Terrence A / Dahl, Mark V / Grant-Kels, Jane M / Hanke, C William / Hruza, George J / James, William D / Lober, Clifford Warren / McBurney, Elizabeth I / Norton, Scott A / Roenigk, Randall K / Wheeland, Ronald G / Wisco, Oliver J. ·Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. ·J Am Acad Dermatol · Pubmed #22959232.

ABSTRACT: The appropriate use criteria process synthesizes evidence-based medicine, clinical practice experience, and expert judgment. The American Academy of Dermatology in collaboration with the American College of Mohs Surgery, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery has developed appropriate use criteria for 270 scenarios for which Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is frequently considered based on tumor and patient characteristics. This document reflects the rating of appropriateness of MMS for each of these clinical scenarios by a ratings panel in a process based on the appropriateness method developed by the RAND Corp (Santa Monica, CA)/University of California-Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA). At the conclusion of the rating process, consensus was reached for all 270 (100%) scenarios by the Ratings Panel, with 200 (74.07%) deemed as appropriate, 24 (8.89%) as uncertain, and 46 (17.04%) as inappropriate. For the 69 basal cell carcinoma scenarios, 53 were deemed appropriate, 6 uncertain, and 10 inappropriate. For the 143 squamous cell carcinoma scenarios, 102 were deemed appropriate, 7 uncertain, and 34 inappropriate. For the 12 lentigo maligna and melanoma in situ scenarios, 10 were deemed appropriate, 2 uncertain, and 0 inappropriate. For the 46 rare cutaneous malignancies scenarios, 35 were deemed appropriate, 9 uncertain, and 2 inappropriate. These appropriate use criteria have the potential to impact health care delivery, reimbursement policy, and physician decision making on patient selection for MMS, and aim to optimize the use of MMS for scenarios in which the expected clinical benefit is anticipated to be the greatest. In addition, recognition of those scenarios rated as uncertain facilitates an understanding of areas that would benefit from further research. Each clinical scenario identified in this document is crafted for the average patient and not the exception. Thus, the ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of MMS should be determined by the expertise and clinical experience of the physician.