Background: Continual analyses of patch test results with the European baseline series (EBS) serve both contact allergy surveillance and auditing the value of included allergens.Objectives: To present results of current EBS patch testing, obtained in 53 departments in 13 European countries during 2019 and 2020.Methods: Anonymised or pseudonymised individual data and partly aggregated data on demographic/clinical characteristics and patch test rest results with the EBS were prospectively collected and centrally pooled and analysed.Results: In 2019 and 2020, 22 581 patients were patch tested with the EBS. Sensitization to nickel remained most common (19.8 [19.2–20.4]% positivity [95% confidence interval]). Fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereirae yielded very similar results with 6.80 (6.43–7.19)% and 6.62 (6.25–7.00)% positivity, respectively. Formaldehyde at 2% aq. yielded almost one percentage point more positive reactions than 1% concentration (2.49 [2.16–2.85]% vs. 1.59 [1.33–1.88]); methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) and MI alone up to around 5% positives. Among the new additions, propolis was most commonly positive (3.48 [3.16–3.82]%), followed by 2‐hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2.32 [2.0–2.68]%).Conclusion: Ongoing surveillance on the prevalence of contact sensitization contributes to an up‐to‐date baseline series containing the most frequent and/or relevant contact sensitizers for routine patch testing in Europe.

Background: The value of dermatologists as consultants is increasing. Objective: To evaluate the activity of dermatologists as inpatient consultants. Methods: Retrospective study of consultations to Dermatology of inpatients, visits per consultation, referral service, procedures performed, delay until visit and diagnoses based on ICD-9. Results: 3,144 requests generated 4,824 visits, 200 biopsies, 107 cultures and other procedures. The mean delay between request and visit was 0.75 days. The requesting service was recorded in 3,097 cases: 21.5% by Internal Medicine, 11.4% by Pediatrics, 8.3% by Neurology and 6.2% by the Infectious Diseases Unit. Follow-up was recommended in 12.4% by the Dermatology Service and in 8% by a dermatologist. Reliable diagnoses were recorded for 2,832 consultations. The most frequent diagnostic groups were diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue (ICD-9: 680–709) in 58%, infectious and parasitic diseases (ICD-9: 001–139) in 20%, and neoplasm (ICD-9: 140–239) in 5.7%. The most frequent diagnoses were contact dermatitis (ICD-9: 692.X) in 8.9%, drug reactions (ICD-9: 693.0) in 7.4%, candidiasis (ICD-9:112.X) in 7.1% and seborrheic dermatitis (ICD-9: 690) in 5.3%. Conclusions: Most diagnoses were of a specific cutaneous disease and the dermatologist would be in the best position to evaluate those that inpatients acquire.

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcoma (FS)-like areas (DFSP-FS) is a peculiar neoplasm that combines microscopic findings of DFSP and FS. Because of the scarce number of cases published, tumor prognosis remains controversial. The clinical histories and the histologic material of 27 cases of DFSP were reviewed. Four of them showed fibrosarcomatous areas. Follow-up data, ranging from 12 to 125 months, were obtained in all four cases. Two patients had repeated local recurrences. One patient developed pulmonary metastases and died of disease 49 months after diagnosis. In the other two patients, no recurrences or metastases were detected at 12 and 70 months after local excision, respectively. Progressive increase of FS areas, cellular density, cellular atypia, and mitotic activity were observed during the recurrences. All cases showed diffuse positive immunostaining for CD34 in DFSP areas. Three cases were also CD34-positive in FS areas. Based on a careful review of the literature and our personal experience, we conclude that DFSP-FS is a rare variant of DFSP with a higher rate of local recurrences and more distant metastases than typical DFSP.