Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

Practice Gap

Multiple keratoacanthomas (KAs) of the legs often are a challenge to treat, especially when these lesions appear within a field of prurigo nodules. Multiple KAs associated with prurigo nodularis is a rarer finding; more often, the condition is reported on the lower limbs of elderly women with actinically damaged skin.^1,2 At times, it can be difficult to distinguish between KA and prurigo nodularis in these patients, who often report notable pruritus and might have associated eczematous dermatitis.²

Keratoacanthomas often are treated with aggressive modalities, such as Mohs micrographic surgery, excision, and electrodesiccation and curettage. Some patients are hesitant to undergo surgical treatment, however, preferring a less invasive approach. Trauma from these aggressive modalities also can be associated with recurrence of existing lesions or development of new KAs, possibly related to stimulation of a local inflammatory response and upregulation of helper T cells.^2-4

Acitretin and other systemic retinoids often are considered first-line therapy for multiple KAs. Cyclosporine has been added as adjunctive treatment in cases associated with prurigo nodularis or eczematous dermatitis^1,2; however, these treatments have a high rate of discontinuation because of adverse effects, including transaminitis, xerostomia, alopecia (acitretin), and renal toxicity (cyclosporine).²

Another treatment option for patients with coexisting KA and prurigo nodularis is intralesional corticosteroids, often administered in combination with systemic retinoids.³ Topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has been used successfully for KA, but topical treatment options are limited if 5-FU fails. Topical imiquimod and cryotherapy are thought to be of little benefit, and the appearance of new KA within imiquimod and cryotherapy treatment fields has been reported.^1,2 Topical corticosteroids have been used as an adjuvant therapy for multiple KAs associated with prurigo nodularis; however, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms keratoacanthoma and steroid and keratoacanthoma and prurigo nodularis yielded no published reports of successful use of topical corticosteroids as monotherapy.²

The Technique

For patients who want to continue topical treatment of coexisting KA and prurigo nodularis after topical 5-FU fails, we have found success applying a high-potency topical corticosteroid to affected areas under occlusion nightly for 6 to 8 weeks. This treatment not only leads to resolution of KA but also simultaneously treats prurigo nodules that might be clinically difficult to distinguish from KA in some presentations. This regimen has been implemented in our practice with remarkable reduction of KA burden and relief of pruritus.

In a 68-year-old woman who was treated with this technique, multiple biopsies had shown KA (or well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma that appeared clinically as KA) on the shin (Figure, A) arising amid many lesions consistent with prurigo nodules. Topical 5-FU had failed, but the patient did not want to be treated with a more invasive modality, such as excision or injection.

Practical Implications

Treatment of multiple KAs associated with prurigo nodularis can present a distinct challenge. For the subset of patients who want to pursue topical treatment, options reported in the literature are limited. We have found success treating multiple KAs and associated prurigo nodules with a high-potency topical corticosteroid under occlusion, with minimal or no adverse effects. We believe that a topical corticosteroid can be implemented easily in clinical practice before a more invasive surgical or intralesional modality is considered.

Practice Gap

Multiple keratoacanthomas (KAs) of the legs often are a challenge to treat, especially when these lesions appear within a field of prurigo nodules. Multiple KAs associated with prurigo nodularis is a rarer finding; more often, the condition is reported on the lower limbs of elderly women with actinically damaged skin.^1,2 At times, it can be difficult to distinguish between KA and prurigo nodularis in these patients, who often report notable pruritus and might have associated eczematous dermatitis.²

Keratoacanthomas often are treated with aggressive modalities, such as Mohs micrographic surgery, excision, and electrodesiccation and curettage. Some patients are hesitant to undergo surgical treatment, however, preferring a less invasive approach. Trauma from these aggressive modalities also can be associated with recurrence of existing lesions or development of new KAs, possibly related to stimulation of a local inflammatory response and upregulation of helper T cells.^2-4

Acitretin and other systemic retinoids often are considered first-line therapy for multiple KAs. Cyclosporine has been added as adjunctive treatment in cases associated with prurigo nodularis or eczematous dermatitis^1,2; however, these treatments have a high rate of discontinuation because of adverse effects, including transaminitis, xerostomia, alopecia (acitretin), and renal toxicity (cyclosporine).²

Another treatment option for patients with coexisting KA and prurigo nodularis is intralesional corticosteroids, often administered in combination with systemic retinoids.³ Topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has been used successfully for KA, but topical treatment options are limited if 5-FU fails. Topical imiquimod and cryotherapy are thought to be of little benefit, and the appearance of new KA within imiquimod and cryotherapy treatment fields has been reported.^1,2 Topical corticosteroids have been used as an adjuvant therapy for multiple KAs associated with prurigo nodularis; however, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms keratoacanthoma and steroid and keratoacanthoma and prurigo nodularis yielded no published reports of successful use of topical corticosteroids as monotherapy.²

The Technique

For patients who want to continue topical treatment of coexisting KA and prurigo nodularis after topical 5-FU fails, we have found success applying a high-potency topical corticosteroid to affected areas under occlusion nightly for 6 to 8 weeks. This treatment not only leads to resolution of KA but also simultaneously treats prurigo nodules that might be clinically difficult to distinguish from KA in some presentations. This regimen has been implemented in our practice with remarkable reduction of KA burden and relief of pruritus.

In a 68-year-old woman who was treated with this technique, multiple biopsies had shown KA (or well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma that appeared clinically as KA) on the shin (Figure, A) arising amid many lesions consistent with prurigo nodules. Topical 5-FU had failed, but the patient did not want to be treated with a more invasive modality, such as excision or injection.

Practical Implications

Treatment of multiple KAs associated with prurigo nodularis can present a distinct challenge. For the subset of patients who want to pursue topical treatment, options reported in the literature are limited. We have found success treating multiple KAs and associated prurigo nodules with a high-potency topical corticosteroid under occlusion, with minimal or no adverse effects. We believe that a topical corticosteroid can be implemented easily in clinical practice before a more invasive surgical or intralesional modality is considered.

Practice Gap

Multiple keratoacanthomas (KAs) of the legs often are a challenge to treat, especially when these lesions appear within a field of prurigo nodules. Multiple KAs associated with prurigo nodularis is a rarer finding; more often, the condition is reported on the lower limbs of elderly women with actinically damaged skin.^1,2 At times, it can be difficult to distinguish between KA and prurigo nodularis in these patients, who often report notable pruritus and might have associated eczematous dermatitis.²

Keratoacanthomas often are treated with aggressive modalities, such as Mohs micrographic surgery, excision, and electrodesiccation and curettage. Some patients are hesitant to undergo surgical treatment, however, preferring a less invasive approach. Trauma from these aggressive modalities also can be associated with recurrence of existing lesions or development of new KAs, possibly related to stimulation of a local inflammatory response and upregulation of helper T cells.^2-4

Acitretin and other systemic retinoids often are considered first-line therapy for multiple KAs. Cyclosporine has been added as adjunctive treatment in cases associated with prurigo nodularis or eczematous dermatitis^1,2; however, these treatments have a high rate of discontinuation because of adverse effects, including transaminitis, xerostomia, alopecia (acitretin), and renal toxicity (cyclosporine).²

Another treatment option for patients with coexisting KA and prurigo nodularis is intralesional corticosteroids, often administered in combination with systemic retinoids.³ Topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has been used successfully for KA, but topical treatment options are limited if 5-FU fails. Topical imiquimod and cryotherapy are thought to be of little benefit, and the appearance of new KA within imiquimod and cryotherapy treatment fields has been reported.^1,2 Topical corticosteroids have been used as an adjuvant therapy for multiple KAs associated with prurigo nodularis; however, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms keratoacanthoma and steroid and keratoacanthoma and prurigo nodularis yielded no published reports of successful use of topical corticosteroids as monotherapy.²

The Technique

For patients who want to continue topical treatment of coexisting KA and prurigo nodularis after topical 5-FU fails, we have found success applying a high-potency topical corticosteroid to affected areas under occlusion nightly for 6 to 8 weeks. This treatment not only leads to resolution of KA but also simultaneously treats prurigo nodules that might be clinically difficult to distinguish from KA in some presentations. This regimen has been implemented in our practice with remarkable reduction of KA burden and relief of pruritus.

In a 68-year-old woman who was treated with this technique, multiple biopsies had shown KA (or well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma that appeared clinically as KA) on the shin (Figure, A) arising amid many lesions consistent with prurigo nodules. Topical 5-FU had failed, but the patient did not want to be treated with a more invasive modality, such as excision or injection.

Practical Implications

Treatment of multiple KAs associated with prurigo nodularis can present a distinct challenge. For the subset of patients who want to pursue topical treatment, options reported in the literature are limited. We have found success treating multiple KAs and associated prurigo nodules with a high-potency topical corticosteroid under occlusion, with minimal or no adverse effects. We believe that a topical corticosteroid can be implemented easily in clinical practice before a more invasive surgical or intralesional modality is considered.

Pneumonitis is an uncommon and potentially life-threatening complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. A fraction of patients with ICI-related pneumonitis fail to respond to initial therapy with high-dose systemic steroids.

The recently published experiences at two major cancer centers shed light on the outcomes from treatment and can provide some advice to clinicians for dealing with affected patients.
 

The Johns Hopkins experience

Because ICI-related pneumonitis typically improves within 48-72 hours of steroid therapy, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steroid-refractory pneumonitis is defined as pneumonitis that demonstrates no clinical improvement after high-dose corticosteroids for 2-14 days. If the immune toxicity–specialized, multidisciplinary management team implements additional immunosuppressive therapy, that is regarded as confirmatory evidence.

Aanika Balaji, a medical student at Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues retrospectively summarized the clinical course of 12 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis between 2011 and 2020. Clinical improvement with subsequent treatment was evidenced by reduction in either level of care or oxygen requirements.

Three-quarters of the patients were current or former smokers, and the same proportion had lung cancer. Most patients (91.6%) had received chemotherapy, 58.3% had prior chest radiotherapy, and 58.3% had achieved partial response or stable disease with an ICI.

Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis developed between 40 and 127 days (median, 85 days) after the first dose of ICI therapy. Subsequent immunosuppressive management included IVIg, infliximab, or the combination, in addition to ICU-level supportive care.

Among the seven patients who received IVIg alone, two patients (29%) achieved clinical improvement and hospital discharge. The remainder died.

The two patients treated with infliximab and the three patients treated with sequential IVIg and infliximab died. All deaths were attributed to ICI-related pneumonitis or infectious complications.

Overall, clinically relevant findings were:

• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis was seen in 18.5% of patients referred for multidisciplinary care.
• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis occurred at a median of 85 days into a patient’s ICI treatment.
• Some patients improved clinically after IVIg therapy, but mortality was high overall.
• Infliximab therapy, alone or in combination with IVIg, was ineffective.

The Memorial Sloan Kettering experience

Jason Beattie, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues performed a retrospective study of patients who had pneumonitis after ICI therapy and/or received immune modulator therapy after corticosteroids in the setting of ICI cancer treatment.

Manual record review was performed to exclude cases of pneumonitis from other causes. The period reviewed was roughly contemporaneous with the Johns Hopkins series.

Patients with ICI-related pneumonitis were divided into “steroid refractory” (i.e., no response to high-dose corticosteroids) or “steroid resistant” (i.e., initial response, followed by worsening) categories.

The researchers identified 26 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis, all of whom had advanced malignancy (8 lung cancer, 4 malignant melanoma, 4 renal cell cancer, and 10 “other” cancers).

A majority of patients (85%) were current or former smokers, 73% had received ICI monotherapy, 35% had received prior chest radiation at a median interval of 4.9 months prior to pneumonitis onset, and 27% had preexisting pulmonary disease.

Twelve patients (46%) had steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis, and 14 (54%) had steroid-resistant ICI-related pneumonitis.

The two groups differed in time to pneumonitis onset (a median of 68 days in the refractory group and 182 days in the resistant group) and time to immune modulator therapy after beginning steroids (median 7 days and 2.9 months, respectively). In the steroid-refractory cases, pneumonitis was more severe.

In addition to corticosteroids, most patients received infliximab monotherapy or infliximab with mycophenolate mofetil. In contrast to the Johns Hopkins series, IVIg was not used in the Memorial Sloan Kettering cases.

Outcomes from immune modulators were graded based on clinical evidence (progress notes, oxygen requirements, level of care, radiologic information, etc.) of resolution of pneumonitis on imaging at least 8 weeks after cessation of steroids and immune modulator therapy, durable improvement for at least 8 weeks after immune modulator therapy, transient improvement followed by pneumonitis relapse or inadequate follow-up because of death or hospice referral, or no improvement.

Ten patients (38%) had durable improvement of ICI-related pneumonitis, of whom three (12%) had complete resolution. Two of the patients with complete resolution had steroid-refractory pneumonitis, both of whom had received infliximab followed by mycophenolate mofetil.

Among the seven patients with durable improvement, four remained alive on immune modulators. Time to resolution of pneumonitis was protracted, ranging from 2.3 months to 8.4 months in the steroid-refractory patients.

Durable response was less common with steroid-refractory (25%) than steroid-resistant (50%) disease, with a significant difference in 90-day survival of 25% and 71%, respectively.

Among the 13 (50%) patients with transient improvement in ICI-related pneumonitis, 8 ultimately died, either because of recurrent ICI-related pneumonitis or infection. All three patients with no improvement from immune modulators died.

The 90-day all-cause mortality was 50%, with durable pneumonitis improvement and freedom from severe infectious complications occurring in only about a third of patients.
 

Lessons for clinicians

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and the European Society of Medical Oncology have all published guidelines and recommendations for immunosuppression for steroid-refractory adverse events from ICIs.

Unfortunately, there is little experience with steroid-unresponsive ICI-related pneumonitis. The ideal sequence, dose, and duration of additional immune modulator therapy for ICI-related pneumonitis are unclear and may differ from the approaches to other immune-related toxicities.

This is important because, as suggested in an editorial by Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, and James L. Gulley, MD, PhD, it is likely that ICI-related pneumonitis will be seen more in routine practice than in clinical trial populations. In addition, across all tumor types, ICI-related pneumonitis is the most common cause of ICI-associated death from toxicity.

The retrospective studies from Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering constitute the largest published experience with ICI-related pneumonitis and yield important clinical insights.

Uniform definitions of potentially important patient subgroups (e.g., steroid refractory vs. steroid resistant) are needed. The steroid-refractory and steroid-resistant subgroups have distinctly different clinical features and outcomes. Uniformity in the subgroup definitions would be a useful starting point from both clinical and research perspectives.

Preferred treatment choices need to be tested systematically in multi-institutional studies. Any potential impact of treatment for ICI-related pneumonitis on antitumor immune control should be identified.

Endpoints of interest need to be defined and measured prospectively. All-cause mortality after 90 days is important, but, as the authors of both reviews noted, there are vitally important narratives and differences in functionality that are completely concealed by restricting the focus to mortality.

Potential causal relationships with antecedent exposure to tobacco, radiation, intrathoracic tumor burden, or other factors need to be defined.

Clinicians need predictive biomarkers for ICI-related pneumonitis (e.g., in peripheral blood, pulmonary function testing, or bronchoscopy specimens). At-risk patients may benefit from early intervention.

The limitations of single-institution record reviews in guiding real-world patient management notwithstanding, these reviews illustrate the value of registries and prospective studies to guide the path forward. Taking these next steps will ensure for our patients that the success of immune-targeted therapy against their cancer never becomes a Pyrrhic victory.

The Johns Hopkins investigators and the editorialists reported having no disclosures. The Memorial Sloan Kettering investigators disclosed relationships with Targeted Oncology, Merck, Array BioPharma, Novartis, and many other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Pneumonitis is an uncommon and potentially life-threatening complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. A fraction of patients with ICI-related pneumonitis fail to respond to initial therapy with high-dose systemic steroids.

The recently published experiences at two major cancer centers shed light on the outcomes from treatment and can provide some advice to clinicians for dealing with affected patients.
 

The Johns Hopkins experience

Because ICI-related pneumonitis typically improves within 48-72 hours of steroid therapy, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steroid-refractory pneumonitis is defined as pneumonitis that demonstrates no clinical improvement after high-dose corticosteroids for 2-14 days. If the immune toxicity–specialized, multidisciplinary management team implements additional immunosuppressive therapy, that is regarded as confirmatory evidence.

Aanika Balaji, a medical student at Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues retrospectively summarized the clinical course of 12 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis between 2011 and 2020. Clinical improvement with subsequent treatment was evidenced by reduction in either level of care or oxygen requirements.

Three-quarters of the patients were current or former smokers, and the same proportion had lung cancer. Most patients (91.6%) had received chemotherapy, 58.3% had prior chest radiotherapy, and 58.3% had achieved partial response or stable disease with an ICI.

Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis developed between 40 and 127 days (median, 85 days) after the first dose of ICI therapy. Subsequent immunosuppressive management included IVIg, infliximab, or the combination, in addition to ICU-level supportive care.

Among the seven patients who received IVIg alone, two patients (29%) achieved clinical improvement and hospital discharge. The remainder died.

The two patients treated with infliximab and the three patients treated with sequential IVIg and infliximab died. All deaths were attributed to ICI-related pneumonitis or infectious complications.

Overall, clinically relevant findings were:

• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis was seen in 18.5% of patients referred for multidisciplinary care.
• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis occurred at a median of 85 days into a patient’s ICI treatment.
• Some patients improved clinically after IVIg therapy, but mortality was high overall.
• Infliximab therapy, alone or in combination with IVIg, was ineffective.

The Memorial Sloan Kettering experience

Jason Beattie, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues performed a retrospective study of patients who had pneumonitis after ICI therapy and/or received immune modulator therapy after corticosteroids in the setting of ICI cancer treatment.

Manual record review was performed to exclude cases of pneumonitis from other causes. The period reviewed was roughly contemporaneous with the Johns Hopkins series.

Patients with ICI-related pneumonitis were divided into “steroid refractory” (i.e., no response to high-dose corticosteroids) or “steroid resistant” (i.e., initial response, followed by worsening) categories.

The researchers identified 26 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis, all of whom had advanced malignancy (8 lung cancer, 4 malignant melanoma, 4 renal cell cancer, and 10 “other” cancers).

A majority of patients (85%) were current or former smokers, 73% had received ICI monotherapy, 35% had received prior chest radiation at a median interval of 4.9 months prior to pneumonitis onset, and 27% had preexisting pulmonary disease.

Twelve patients (46%) had steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis, and 14 (54%) had steroid-resistant ICI-related pneumonitis.

The two groups differed in time to pneumonitis onset (a median of 68 days in the refractory group and 182 days in the resistant group) and time to immune modulator therapy after beginning steroids (median 7 days and 2.9 months, respectively). In the steroid-refractory cases, pneumonitis was more severe.

In addition to corticosteroids, most patients received infliximab monotherapy or infliximab with mycophenolate mofetil. In contrast to the Johns Hopkins series, IVIg was not used in the Memorial Sloan Kettering cases.

Outcomes from immune modulators were graded based on clinical evidence (progress notes, oxygen requirements, level of care, radiologic information, etc.) of resolution of pneumonitis on imaging at least 8 weeks after cessation of steroids and immune modulator therapy, durable improvement for at least 8 weeks after immune modulator therapy, transient improvement followed by pneumonitis relapse or inadequate follow-up because of death or hospice referral, or no improvement.

Ten patients (38%) had durable improvement of ICI-related pneumonitis, of whom three (12%) had complete resolution. Two of the patients with complete resolution had steroid-refractory pneumonitis, both of whom had received infliximab followed by mycophenolate mofetil.

Among the seven patients with durable improvement, four remained alive on immune modulators. Time to resolution of pneumonitis was protracted, ranging from 2.3 months to 8.4 months in the steroid-refractory patients.

Durable response was less common with steroid-refractory (25%) than steroid-resistant (50%) disease, with a significant difference in 90-day survival of 25% and 71%, respectively.

Among the 13 (50%) patients with transient improvement in ICI-related pneumonitis, 8 ultimately died, either because of recurrent ICI-related pneumonitis or infection. All three patients with no improvement from immune modulators died.

The 90-day all-cause mortality was 50%, with durable pneumonitis improvement and freedom from severe infectious complications occurring in only about a third of patients.
 

Lessons for clinicians

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and the European Society of Medical Oncology have all published guidelines and recommendations for immunosuppression for steroid-refractory adverse events from ICIs.

Unfortunately, there is little experience with steroid-unresponsive ICI-related pneumonitis. The ideal sequence, dose, and duration of additional immune modulator therapy for ICI-related pneumonitis are unclear and may differ from the approaches to other immune-related toxicities.

This is important because, as suggested in an editorial by Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, and James L. Gulley, MD, PhD, it is likely that ICI-related pneumonitis will be seen more in routine practice than in clinical trial populations. In addition, across all tumor types, ICI-related pneumonitis is the most common cause of ICI-associated death from toxicity.

The retrospective studies from Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering constitute the largest published experience with ICI-related pneumonitis and yield important clinical insights.

Uniform definitions of potentially important patient subgroups (e.g., steroid refractory vs. steroid resistant) are needed. The steroid-refractory and steroid-resistant subgroups have distinctly different clinical features and outcomes. Uniformity in the subgroup definitions would be a useful starting point from both clinical and research perspectives.

Preferred treatment choices need to be tested systematically in multi-institutional studies. Any potential impact of treatment for ICI-related pneumonitis on antitumor immune control should be identified.

Endpoints of interest need to be defined and measured prospectively. All-cause mortality after 90 days is important, but, as the authors of both reviews noted, there are vitally important narratives and differences in functionality that are completely concealed by restricting the focus to mortality.

Potential causal relationships with antecedent exposure to tobacco, radiation, intrathoracic tumor burden, or other factors need to be defined.

Clinicians need predictive biomarkers for ICI-related pneumonitis (e.g., in peripheral blood, pulmonary function testing, or bronchoscopy specimens). At-risk patients may benefit from early intervention.

The limitations of single-institution record reviews in guiding real-world patient management notwithstanding, these reviews illustrate the value of registries and prospective studies to guide the path forward. Taking these next steps will ensure for our patients that the success of immune-targeted therapy against their cancer never becomes a Pyrrhic victory.

The Johns Hopkins investigators and the editorialists reported having no disclosures. The Memorial Sloan Kettering investigators disclosed relationships with Targeted Oncology, Merck, Array BioPharma, Novartis, and many other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Pneumonitis is an uncommon and potentially life-threatening complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. A fraction of patients with ICI-related pneumonitis fail to respond to initial therapy with high-dose systemic steroids.

The recently published experiences at two major cancer centers shed light on the outcomes from treatment and can provide some advice to clinicians for dealing with affected patients.
 

The Johns Hopkins experience

Because ICI-related pneumonitis typically improves within 48-72 hours of steroid therapy, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steroid-refractory pneumonitis is defined as pneumonitis that demonstrates no clinical improvement after high-dose corticosteroids for 2-14 days. If the immune toxicity–specialized, multidisciplinary management team implements additional immunosuppressive therapy, that is regarded as confirmatory evidence.

Aanika Balaji, a medical student at Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues retrospectively summarized the clinical course of 12 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis between 2011 and 2020. Clinical improvement with subsequent treatment was evidenced by reduction in either level of care or oxygen requirements.

Three-quarters of the patients were current or former smokers, and the same proportion had lung cancer. Most patients (91.6%) had received chemotherapy, 58.3% had prior chest radiotherapy, and 58.3% had achieved partial response or stable disease with an ICI.

Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis developed between 40 and 127 days (median, 85 days) after the first dose of ICI therapy. Subsequent immunosuppressive management included IVIg, infliximab, or the combination, in addition to ICU-level supportive care.

Among the seven patients who received IVIg alone, two patients (29%) achieved clinical improvement and hospital discharge. The remainder died.

The two patients treated with infliximab and the three patients treated with sequential IVIg and infliximab died. All deaths were attributed to ICI-related pneumonitis or infectious complications.

Overall, clinically relevant findings were:

• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis was seen in 18.5% of patients referred for multidisciplinary care.
• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis occurred at a median of 85 days into a patient’s ICI treatment.
• Some patients improved clinically after IVIg therapy, but mortality was high overall.
• Infliximab therapy, alone or in combination with IVIg, was ineffective.

The Memorial Sloan Kettering experience

Jason Beattie, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues performed a retrospective study of patients who had pneumonitis after ICI therapy and/or received immune modulator therapy after corticosteroids in the setting of ICI cancer treatment.

Manual record review was performed to exclude cases of pneumonitis from other causes. The period reviewed was roughly contemporaneous with the Johns Hopkins series.

Patients with ICI-related pneumonitis were divided into “steroid refractory” (i.e., no response to high-dose corticosteroids) or “steroid resistant” (i.e., initial response, followed by worsening) categories.

The researchers identified 26 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis, all of whom had advanced malignancy (8 lung cancer, 4 malignant melanoma, 4 renal cell cancer, and 10 “other” cancers).

A majority of patients (85%) were current or former smokers, 73% had received ICI monotherapy, 35% had received prior chest radiation at a median interval of 4.9 months prior to pneumonitis onset, and 27% had preexisting pulmonary disease.

Twelve patients (46%) had steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis, and 14 (54%) had steroid-resistant ICI-related pneumonitis.

The two groups differed in time to pneumonitis onset (a median of 68 days in the refractory group and 182 days in the resistant group) and time to immune modulator therapy after beginning steroids (median 7 days and 2.9 months, respectively). In the steroid-refractory cases, pneumonitis was more severe.

In addition to corticosteroids, most patients received infliximab monotherapy or infliximab with mycophenolate mofetil. In contrast to the Johns Hopkins series, IVIg was not used in the Memorial Sloan Kettering cases.

Outcomes from immune modulators were graded based on clinical evidence (progress notes, oxygen requirements, level of care, radiologic information, etc.) of resolution of pneumonitis on imaging at least 8 weeks after cessation of steroids and immune modulator therapy, durable improvement for at least 8 weeks after immune modulator therapy, transient improvement followed by pneumonitis relapse or inadequate follow-up because of death or hospice referral, or no improvement.

Ten patients (38%) had durable improvement of ICI-related pneumonitis, of whom three (12%) had complete resolution. Two of the patients with complete resolution had steroid-refractory pneumonitis, both of whom had received infliximab followed by mycophenolate mofetil.

Among the seven patients with durable improvement, four remained alive on immune modulators. Time to resolution of pneumonitis was protracted, ranging from 2.3 months to 8.4 months in the steroid-refractory patients.

Durable response was less common with steroid-refractory (25%) than steroid-resistant (50%) disease, with a significant difference in 90-day survival of 25% and 71%, respectively.

Among the 13 (50%) patients with transient improvement in ICI-related pneumonitis, 8 ultimately died, either because of recurrent ICI-related pneumonitis or infection. All three patients with no improvement from immune modulators died.

The 90-day all-cause mortality was 50%, with durable pneumonitis improvement and freedom from severe infectious complications occurring in only about a third of patients.
 

Lessons for clinicians

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and the European Society of Medical Oncology have all published guidelines and recommendations for immunosuppression for steroid-refractory adverse events from ICIs.

Unfortunately, there is little experience with steroid-unresponsive ICI-related pneumonitis. The ideal sequence, dose, and duration of additional immune modulator therapy for ICI-related pneumonitis are unclear and may differ from the approaches to other immune-related toxicities.

This is important because, as suggested in an editorial by Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, and James L. Gulley, MD, PhD, it is likely that ICI-related pneumonitis will be seen more in routine practice than in clinical trial populations. In addition, across all tumor types, ICI-related pneumonitis is the most common cause of ICI-associated death from toxicity.

The retrospective studies from Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering constitute the largest published experience with ICI-related pneumonitis and yield important clinical insights.

Uniform definitions of potentially important patient subgroups (e.g., steroid refractory vs. steroid resistant) are needed. The steroid-refractory and steroid-resistant subgroups have distinctly different clinical features and outcomes. Uniformity in the subgroup definitions would be a useful starting point from both clinical and research perspectives.

Preferred treatment choices need to be tested systematically in multi-institutional studies. Any potential impact of treatment for ICI-related pneumonitis on antitumor immune control should be identified.

Endpoints of interest need to be defined and measured prospectively. All-cause mortality after 90 days is important, but, as the authors of both reviews noted, there are vitally important narratives and differences in functionality that are completely concealed by restricting the focus to mortality.

Potential causal relationships with antecedent exposure to tobacco, radiation, intrathoracic tumor burden, or other factors need to be defined.

Clinicians need predictive biomarkers for ICI-related pneumonitis (e.g., in peripheral blood, pulmonary function testing, or bronchoscopy specimens). At-risk patients may benefit from early intervention.

The limitations of single-institution record reviews in guiding real-world patient management notwithstanding, these reviews illustrate the value of registries and prospective studies to guide the path forward. Taking these next steps will ensure for our patients that the success of immune-targeted therapy against their cancer never becomes a Pyrrhic victory.

The Johns Hopkins investigators and the editorialists reported having no disclosures. The Memorial Sloan Kettering investigators disclosed relationships with Targeted Oncology, Merck, Array BioPharma, Novartis, and many other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition with high morbidity rates. Symptoms typically develop between puberty and the third decade of life, affecting twice as many females as males, with an overall disease prevalence of 1% to 4%.¹ The pathogenesis is theorized to be related to an immune response to follicular occlusion and rupture in genetically susceptible individuals.

Among the complications associated with HS, the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is 4.6-times more likely within HS lesions than in normal skin and typically is seen in the setting of long-standing disease, particularly in men with HS lesions located on the buttocks and genital region for more than 20 years.² In 2015, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk for skin cancer in other clinical settings.^3,4 We present a case of locally advanced SCC that developed in a patient with HS who was treated with adalimumab and infliximab (both TNF-α inhibitors), ultimately leading to the patient’s death.

A 59-year-old man who smoked with a 40-year history of severe HS, who previously was lost to follow-up, presented to our dermatology clinic with lesions on the buttocks. Physical examination demonstrated confluent, indurated, boggy plaques; scattered sinus tracts with purulent drainage; scattered cystlike nodules; and tenderness to palpation consistent with Hurley stage III disease (Figure 1A). No involvement of the axillae or groin was noted. He was started on doxycycline and a prednisone taper with minimal improvement and subsequently was switched to adalimumab 3 months later. Adalimumab provided little relief and was discontinued; therapy was transitioned to infliximab 3 months later.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition with high morbidity rates. Symptoms typically develop between puberty and the third decade of life, affecting twice as many females as males, with an overall disease prevalence of 1% to 4%.¹ The pathogenesis is theorized to be related to an immune response to follicular occlusion and rupture in genetically susceptible individuals.

Among the complications associated with HS, the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is 4.6-times more likely within HS lesions than in normal skin and typically is seen in the setting of long-standing disease, particularly in men with HS lesions located on the buttocks and genital region for more than 20 years.² In 2015, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk for skin cancer in other clinical settings.^3,4 We present a case of locally advanced SCC that developed in a patient with HS who was treated with adalimumab and infliximab (both TNF-α inhibitors), ultimately leading to the patient’s death.

A 59-year-old man who smoked with a 40-year history of severe HS, who previously was lost to follow-up, presented to our dermatology clinic with lesions on the buttocks. Physical examination demonstrated confluent, indurated, boggy plaques; scattered sinus tracts with purulent drainage; scattered cystlike nodules; and tenderness to palpation consistent with Hurley stage III disease (Figure 1A). No involvement of the axillae or groin was noted. He was started on doxycycline and a prednisone taper with minimal improvement and subsequently was switched to adalimumab 3 months later. Adalimumab provided little relief and was discontinued; therapy was transitioned to infliximab 3 months later.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition with high morbidity rates. Symptoms typically develop between puberty and the third decade of life, affecting twice as many females as males, with an overall disease prevalence of 1% to 4%.¹ The pathogenesis is theorized to be related to an immune response to follicular occlusion and rupture in genetically susceptible individuals.

Among the complications associated with HS, the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is 4.6-times more likely within HS lesions than in normal skin and typically is seen in the setting of long-standing disease, particularly in men with HS lesions located on the buttocks and genital region for more than 20 years.² In 2015, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk for skin cancer in other clinical settings.^3,4 We present a case of locally advanced SCC that developed in a patient with HS who was treated with adalimumab and infliximab (both TNF-α inhibitors), ultimately leading to the patient’s death.

A 59-year-old man who smoked with a 40-year history of severe HS, who previously was lost to follow-up, presented to our dermatology clinic with lesions on the buttocks. Physical examination demonstrated confluent, indurated, boggy plaques; scattered sinus tracts with purulent drainage; scattered cystlike nodules; and tenderness to palpation consistent with Hurley stage III disease (Figure 1A). No involvement of the axillae or groin was noted. He was started on doxycycline and a prednisone taper with minimal improvement and subsequently was switched to adalimumab 3 months later. Adalimumab provided little relief and was discontinued; therapy was transitioned to infliximab 3 months later.

Many experts in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC) have embraced alternative off-label dosing schedules for the oral hedgehog pathway inhibitors in a successful effort to maintain efficacy while reducing treatment discontinuation caused by unacceptable side effects, Vishal Patel, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

“It’s the tolerability issues that make these drugs very difficult to prescribe and use regularly. What we’ve seen in the last few years is that a lot of alternative dosing regimens have been published that have been both effective at treating the tumor and keeping the tumor clear and at bay while lowering the side-effect profile,” explained Dr. Patel, a Mohs surgeon and director of the cutaneous oncology program at the George Washington University Cancer Center in Washington, D.C.

Product labeling for the two available hedgehog pathway inhibitors, vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib (Odomzo), calls for once-daily therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Studies show that, when used in this way, these agents achieve objective response rates in the 40% range for patients with locally advanced BCC and 15%-33% for those with metastatic BCC.

“The critical thing in these patients is not that the drugs work – although they can work in quite remarkable ways – but rather it’s that nearly all patients experience at least one side effect. And grade 3 or 4 adverse effects that can lead to cessation of drug occur in about 25% of patients,” he said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The classic side effects of the hedgehog pathway inhibitors are muscle spasms, hair loss, fatigue, loss of taste, diarrhea, and weight loss.

Among the alternative dosing regimens that have been published with good results, mostly in single-center retrospective case series, are a weekdays-on/weekends-off strategy at the Cleveland Clinic and an Italian approach entailing an initial 3-4 months of daily therapy followed by a switch to alternate-day therapy.

But Dr. Patel favors a different off-label regimen in lieu of Food and Drug Administration–recommended daily dosing indefinitely. It takes advantage of the fact that most patients don’t begin to get the classic side effects until about the 3-month mark.

“What we’ve begun to recommend as a much better option for patients who need to be on the drug potentially forever is that the drug is dosed daily for 3 months to shrink the tumor and get the optimal effect, and then at that point we taper the dose down to every other day, then every third day, or even up to a week as long as the tumor continues to stay at bay. If there’s any sign of recurrence or a scouting biopsy shows tumor, we reinstitute the daily medicine,” the dermatologist said.

This strategy requires careful monitoring for emergence of the typical side effects. Also, an important caveat regarding sonidegib is that it shouldn’t be given concomitantly with medications that are moderate or strong inhibitors of CYP3A, so it’s essential to get a complete medical history when giving this drug, Dr. Patel noted.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Many experts in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC) have embraced alternative off-label dosing schedules for the oral hedgehog pathway inhibitors in a successful effort to maintain efficacy while reducing treatment discontinuation caused by unacceptable side effects, Vishal Patel, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

“It’s the tolerability issues that make these drugs very difficult to prescribe and use regularly. What we’ve seen in the last few years is that a lot of alternative dosing regimens have been published that have been both effective at treating the tumor and keeping the tumor clear and at bay while lowering the side-effect profile,” explained Dr. Patel, a Mohs surgeon and director of the cutaneous oncology program at the George Washington University Cancer Center in Washington, D.C.

Product labeling for the two available hedgehog pathway inhibitors, vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib (Odomzo), calls for once-daily therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Studies show that, when used in this way, these agents achieve objective response rates in the 40% range for patients with locally advanced BCC and 15%-33% for those with metastatic BCC.

“The critical thing in these patients is not that the drugs work – although they can work in quite remarkable ways – but rather it’s that nearly all patients experience at least one side effect. And grade 3 or 4 adverse effects that can lead to cessation of drug occur in about 25% of patients,” he said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The classic side effects of the hedgehog pathway inhibitors are muscle spasms, hair loss, fatigue, loss of taste, diarrhea, and weight loss.

Among the alternative dosing regimens that have been published with good results, mostly in single-center retrospective case series, are a weekdays-on/weekends-off strategy at the Cleveland Clinic and an Italian approach entailing an initial 3-4 months of daily therapy followed by a switch to alternate-day therapy.

But Dr. Patel favors a different off-label regimen in lieu of Food and Drug Administration–recommended daily dosing indefinitely. It takes advantage of the fact that most patients don’t begin to get the classic side effects until about the 3-month mark.

“What we’ve begun to recommend as a much better option for patients who need to be on the drug potentially forever is that the drug is dosed daily for 3 months to shrink the tumor and get the optimal effect, and then at that point we taper the dose down to every other day, then every third day, or even up to a week as long as the tumor continues to stay at bay. If there’s any sign of recurrence or a scouting biopsy shows tumor, we reinstitute the daily medicine,” the dermatologist said.

This strategy requires careful monitoring for emergence of the typical side effects. Also, an important caveat regarding sonidegib is that it shouldn’t be given concomitantly with medications that are moderate or strong inhibitors of CYP3A, so it’s essential to get a complete medical history when giving this drug, Dr. Patel noted.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Many experts in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC) have embraced alternative off-label dosing schedules for the oral hedgehog pathway inhibitors in a successful effort to maintain efficacy while reducing treatment discontinuation caused by unacceptable side effects, Vishal Patel, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

“It’s the tolerability issues that make these drugs very difficult to prescribe and use regularly. What we’ve seen in the last few years is that a lot of alternative dosing regimens have been published that have been both effective at treating the tumor and keeping the tumor clear and at bay while lowering the side-effect profile,” explained Dr. Patel, a Mohs surgeon and director of the cutaneous oncology program at the George Washington University Cancer Center in Washington, D.C.

Product labeling for the two available hedgehog pathway inhibitors, vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib (Odomzo), calls for once-daily therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Studies show that, when used in this way, these agents achieve objective response rates in the 40% range for patients with locally advanced BCC and 15%-33% for those with metastatic BCC.

“The critical thing in these patients is not that the drugs work – although they can work in quite remarkable ways – but rather it’s that nearly all patients experience at least one side effect. And grade 3 or 4 adverse effects that can lead to cessation of drug occur in about 25% of patients,” he said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The classic side effects of the hedgehog pathway inhibitors are muscle spasms, hair loss, fatigue, loss of taste, diarrhea, and weight loss.

Among the alternative dosing regimens that have been published with good results, mostly in single-center retrospective case series, are a weekdays-on/weekends-off strategy at the Cleveland Clinic and an Italian approach entailing an initial 3-4 months of daily therapy followed by a switch to alternate-day therapy.

But Dr. Patel favors a different off-label regimen in lieu of Food and Drug Administration–recommended daily dosing indefinitely. It takes advantage of the fact that most patients don’t begin to get the classic side effects until about the 3-month mark.

“What we’ve begun to recommend as a much better option for patients who need to be on the drug potentially forever is that the drug is dosed daily for 3 months to shrink the tumor and get the optimal effect, and then at that point we taper the dose down to every other day, then every third day, or even up to a week as long as the tumor continues to stay at bay. If there’s any sign of recurrence or a scouting biopsy shows tumor, we reinstitute the daily medicine,” the dermatologist said.

This strategy requires careful monitoring for emergence of the typical side effects. Also, an important caveat regarding sonidegib is that it shouldn’t be given concomitantly with medications that are moderate or strong inhibitors of CYP3A, so it’s essential to get a complete medical history when giving this drug, Dr. Patel noted.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Breast cancer is the second most common malignancy in women (after primary skin cancer) and is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in this population. In 2020, the American Cancer Society reported an estimated 276,480 new breast cancer diagnoses and 42,170 breast cancer–related deaths.¹ Despite the fact that routine screening with mammography and sonography is standard, the incidence of advanced breast cancer at the time of diagnosis has remained stable over time, suggesting that life-threatening breast cancers are not being caught at an earlier stage. The number of breast cancers with distant metastases at the time of diagnosis also has not decreased.² Therefore, although screening tests are valuable, they are imperfect and not without limitations.

Cutaneous metastasis is defined as the spread of malignant cells from an internal neoplasm to the skin, which can occur either by contiguous invasion or by distant metastasis through hematogenous or lymphatic routes.³ The diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis requires a high index of suspicion on the part of the clinician.⁴ Of the various internal malignancies in women, breast cancer most frequently results in metastasis to the skin,⁵ with up to 24% of patients with metastatic breast cancer developing cutaneous lesions.⁶

In recent years, there have been multiple reports of skin lesions prompting the diagnosis of a previously unknown breast cancer. In a study by Lookingbill et al,⁶ 6.3% of patients with breast cancer presented with cutaneous involvement at the time of diagnosis, with 3.5% having skin symptoms as the presenting sign. Although there have been studies analyzing cutaneous metastasis from various internal malignancies, none thus far have focused on cutaneous metastasis as a presenting sign of breast cancer. This systematic review aimed to highlight the diverse clinical presentations of cutaneous metastatic breast cancer and their clinical implications.

Methods

Study Selection
This study utilized the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews.⁷ A review of the literature was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, and EBSCO.

Search Strategy and Analysis
We completed our search of each of the databases on December 16, 2017, using the phrases cutaneous metastasis and breast cancer to find relevant case reports and retrospective studies. Three authors (C.J., S.R., and M.A.) manually reviewed the resulting abstracts. If an abstract did not include enough information to determine inclusion, the full-text version was reviewed by 2 of the authors (C.J. and S.R.). Two of the authors (C.J. and M.A.) also assessed each source for relevancy and included the articles deemed eligible (Figure 1).

For a retrospective review to be included, it must have specified the number of breast cancer cases and the number of cutaneous metastases presenting initially or simultaneously to the breast cancer diagnosis. Bansal et al⁸ defined a simultaneous diagnosis as a skin lesion presenting with other concerns associated with the primary malignancy.

Results

The initial search of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, and EBSCO yielded a total of 722 articles. Seven other articles found separately while undergoing our initial research were added to this total. Abstracts were manually screened, with 657 articles discarded after failing to meet the predetermined inclusion criteria. After removal of 25 duplicate articles, the full text of the remaining 47 articles were reviewed, leading to the elimination of an additional 11 articles that did not meet the necessary criteria. This resulted in 36 articles (Figure 1), including 27 individual case reports (Table 1) and 9 retrospective reviews (Table 2). Approximately 13.7% of patients in the 9 retrospective reviews presented with a skin lesion before or simultaneous to the diagnosis of breast cancer (Figure 2).

Forty-one percent (17/41) of the patients with cutaneous metastasis as a presenting feature of their breast cancer fell outside the age range for breast cancer screening recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force,⁴² with 24% of the patients younger than 50 years and 17% older than 74 years (Figure 3).

Comment

Our systematic review demonstrated that cutaneous lesions may be the first clinical manifestation of an undetected primary malignancy.⁴⁰ These lesions often occur on the chest but may involve the face, abdomen, or extremities. Although asymptomatic erythematous nodules and plaques are the most common clinical presentations, lesions may be tender or pruritic or may even resemble benign skin conditions, including dermatitis, cellulitis, urticaria, and papulovesicular eruptions, causing them to go unrecognized.

Nevertheless, cutaneous metastasis of a visceral malignancy generally is observed late in the disease course, often following the diagnosis of a primary malignancy.¹⁴ Breast cancer is the most common internal malignancy to feature cutaneous spread, with the largest case series revealing a 23.9% rate of cutaneous metastases in females with breast carcinoma.⁶ Because of its proximity, the chest wall is the most common location for cutaneous lesions of metastatic breast cancer.

Malignant cells from a primary breast tumor may spread to the skin via lymphatic, hematogenous, or contiguous tissue dissemination, as well as iatrogenically through direct implantation during surgical procedures.³ The mechanism of neoplasm spread may likewise influence the clinical appearance of the resulting lesions. The localized lymphedema with a peau d’orange appearance of inflammatory metastatic breast carcinoma or the erythematous plaques of carcinoma erysipeloides are caused by embolized tumor cells obstructing dermal lymphatic vessels.^3,11 On the other hand, the indurated erythematous plaques of carcinoma en cuirasse are caused by diffuse cutaneous and subcutaneous infiltration of tumor cells that also may be associated with marked reduction in breast volume.³

A primary breast cancer is classically diagnosed with a combination of clinical breast examination, radiologic imaging (ultrasound, mammogram, breast magnetic resonance imaging, or computed tomography), and fine-needle aspiration or lesional biopsy with histopathology.⁹ Given that in 20% of metastasized breast cancers the primary tumor may not be identified, a negative breast examination and imaging do not rule out breast cancer, especially if cutaneous biopsy reveals a primary malignancy.⁴³ Histopathology and immunohistochemistry can thereby confirm the presence of metastatic cutaneous lesions and help characterize the breast cancer type involved, with adenocarcinomas being most commonly implicated.²⁸ Although both ductal and lobular adenocarcinomas stain positive for cytokeratin 7, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, gross cystic disease fluid protein 15, carcinoembryonic antigen, and mammaglobin, only the former shows positivity for e-cadherin markers.³ Conversely, inflammatory carcinoma stains positive for CD31 and podoplanin, telangiectatic carcinoma stains positive for CD31, and mammary Paget disease stains positive for cytokeratin 7 and mucin 1, cell surface associated.³ Apart from cutaneous biopsy, fine-needle aspiration cytology can likewise provide a simple and rapid method of diagnosis with high sensitivity and specificity.¹⁴

Conclusion

Although cutaneous metastasis as the presenting sign of a breast malignancy is rare, a high index of suspicion should be exercised when encountering rapid-onset, out-of-place nodules or plaques in female patients, particularly nodules or plaques presenting on the chest.

Breast cancer is the second most common malignancy in women (after primary skin cancer) and is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in this population. In 2020, the American Cancer Society reported an estimated 276,480 new breast cancer diagnoses and 42,170 breast cancer–related deaths.¹ Despite the fact that routine screening with mammography and sonography is standard, the incidence of advanced breast cancer at the time of diagnosis has remained stable over time, suggesting that life-threatening breast cancers are not being caught at an earlier stage. The number of breast cancers with distant metastases at the time of diagnosis also has not decreased.² Therefore, although screening tests are valuable, they are imperfect and not without limitations.

Cutaneous metastasis is defined as the spread of malignant cells from an internal neoplasm to the skin, which can occur either by contiguous invasion or by distant metastasis through hematogenous or lymphatic routes.³ The diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis requires a high index of suspicion on the part of the clinician.⁴ Of the various internal malignancies in women, breast cancer most frequently results in metastasis to the skin,⁵ with up to 24% of patients with metastatic breast cancer developing cutaneous lesions.⁶

In recent years, there have been multiple reports of skin lesions prompting the diagnosis of a previously unknown breast cancer. In a study by Lookingbill et al,⁶ 6.3% of patients with breast cancer presented with cutaneous involvement at the time of diagnosis, with 3.5% having skin symptoms as the presenting sign. Although there have been studies analyzing cutaneous metastasis from various internal malignancies, none thus far have focused on cutaneous metastasis as a presenting sign of breast cancer. This systematic review aimed to highlight the diverse clinical presentations of cutaneous metastatic breast cancer and their clinical implications.

Methods

Study Selection
This study utilized the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews.⁷ A review of the literature was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, and EBSCO.

Search Strategy and Analysis
We completed our search of each of the databases on December 16, 2017, using the phrases cutaneous metastasis and breast cancer to find relevant case reports and retrospective studies. Three authors (C.J., S.R., and M.A.) manually reviewed the resulting abstracts. If an abstract did not include enough information to determine inclusion, the full-text version was reviewed by 2 of the authors (C.J. and S.R.). Two of the authors (C.J. and M.A.) also assessed each source for relevancy and included the articles deemed eligible (Figure 1).

For a retrospective review to be included, it must have specified the number of breast cancer cases and the number of cutaneous metastases presenting initially or simultaneously to the breast cancer diagnosis. Bansal et al⁸ defined a simultaneous diagnosis as a skin lesion presenting with other concerns associated with the primary malignancy.

Results

The initial search of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, and EBSCO yielded a total of 722 articles. Seven other articles found separately while undergoing our initial research were added to this total. Abstracts were manually screened, with 657 articles discarded after failing to meet the predetermined inclusion criteria. After removal of 25 duplicate articles, the full text of the remaining 47 articles were reviewed, leading to the elimination of an additional 11 articles that did not meet the necessary criteria. This resulted in 36 articles (Figure 1), including 27 individual case reports (Table 1) and 9 retrospective reviews (Table 2). Approximately 13.7% of patients in the 9 retrospective reviews presented with a skin lesion before or simultaneous to the diagnosis of breast cancer (Figure 2).

Forty-one percent (17/41) of the patients with cutaneous metastasis as a presenting feature of their breast cancer fell outside the age range for breast cancer screening recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force,⁴² with 24% of the patients younger than 50 years and 17% older than 74 years (Figure 3).

Comment

Our systematic review demonstrated that cutaneous lesions may be the first clinical manifestation of an undetected primary malignancy.⁴⁰ These lesions often occur on the chest but may involve the face, abdomen, or extremities. Although asymptomatic erythematous nodules and plaques are the most common clinical presentations, lesions may be tender or pruritic or may even resemble benign skin conditions, including dermatitis, cellulitis, urticaria, and papulovesicular eruptions, causing them to go unrecognized.

Nevertheless, cutaneous metastasis of a visceral malignancy generally is observed late in the disease course, often following the diagnosis of a primary malignancy.¹⁴ Breast cancer is the most common internal malignancy to feature cutaneous spread, with the largest case series revealing a 23.9% rate of cutaneous metastases in females with breast carcinoma.⁶ Because of its proximity, the chest wall is the most common location for cutaneous lesions of metastatic breast cancer.

Malignant cells from a primary breast tumor may spread to the skin via lymphatic, hematogenous, or contiguous tissue dissemination, as well as iatrogenically through direct implantation during surgical procedures.³ The mechanism of neoplasm spread may likewise influence the clinical appearance of the resulting lesions. The localized lymphedema with a peau d’orange appearance of inflammatory metastatic breast carcinoma or the erythematous plaques of carcinoma erysipeloides are caused by embolized tumor cells obstructing dermal lymphatic vessels.^3,11 On the other hand, the indurated erythematous plaques of carcinoma en cuirasse are caused by diffuse cutaneous and subcutaneous infiltration of tumor cells that also may be associated with marked reduction in breast volume.³

A primary breast cancer is classically diagnosed with a combination of clinical breast examination, radiologic imaging (ultrasound, mammogram, breast magnetic resonance imaging, or computed tomography), and fine-needle aspiration or lesional biopsy with histopathology.⁹ Given that in 20% of metastasized breast cancers the primary tumor may not be identified, a negative breast examination and imaging do not rule out breast cancer, especially if cutaneous biopsy reveals a primary malignancy.⁴³ Histopathology and immunohistochemistry can thereby confirm the presence of metastatic cutaneous lesions and help characterize the breast cancer type involved, with adenocarcinomas being most commonly implicated.²⁸ Although both ductal and lobular adenocarcinomas stain positive for cytokeratin 7, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, gross cystic disease fluid protein 15, carcinoembryonic antigen, and mammaglobin, only the former shows positivity for e-cadherin markers.³ Conversely, inflammatory carcinoma stains positive for CD31 and podoplanin, telangiectatic carcinoma stains positive for CD31, and mammary Paget disease stains positive for cytokeratin 7 and mucin 1, cell surface associated.³ Apart from cutaneous biopsy, fine-needle aspiration cytology can likewise provide a simple and rapid method of diagnosis with high sensitivity and specificity.¹⁴

Conclusion

Although cutaneous metastasis as the presenting sign of a breast malignancy is rare, a high index of suspicion should be exercised when encountering rapid-onset, out-of-place nodules or plaques in female patients, particularly nodules or plaques presenting on the chest.

Breast cancer is the second most common malignancy in women (after primary skin cancer) and is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in this population. In 2020, the American Cancer Society reported an estimated 276,480 new breast cancer diagnoses and 42,170 breast cancer–related deaths.¹ Despite the fact that routine screening with mammography and sonography is standard, the incidence of advanced breast cancer at the time of diagnosis has remained stable over time, suggesting that life-threatening breast cancers are not being caught at an earlier stage. The number of breast cancers with distant metastases at the time of diagnosis also has not decreased.² Therefore, although screening tests are valuable, they are imperfect and not without limitations.

Cutaneous metastasis is defined as the spread of malignant cells from an internal neoplasm to the skin, which can occur either by contiguous invasion or by distant metastasis through hematogenous or lymphatic routes.³ The diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis requires a high index of suspicion on the part of the clinician.⁴ Of the various internal malignancies in women, breast cancer most frequently results in metastasis to the skin,⁵ with up to 24% of patients with metastatic breast cancer developing cutaneous lesions.⁶

In recent years, there have been multiple reports of skin lesions prompting the diagnosis of a previously unknown breast cancer. In a study by Lookingbill et al,⁶ 6.3% of patients with breast cancer presented with cutaneous involvement at the time of diagnosis, with 3.5% having skin symptoms as the presenting sign. Although there have been studies analyzing cutaneous metastasis from various internal malignancies, none thus far have focused on cutaneous metastasis as a presenting sign of breast cancer. This systematic review aimed to highlight the diverse clinical presentations of cutaneous metastatic breast cancer and their clinical implications.

Methods

Study Selection
This study utilized the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews.⁷ A review of the literature was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, and EBSCO.

Search Strategy and Analysis
We completed our search of each of the databases on December 16, 2017, using the phrases cutaneous metastasis and breast cancer to find relevant case reports and retrospective studies. Three authors (C.J., S.R., and M.A.) manually reviewed the resulting abstracts. If an abstract did not include enough information to determine inclusion, the full-text version was reviewed by 2 of the authors (C.J. and S.R.). Two of the authors (C.J. and M.A.) also assessed each source for relevancy and included the articles deemed eligible (Figure 1).

For a retrospective review to be included, it must have specified the number of breast cancer cases and the number of cutaneous metastases presenting initially or simultaneously to the breast cancer diagnosis. Bansal et al⁸ defined a simultaneous diagnosis as a skin lesion presenting with other concerns associated with the primary malignancy.

Results

The initial search of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, and EBSCO yielded a total of 722 articles. Seven other articles found separately while undergoing our initial research were added to this total. Abstracts were manually screened, with 657 articles discarded after failing to meet the predetermined inclusion criteria. After removal of 25 duplicate articles, the full text of the remaining 47 articles were reviewed, leading to the elimination of an additional 11 articles that did not meet the necessary criteria. This resulted in 36 articles (Figure 1), including 27 individual case reports (Table 1) and 9 retrospective reviews (Table 2). Approximately 13.7% of patients in the 9 retrospective reviews presented with a skin lesion before or simultaneous to the diagnosis of breast cancer (Figure 2).

Forty-one percent (17/41) of the patients with cutaneous metastasis as a presenting feature of their breast cancer fell outside the age range for breast cancer screening recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force,⁴² with 24% of the patients younger than 50 years and 17% older than 74 years (Figure 3).

Comment

Our systematic review demonstrated that cutaneous lesions may be the first clinical manifestation of an undetected primary malignancy.⁴⁰ These lesions often occur on the chest but may involve the face, abdomen, or extremities. Although asymptomatic erythematous nodules and plaques are the most common clinical presentations, lesions may be tender or pruritic or may even resemble benign skin conditions, including dermatitis, cellulitis, urticaria, and papulovesicular eruptions, causing them to go unrecognized.

Nevertheless, cutaneous metastasis of a visceral malignancy generally is observed late in the disease course, often following the diagnosis of a primary malignancy.¹⁴ Breast cancer is the most common internal malignancy to feature cutaneous spread, with the largest case series revealing a 23.9% rate of cutaneous metastases in females with breast carcinoma.⁶ Because of its proximity, the chest wall is the most common location for cutaneous lesions of metastatic breast cancer.

Malignant cells from a primary breast tumor may spread to the skin via lymphatic, hematogenous, or contiguous tissue dissemination, as well as iatrogenically through direct implantation during surgical procedures.³ The mechanism of neoplasm spread may likewise influence the clinical appearance of the resulting lesions. The localized lymphedema with a peau d’orange appearance of inflammatory metastatic breast carcinoma or the erythematous plaques of carcinoma erysipeloides are caused by embolized tumor cells obstructing dermal lymphatic vessels.^3,11 On the other hand, the indurated erythematous plaques of carcinoma en cuirasse are caused by diffuse cutaneous and subcutaneous infiltration of tumor cells that also may be associated with marked reduction in breast volume.³

A primary breast cancer is classically diagnosed with a combination of clinical breast examination, radiologic imaging (ultrasound, mammogram, breast magnetic resonance imaging, or computed tomography), and fine-needle aspiration or lesional biopsy with histopathology.⁹ Given that in 20% of metastasized breast cancers the primary tumor may not be identified, a negative breast examination and imaging do not rule out breast cancer, especially if cutaneous biopsy reveals a primary malignancy.⁴³ Histopathology and immunohistochemistry can thereby confirm the presence of metastatic cutaneous lesions and help characterize the breast cancer type involved, with adenocarcinomas being most commonly implicated.²⁸ Although both ductal and lobular adenocarcinomas stain positive for cytokeratin 7, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, gross cystic disease fluid protein 15, carcinoembryonic antigen, and mammaglobin, only the former shows positivity for e-cadherin markers.³ Conversely, inflammatory carcinoma stains positive for CD31 and podoplanin, telangiectatic carcinoma stains positive for CD31, and mammary Paget disease stains positive for cytokeratin 7 and mucin 1, cell surface associated.³ Apart from cutaneous biopsy, fine-needle aspiration cytology can likewise provide a simple and rapid method of diagnosis with high sensitivity and specificity.¹⁴

Conclusion

Although cutaneous metastasis as the presenting sign of a breast malignancy is rare, a high index of suspicion should be exercised when encountering rapid-onset, out-of-place nodules or plaques in female patients, particularly nodules or plaques presenting on the chest.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A wide range of products derived from bees, including honey, propolis, bee pollen, bee bread, royal jelly, beeswax, and bee venom, have been used since ancient times for medical purposes.¹ Specifically, bee venom has been used in traditional medicine to treat multiple disorders, including arthritis, cancer, pain, rheumatism, and skin diseases.^2,3 The primary active constituent of bee venom is melittin, an amphiphilic peptide containing 26 amino acid residues and known to impart anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, analgesic, and anticancer effects.^4-7 Additional anti-inflammatory compounds found in bee venom include adolapin, apamin, and phospholipase A2; melittin and phospholipase A2 are also capable of delivering pro-inflammatory activity.^8,9

nedomacki/iStock/Getty Images

The anti-aging, anti-inflammatory, and antibacterial properties of bee venom have been cited as justification for its use as a cosmetic ingredient.¹⁰ In experimental studies, antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects have been reported.¹¹ Bee venom phospholipase A2 has also demonstrated notable success in vitro and in vivo in conferring immunomodulatory effects and is a key component in past and continuing use of bee venom therapy for immune-related disorders, such as arthritis.¹²

A recent review of the biomedical literature by Nguyen et al. reveals that bee venom is one of the key ingredients in the booming Korean cosmeceuticals industry.¹³ Kim et al. reviewed the therapeutic applications of bee venom in 2019, noting that anti-inflammatory, antiapoptotic, antifibrotic, antimicrobial, and anticancer properties have been cited in experimental and clinical reports, with cutaneous treatments ranging from acne, alopecia, and atopic dermatitis to melanoma, morphea, photoaging, psoriasis, vitiligo, wounds, and wrinkles.1⁴ This column focuses on the use of bee venom in acupuncture and wound healing, as well as some other potential applications of this bee product used for millennia.

Acupuncture

Bee venom acupuncture entails the application of bee venom to the tips of acupuncture needles, which are then applied to acupoints on the skin. Cherniack and Govorushko state that several small studies in humans show that bee venom acupuncture has been used effectively to treat various musculoskeletal and neurological conditions.⁸ 

In 2016, Sur et al. explored the effects of bee venom acupuncture on atopic dermatitis in a mouse model with lesions induced by trimellitic anhydride. Bee venom treatment was found to significantly ease inflammation, lesion thickness, and lymph node weight. Suppression of T-cell proliferation and infiltration, Th1 and Th2 cytokine synthesis, and interleukin (IL)-4 and immunoglobulin E (IgE) production was also noted.¹⁵

A case report by Hwang and Kim in 2018 described the successful use of bee venom acupuncture in the treatment of a 64-year-old Korean woman with circumscribed morphea resulting from systemic sclerosis. Subcutaneous bee venom acupuncture along the margins resolved pruritus through 2 months of follow-up.¹¹

Wound healing

A study by Hozzein et al. in 2018 on protecting functional macrophages from apoptosis and improving Nrf2, Ang-1, and Tie-2 signaling in diabetic wound healing in mice revealed that bee venom supports immune function, thus promoting healing from diabetic wounds.(16) Previously, this team had shown that bee venom facilitates wound healing in diabetic mice by inhibiting the activation of transcription factor-3 and inducible nitric oxide synthase-mediated stress.¹⁷

In early 2020, Nakashima et al. reported their results showing that bee venom-derived phospholipase A2 augmented poly(I:C)-induced activation in human keratinocytes, suggesting that it could play a role in wound healing promotion through enhanced TLR3 responses.¹⁸

Alopecia

A 2016 study on the effect of bee venom on alopecia in C57BL/6 mice by Park et al. showed that the bee toxin dose-dependently stimulated proliferation of several growth factors, including fibroblast growth factors 2 and 7, as compared with the control group. Bee venom also suppressed transition from the anagen to catagen phases, nurtured hair growth, and presented the potential as a strong 5α-reductase inhibitor.¹⁹

Anticancer and anti-arthritic activity

In 2007, Son et al. reported that the various peptides (melittin, apamin, adolapin, the mast-cell-degranulating peptide), enzymes (i.e., phospholipase A2), as well as biologically active amines (i.e., histamine and epinephrine) and nonpeptide components in bee venom are thought to account for multiple pharmaceutical properties that yield anti-arthritis, antinociceptive, and anticancer effects.²

In 2019, Lim et al. determined that bee venom and melittin inhibited the growth and migration of melanoma cells (B16F10, A375SM, and SK-MEL-28) by downregulating the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MAPK signaling pathways. They concluded that melittin has the potential for use in preventing and treating malignant melanoma.⁴

Phototoxicity

Heo et al. conducted phototoxicity and skin sensitization studies of bee venom, as well as a bee venom from which they removed phospholipase A2, and determined that both were nonphototoxic substances and did not act as sensitizers.²⁰

Han et al. assessed the skin safety of bee venom on tests in healthy male Hartley guinea pigs in 2017 and found that bee venom application engendered no toxic reactions, including any signs of cutaneous phototoxicity or skin photosensitization, and is likely safe for inclusion as a topical skin care ingredient.¹⁰

Antiwrinkle activity

Han et al. also evaluated the beneficial effects of bee venom serum on facial wrinkles in a small study on humans (22 South Korean women between 30 and 49 years old), finding clinical improvements as seen through reductions in wrinkle count, average wrinkle depth, and total wrinkle area. The authors, noting that this was the first clinical study to assess the results of using bee venom cosmetics on facial skin, also cited the relative safety of the product, which presents nominal irritation potential, and acknowledged its present use in the cosmetics industry.²¹

Conclusion

Bees play a critical role in the web of life as they pollinate approximately one-third of our food. Bee products such as honey, propolis, royal jelly, beeswax, pollen, and venom have also been found to exhibit significant biological activities, including several that benefit the skin. Perhaps counterintuitively, given our awareness of the painful and potentially serious reactions to bee stings, bee venom has also been found to deliver multiple salutary effects. More research is necessary to ascertain the viability of using bee venom as a reliable treatment for the various cutaneous conditions for which it demonstrates potential benefits. Current evidence presents justification for further investigation.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Kurek-Górecka A et al. Molecules. 2020 Jan 28;25(3):556.

2. Son DJ et al. Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Aug;115(2):246-70.

3. Lee G, Bae H. Molecules. 2016 May 11;21(5):616.

4. Lim HN et al. Molecules. 2019 Mar 7;24(5):929.

5. Gu H et al. Mol Med Rep. 2018 Oct;18(4):3711-8. 6. You CE et al. Ann Dermatol. 2016 Oct;28(5):593-9. 7. An HJ et al. Int J Mol Med. 2014 Nov;34(5):1341-8. 8. Cherniack EP, Govorushko S. Toxicon. 2018 Nov;154:74-8. 9. Cornara L et al. Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jun 28;8:412.

10. Han SM et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2017 Dec;16(4):e68-e75.

11. Hwang JH, Kim KH. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Dec;97(49):e13404. 12. Lee G, Bae H. Toxins (Basel). 2016 Feb 22;8(2):48. 13. Nguyen JK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Jul;19(7):1555-69.

14. Kim H et al. Toxins (Basel). 2019 Jun 27:11(7):374.

15. Sur B et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Jan 29;16:38. 16. Hozzein WN et al. Mol Immunol. 2018 Nov;103:322-35. 17. Badr G et al. J Cell Physiol. 2016 Oct;231(10):2159-71. 18. Nakashima A et al. Int Immunol. 2020 May 30;32(6):371-83. 19. Park S et al. Biol Pharm Bull. 2016 Jun 1;39(6):1060-8.

20. Heo Y et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:157367. 21. Han SM et al. Clin Interv Aging. 2015 Oct 1;10:1587-92.

A wide range of products derived from bees, including honey, propolis, bee pollen, bee bread, royal jelly, beeswax, and bee venom, have been used since ancient times for medical purposes.¹ Specifically, bee venom has been used in traditional medicine to treat multiple disorders, including arthritis, cancer, pain, rheumatism, and skin diseases.^2,3 The primary active constituent of bee venom is melittin, an amphiphilic peptide containing 26 amino acid residues and known to impart anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, analgesic, and anticancer effects.^4-7 Additional anti-inflammatory compounds found in bee venom include adolapin, apamin, and phospholipase A2; melittin and phospholipase A2 are also capable of delivering pro-inflammatory activity.^8,9

nedomacki/iStock/Getty Images

The anti-aging, anti-inflammatory, and antibacterial properties of bee venom have been cited as justification for its use as a cosmetic ingredient.¹⁰ In experimental studies, antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects have been reported.¹¹ Bee venom phospholipase A2 has also demonstrated notable success in vitro and in vivo in conferring immunomodulatory effects and is a key component in past and continuing use of bee venom therapy for immune-related disorders, such as arthritis.¹²

A recent review of the biomedical literature by Nguyen et al. reveals that bee venom is one of the key ingredients in the booming Korean cosmeceuticals industry.¹³ Kim et al. reviewed the therapeutic applications of bee venom in 2019, noting that anti-inflammatory, antiapoptotic, antifibrotic, antimicrobial, and anticancer properties have been cited in experimental and clinical reports, with cutaneous treatments ranging from acne, alopecia, and atopic dermatitis to melanoma, morphea, photoaging, psoriasis, vitiligo, wounds, and wrinkles.1⁴ This column focuses on the use of bee venom in acupuncture and wound healing, as well as some other potential applications of this bee product used for millennia.

Acupuncture

Bee venom acupuncture entails the application of bee venom to the tips of acupuncture needles, which are then applied to acupoints on the skin. Cherniack and Govorushko state that several small studies in humans show that bee venom acupuncture has been used effectively to treat various musculoskeletal and neurological conditions.⁸ 

In 2016, Sur et al. explored the effects of bee venom acupuncture on atopic dermatitis in a mouse model with lesions induced by trimellitic anhydride. Bee venom treatment was found to significantly ease inflammation, lesion thickness, and lymph node weight. Suppression of T-cell proliferation and infiltration, Th1 and Th2 cytokine synthesis, and interleukin (IL)-4 and immunoglobulin E (IgE) production was also noted.¹⁵

A case report by Hwang and Kim in 2018 described the successful use of bee venom acupuncture in the treatment of a 64-year-old Korean woman with circumscribed morphea resulting from systemic sclerosis. Subcutaneous bee venom acupuncture along the margins resolved pruritus through 2 months of follow-up.¹¹

Wound healing

A study by Hozzein et al. in 2018 on protecting functional macrophages from apoptosis and improving Nrf2, Ang-1, and Tie-2 signaling in diabetic wound healing in mice revealed that bee venom supports immune function, thus promoting healing from diabetic wounds.(16) Previously, this team had shown that bee venom facilitates wound healing in diabetic mice by inhibiting the activation of transcription factor-3 and inducible nitric oxide synthase-mediated stress.¹⁷

In early 2020, Nakashima et al. reported their results showing that bee venom-derived phospholipase A2 augmented poly(I:C)-induced activation in human keratinocytes, suggesting that it could play a role in wound healing promotion through enhanced TLR3 responses.¹⁸

Alopecia

A 2016 study on the effect of bee venom on alopecia in C57BL/6 mice by Park et al. showed that the bee toxin dose-dependently stimulated proliferation of several growth factors, including fibroblast growth factors 2 and 7, as compared with the control group. Bee venom also suppressed transition from the anagen to catagen phases, nurtured hair growth, and presented the potential as a strong 5α-reductase inhibitor.¹⁹

Anticancer and anti-arthritic activity

In 2007, Son et al. reported that the various peptides (melittin, apamin, adolapin, the mast-cell-degranulating peptide), enzymes (i.e., phospholipase A2), as well as biologically active amines (i.e., histamine and epinephrine) and nonpeptide components in bee venom are thought to account for multiple pharmaceutical properties that yield anti-arthritis, antinociceptive, and anticancer effects.²

In 2019, Lim et al. determined that bee venom and melittin inhibited the growth and migration of melanoma cells (B16F10, A375SM, and SK-MEL-28) by downregulating the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MAPK signaling pathways. They concluded that melittin has the potential for use in preventing and treating malignant melanoma.⁴

Phototoxicity

Heo et al. conducted phototoxicity and skin sensitization studies of bee venom, as well as a bee venom from which they removed phospholipase A2, and determined that both were nonphototoxic substances and did not act as sensitizers.²⁰

Han et al. assessed the skin safety of bee venom on tests in healthy male Hartley guinea pigs in 2017 and found that bee venom application engendered no toxic reactions, including any signs of cutaneous phototoxicity or skin photosensitization, and is likely safe for inclusion as a topical skin care ingredient.¹⁰

Antiwrinkle activity

Han et al. also evaluated the beneficial effects of bee venom serum on facial wrinkles in a small study on humans (22 South Korean women between 30 and 49 years old), finding clinical improvements as seen through reductions in wrinkle count, average wrinkle depth, and total wrinkle area. The authors, noting that this was the first clinical study to assess the results of using bee venom cosmetics on facial skin, also cited the relative safety of the product, which presents nominal irritation potential, and acknowledged its present use in the cosmetics industry.²¹

Conclusion

Bees play a critical role in the web of life as they pollinate approximately one-third of our food. Bee products such as honey, propolis, royal jelly, beeswax, pollen, and venom have also been found to exhibit significant biological activities, including several that benefit the skin. Perhaps counterintuitively, given our awareness of the painful and potentially serious reactions to bee stings, bee venom has also been found to deliver multiple salutary effects. More research is necessary to ascertain the viability of using bee venom as a reliable treatment for the various cutaneous conditions for which it demonstrates potential benefits. Current evidence presents justification for further investigation.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Kurek-Górecka A et al. Molecules. 2020 Jan 28;25(3):556.

2. Son DJ et al. Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Aug;115(2):246-70.

3. Lee G, Bae H. Molecules. 2016 May 11;21(5):616.

4. Lim HN et al. Molecules. 2019 Mar 7;24(5):929.

5. Gu H et al. Mol Med Rep. 2018 Oct;18(4):3711-8. 6. You CE et al. Ann Dermatol. 2016 Oct;28(5):593-9. 7. An HJ et al. Int J Mol Med. 2014 Nov;34(5):1341-8. 8. Cherniack EP, Govorushko S. Toxicon. 2018 Nov;154:74-8. 9. Cornara L et al. Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jun 28;8:412.

10. Han SM et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2017 Dec;16(4):e68-e75.

11. Hwang JH, Kim KH. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Dec;97(49):e13404. 12. Lee G, Bae H. Toxins (Basel). 2016 Feb 22;8(2):48. 13. Nguyen JK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Jul;19(7):1555-69.

14. Kim H et al. Toxins (Basel). 2019 Jun 27:11(7):374.

15. Sur B et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Jan 29;16:38. 16. Hozzein WN et al. Mol Immunol. 2018 Nov;103:322-35. 17. Badr G et al. J Cell Physiol. 2016 Oct;231(10):2159-71. 18. Nakashima A et al. Int Immunol. 2020 May 30;32(6):371-83. 19. Park S et al. Biol Pharm Bull. 2016 Jun 1;39(6):1060-8.

20. Heo Y et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:157367. 21. Han SM et al. Clin Interv Aging. 2015 Oct 1;10:1587-92.

A wide range of products derived from bees, including honey, propolis, bee pollen, bee bread, royal jelly, beeswax, and bee venom, have been used since ancient times for medical purposes.¹ Specifically, bee venom has been used in traditional medicine to treat multiple disorders, including arthritis, cancer, pain, rheumatism, and skin diseases.^2,3 The primary active constituent of bee venom is melittin, an amphiphilic peptide containing 26 amino acid residues and known to impart anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, analgesic, and anticancer effects.^4-7 Additional anti-inflammatory compounds found in bee venom include adolapin, apamin, and phospholipase A2; melittin and phospholipase A2 are also capable of delivering pro-inflammatory activity.^8,9

nedomacki/iStock/Getty Images

The anti-aging, anti-inflammatory, and antibacterial properties of bee venom have been cited as justification for its use as a cosmetic ingredient.¹⁰ In experimental studies, antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects have been reported.¹¹ Bee venom phospholipase A2 has also demonstrated notable success in vitro and in vivo in conferring immunomodulatory effects and is a key component in past and continuing use of bee venom therapy for immune-related disorders, such as arthritis.¹²

A recent review of the biomedical literature by Nguyen et al. reveals that bee venom is one of the key ingredients in the booming Korean cosmeceuticals industry.¹³ Kim et al. reviewed the therapeutic applications of bee venom in 2019, noting that anti-inflammatory, antiapoptotic, antifibrotic, antimicrobial, and anticancer properties have been cited in experimental and clinical reports, with cutaneous treatments ranging from acne, alopecia, and atopic dermatitis to melanoma, morphea, photoaging, psoriasis, vitiligo, wounds, and wrinkles.1⁴ This column focuses on the use of bee venom in acupuncture and wound healing, as well as some other potential applications of this bee product used for millennia.

Acupuncture

Bee venom acupuncture entails the application of bee venom to the tips of acupuncture needles, which are then applied to acupoints on the skin. Cherniack and Govorushko state that several small studies in humans show that bee venom acupuncture has been used effectively to treat various musculoskeletal and neurological conditions.⁸ 

In 2016, Sur et al. explored the effects of bee venom acupuncture on atopic dermatitis in a mouse model with lesions induced by trimellitic anhydride. Bee venom treatment was found to significantly ease inflammation, lesion thickness, and lymph node weight. Suppression of T-cell proliferation and infiltration, Th1 and Th2 cytokine synthesis, and interleukin (IL)-4 and immunoglobulin E (IgE) production was also noted.¹⁵

A case report by Hwang and Kim in 2018 described the successful use of bee venom acupuncture in the treatment of a 64-year-old Korean woman with circumscribed morphea resulting from systemic sclerosis. Subcutaneous bee venom acupuncture along the margins resolved pruritus through 2 months of follow-up.¹¹

Wound healing

A study by Hozzein et al. in 2018 on protecting functional macrophages from apoptosis and improving Nrf2, Ang-1, and Tie-2 signaling in diabetic wound healing in mice revealed that bee venom supports immune function, thus promoting healing from diabetic wounds.(16) Previously, this team had shown that bee venom facilitates wound healing in diabetic mice by inhibiting the activation of transcription factor-3 and inducible nitric oxide synthase-mediated stress.¹⁷

In early 2020, Nakashima et al. reported their results showing that bee venom-derived phospholipase A2 augmented poly(I:C)-induced activation in human keratinocytes, suggesting that it could play a role in wound healing promotion through enhanced TLR3 responses.¹⁸

Alopecia

A 2016 study on the effect of bee venom on alopecia in C57BL/6 mice by Park et al. showed that the bee toxin dose-dependently stimulated proliferation of several growth factors, including fibroblast growth factors 2 and 7, as compared with the control group. Bee venom also suppressed transition from the anagen to catagen phases, nurtured hair growth, and presented the potential as a strong 5α-reductase inhibitor.¹⁹

Anticancer and anti-arthritic activity

In 2007, Son et al. reported that the various peptides (melittin, apamin, adolapin, the mast-cell-degranulating peptide), enzymes (i.e., phospholipase A2), as well as biologically active amines (i.e., histamine and epinephrine) and nonpeptide components in bee venom are thought to account for multiple pharmaceutical properties that yield anti-arthritis, antinociceptive, and anticancer effects.²

In 2019, Lim et al. determined that bee venom and melittin inhibited the growth and migration of melanoma cells (B16F10, A375SM, and SK-MEL-28) by downregulating the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MAPK signaling pathways. They concluded that melittin has the potential for use in preventing and treating malignant melanoma.⁴

Phototoxicity

Heo et al. conducted phototoxicity and skin sensitization studies of bee venom, as well as a bee venom from which they removed phospholipase A2, and determined that both were nonphototoxic substances and did not act as sensitizers.²⁰

Han et al. assessed the skin safety of bee venom on tests in healthy male Hartley guinea pigs in 2017 and found that bee venom application engendered no toxic reactions, including any signs of cutaneous phototoxicity or skin photosensitization, and is likely safe for inclusion as a topical skin care ingredient.¹⁰

Antiwrinkle activity

Han et al. also evaluated the beneficial effects of bee venom serum on facial wrinkles in a small study on humans (22 South Korean women between 30 and 49 years old), finding clinical improvements as seen through reductions in wrinkle count, average wrinkle depth, and total wrinkle area. The authors, noting that this was the first clinical study to assess the results of using bee venom cosmetics on facial skin, also cited the relative safety of the product, which presents nominal irritation potential, and acknowledged its present use in the cosmetics industry.²¹

Conclusion

Bees play a critical role in the web of life as they pollinate approximately one-third of our food. Bee products such as honey, propolis, royal jelly, beeswax, pollen, and venom have also been found to exhibit significant biological activities, including several that benefit the skin. Perhaps counterintuitively, given our awareness of the painful and potentially serious reactions to bee stings, bee venom has also been found to deliver multiple salutary effects. More research is necessary to ascertain the viability of using bee venom as a reliable treatment for the various cutaneous conditions for which it demonstrates potential benefits. Current evidence presents justification for further investigation.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Kurek-Górecka A et al. Molecules. 2020 Jan 28;25(3):556.

2. Son DJ et al. Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Aug;115(2):246-70.

3. Lee G, Bae H. Molecules. 2016 May 11;21(5):616.

4. Lim HN et al. Molecules. 2019 Mar 7;24(5):929.

5. Gu H et al. Mol Med Rep. 2018 Oct;18(4):3711-8. 6. You CE et al. Ann Dermatol. 2016 Oct;28(5):593-9. 7. An HJ et al. Int J Mol Med. 2014 Nov;34(5):1341-8. 8. Cherniack EP, Govorushko S. Toxicon. 2018 Nov;154:74-8. 9. Cornara L et al. Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jun 28;8:412.

10. Han SM et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2017 Dec;16(4):e68-e75.

11. Hwang JH, Kim KH. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Dec;97(49):e13404. 12. Lee G, Bae H. Toxins (Basel). 2016 Feb 22;8(2):48. 13. Nguyen JK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Jul;19(7):1555-69.

14. Kim H et al. Toxins (Basel). 2019 Jun 27:11(7):374.

15. Sur B et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Jan 29;16:38. 16. Hozzein WN et al. Mol Immunol. 2018 Nov;103:322-35. 17. Badr G et al. J Cell Physiol. 2016 Oct;231(10):2159-71. 18. Nakashima A et al. Int Immunol. 2020 May 30;32(6):371-83. 19. Park S et al. Biol Pharm Bull. 2016 Jun 1;39(6):1060-8.

20. Heo Y et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:157367. 21. Han SM et al. Clin Interv Aging. 2015 Oct 1;10:1587-92.

An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.

The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.

Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.

In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.

Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.

Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
 

Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:

• A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
• Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
• A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
• Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
• Instability of data interoperability technologies.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.

In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”

As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
 

Lessons from CancerLinQ

ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.

CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.

The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.

CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.

The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
 

The mCODE model

The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.

Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:

• A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
• Iterative processes.
• User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
• Low ongoing maintenance requirements.

A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.

After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.

Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.

To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.

Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
 

Innovation, not regulation

Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.

mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.

Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.

EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.

As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.

For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.

mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.

The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.

Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.

In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.

Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.

Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
 

Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:

• A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
• Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
• A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
• Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
• Instability of data interoperability technologies.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.

In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”

As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
 

Lessons from CancerLinQ

ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.

CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.

The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.

CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.

The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
 

The mCODE model

The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.

Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:

• A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
• Iterative processes.
• User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
• Low ongoing maintenance requirements.

A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.

After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.

Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.

To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.

Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
 

Innovation, not regulation

Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.

mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.

Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.

EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.

As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.

For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.

mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.

The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.

Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.

In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.

Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.

Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
 

Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:

• A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
• Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
• A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
• Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
• Instability of data interoperability technologies.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.

In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”

As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
 

Lessons from CancerLinQ

ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.

CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.

The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.

CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.

The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
 

The mCODE model

The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.

Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:

• A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
• Iterative processes.
• User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
• Low ongoing maintenance requirements.

A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.

After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.

Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.

To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.

Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
 

Innovation, not regulation

Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.

mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.

Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.

EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.

As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.

For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.

mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

A casual survey of my dermatology co-residents yielded overwhelmingly unanimous results: A complete skin check goes from head to toe but does not routinely include an examination of the genital area. This observation contrasts starkly with the American Academy of Dermatology’s Basic Dermatology Curriculum, which recommends inspection of the entire skin surface including the mucous membranes (ie, eyes, mouth, anus, genital area) as part of the total-body skin examination (TBSE).¹ It even draws attention to so-called hidden areas where lesions easily can be missed, such as the perianal skin. My observation seems far from anecdotal; even a recent attempt at optimizing movements in the TBSE neglected to include examination of the genitalia in the proposed method,^2-4 and many practicing dermatologists seem to agree. A survey of international dermatologists at high-risk skin cancer clinics found male and female genitalia were the least frequently examined anatomy sites during the TBSE. Additionally, female genitalia were examined less frequently than male genitalia (labia majora, 28%; penis, 52%; P=.003).⁵ Another survey of US academic dermatologists (23 dermatologists, 1 nurse practitioner) found that only 4% always visually inspected the vulva during routine annual examinations, and 50% did not think that vulvar examination was the dermatologist’s responsibility.⁶ Similar findings were reported in a survey of US dermatology residents.⁷

Why is the genital area routinely omitted from the dermatologic TBSE? Based on the surveys of dermatologists and dermatology residents, the most common reason cited for not examining these sites was patient discomfort, but there also was a dominant belief that other specialties, such as gynecologists, urologists, or primary care providers, routinely examine these areas.^5,7 Time constraints also were a concern.

Although examination of sensitive areas can be uncomfortable,⁸ most patients still expect these locations to be examined during the TBSE. In a survey of 500 adults presenting for TBSE at an academic dermatology clinic, 84% of respondents expected the dermatologist to examine the genital area.⁹ Similarly, another survey of patient preferences (N=443) for the TBSE found that only 31.3% of women and 12.5% of men preferred not to have their genital area examined.¹⁰ As providers, we may be uncomfortable examining the genital area; however, our patients mostly expect it as part of routine practice. There are a number of barriers that may prevent incorporating the genital examination into daily dermatologic practice.

Training in Genital Examinations

Adequate training may be an issue for provider comfort when examining the genital skin. In a survey of dermatology residency program directors (n=38) and residents (n=91), 61.7% reported receiving formal instruction on TBSE technique and 38.3% reported being self-taught. Examination of the genital skin was included only 40% of the time.¹¹ Even vulvar disorder experts have admitted to receiving their training by self-teaching, with only 19% receiving vulvar training during residency and 11% during fellowship.¹² Improving this training appears to be an ongoing effort.²

Passing the Buck

It may be easier to think that another provider is routinely examining genital skin based on the relative absence of this area in dermatologic training; however, that does not appear to be the case. In a 1999 survey of primary care providers, only 31% reported performing skin cancer screenings on their adult patients, citing lack of confidence in this clinical skill as the biggest hurdle.¹³ Similarly, changes in recommendations for the utility of the screening pelvic examination in asymptomatic, average-risk, nonpregnant adult women have decreased the performance of this examination in actual practice.¹⁴ Reviews of resident training in vulvovaginal disease also have shown that although dermatology residents receive slightly less formal training hours on vulvar skin disease, they see more than double the number of patients with vulvar disease per year when compared to obstetrics and gynecology residents.¹⁵ In practice, dermatologists generally are more confident when evaluating vulvar pigmented lesions than gynecologists.⁶

The Importance of the Genital Examination

Looking past these barriers seems essential to providing the best dermatologic care, as there are a multitude of neoplastic and inflammatory dermatoses that can affect the genital skin. Furthermore, early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions potentially can limit morbidity and mortality as well as improve quality of life. Genital melanomas are a good example. Although they may be rare, it is well known that genital melanomas are associated with an aggressive disease course and have worse outcomes than melanomas found elsewhere on the body.^16,17 Increasing rates of genital and perianal keratinocyte carcinomas make including this as part of the TBSE even more important.¹⁸

We also should not forget that inflammatory conditions can routinely involve the genitals.^19-21 Although robust data are lacking, chronic vulvar concerns frequently are seen in the primary care setting. In one study in the United Kingdom, 52% of general practitioners surveyed saw more than 3 patients per month with vulvar concerns.²² Even in common dermatologic conditions such as psoriasis and lichen planus, genital involvement often is overlooked despite its relative frequency.^23-27 In one study, 60% of psoriasis patients with genital involvement had not had these lesions examined by a physician.²⁸

Theoretically, TBSEs that include genital examination would yield higher and earlier detection rates of neoplasms as well as inflammatory dermatoses.^29-32 Thus, there is real value in diagnosing ailments of the genital skin, and dermatologists are well prepared to manage these conditions. Consistently incorporating a genital examination within the TBSE is the first step.

An Approach to the Genital Skin Examination

As with the TBSE, no standardized protocol for the genital skin examination exists, and there is no consensus for how best to perform this evaluation. Ideally, both male and female patients should remove all clothing, including undergarments, though one study found patients preferred to keep undergarments on during the genital examination.^10,33,34

In general, adult female genital anatomy is best viewed with the patient in the supine position.^6,33,35 There is no clear agreement on the use of stirrups, and the decision to use these may be left to the discretion of the patient. One randomized clinical trial found that women undergoing routine gynecologic examination without stirrups reported less physical discomfort and had a reduced sense of vulnerability than women examined in stirrups.³⁶ During the female genital examination, the head of the bed ideally should be positioned at a 30° to 45° angle to allow the provider to maintain eye contact and face-to-face communication with the patient.³³ This positioning also facilitates the use of a handheld mirror to instruct patients on techniques for medication application as well as to point out sites of disease.

For adult males, the genital examination can be performed with the patient standing facing a seated examiner.³⁵ The patient’s gown should be raised to the level of the umbilicus to expose the entire genital region. Good lighting is essential. These recommendations apply mainly to adults, but helpful tips on how to approach evaluating prepubertal children in the dermatology clinic are available.³⁷

The presence of a chaperone also is optional for maximizing patient comfort but also may be helpful for providing medicolegal protection for the provider. It always should be offered regardless of patient gender. A dermatology study found that when patients were examined by a same-gender physician, women and men were more comfortable without a chaperone than with a chaperone, and patients generally preferred fewer bodies in the room during sensitive examinations.⁹

Educating Patients About the TBSE

The most helpful recommendation for successfully incorporating and performing the genital skin examination as part of the TBSE appears to be patient education. In a randomized double-arm study, patients who received pre-education consisting of written information explaining the need for a TBSE were less likely to be concerned about a genital examination compared to patients who received no information.³⁸ Discussing that skin diseases, including melanoma, can arise in all areas of the body including the genital skin and encouraging patients to perform genital self-examinations is critical.³⁵ In the age of the electronic health record and virtual communication, disseminating this information has become even easier.³⁹ It may be beneficial to explore patients’ TBSE expectations at the outset through these varied avenues to help establish a trusted physician-patient relationship.⁴⁰

Final Thoughts

Dermatologists should consistently offer a genital examination to all patients who present for a routine TBSE. Patients should be provided with adequate education to assess their comfort level for the skin examination. If a patient declines this examination, the dermatologist should ensure that another physician—be it a gynecologist, primary care provider, or other specialist—is routinely examining the area.^6,7

A casual survey of my dermatology co-residents yielded overwhelmingly unanimous results: A complete skin check goes from head to toe but does not routinely include an examination of the genital area. This observation contrasts starkly with the American Academy of Dermatology’s Basic Dermatology Curriculum, which recommends inspection of the entire skin surface including the mucous membranes (ie, eyes, mouth, anus, genital area) as part of the total-body skin examination (TBSE).¹ It even draws attention to so-called hidden areas where lesions easily can be missed, such as the perianal skin. My observation seems far from anecdotal; even a recent attempt at optimizing movements in the TBSE neglected to include examination of the genitalia in the proposed method,^2-4 and many practicing dermatologists seem to agree. A survey of international dermatologists at high-risk skin cancer clinics found male and female genitalia were the least frequently examined anatomy sites during the TBSE. Additionally, female genitalia were examined less frequently than male genitalia (labia majora, 28%; penis, 52%; P=.003).⁵ Another survey of US academic dermatologists (23 dermatologists, 1 nurse practitioner) found that only 4% always visually inspected the vulva during routine annual examinations, and 50% did not think that vulvar examination was the dermatologist’s responsibility.⁶ Similar findings were reported in a survey of US dermatology residents.⁷

Why is the genital area routinely omitted from the dermatologic TBSE? Based on the surveys of dermatologists and dermatology residents, the most common reason cited for not examining these sites was patient discomfort, but there also was a dominant belief that other specialties, such as gynecologists, urologists, or primary care providers, routinely examine these areas.^5,7 Time constraints also were a concern.

Although examination of sensitive areas can be uncomfortable,⁸ most patients still expect these locations to be examined during the TBSE. In a survey of 500 adults presenting for TBSE at an academic dermatology clinic, 84% of respondents expected the dermatologist to examine the genital area.⁹ Similarly, another survey of patient preferences (N=443) for the TBSE found that only 31.3% of women and 12.5% of men preferred not to have their genital area examined.¹⁰ As providers, we may be uncomfortable examining the genital area; however, our patients mostly expect it as part of routine practice. There are a number of barriers that may prevent incorporating the genital examination into daily dermatologic practice.

Training in Genital Examinations

Adequate training may be an issue for provider comfort when examining the genital skin. In a survey of dermatology residency program directors (n=38) and residents (n=91), 61.7% reported receiving formal instruction on TBSE technique and 38.3% reported being self-taught. Examination of the genital skin was included only 40% of the time.¹¹ Even vulvar disorder experts have admitted to receiving their training by self-teaching, with only 19% receiving vulvar training during residency and 11% during fellowship.¹² Improving this training appears to be an ongoing effort.²

Passing the Buck

It may be easier to think that another provider is routinely examining genital skin based on the relative absence of this area in dermatologic training; however, that does not appear to be the case. In a 1999 survey of primary care providers, only 31% reported performing skin cancer screenings on their adult patients, citing lack of confidence in this clinical skill as the biggest hurdle.¹³ Similarly, changes in recommendations for the utility of the screening pelvic examination in asymptomatic, average-risk, nonpregnant adult women have decreased the performance of this examination in actual practice.¹⁴ Reviews of resident training in vulvovaginal disease also have shown that although dermatology residents receive slightly less formal training hours on vulvar skin disease, they see more than double the number of patients with vulvar disease per year when compared to obstetrics and gynecology residents.¹⁵ In practice, dermatologists generally are more confident when evaluating vulvar pigmented lesions than gynecologists.⁶

The Importance of the Genital Examination

Looking past these barriers seems essential to providing the best dermatologic care, as there are a multitude of neoplastic and inflammatory dermatoses that can affect the genital skin. Furthermore, early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions potentially can limit morbidity and mortality as well as improve quality of life. Genital melanomas are a good example. Although they may be rare, it is well known that genital melanomas are associated with an aggressive disease course and have worse outcomes than melanomas found elsewhere on the body.^16,17 Increasing rates of genital and perianal keratinocyte carcinomas make including this as part of the TBSE even more important.¹⁸

We also should not forget that inflammatory conditions can routinely involve the genitals.^19-21 Although robust data are lacking, chronic vulvar concerns frequently are seen in the primary care setting. In one study in the United Kingdom, 52% of general practitioners surveyed saw more than 3 patients per month with vulvar concerns.²² Even in common dermatologic conditions such as psoriasis and lichen planus, genital involvement often is overlooked despite its relative frequency.^23-27 In one study, 60% of psoriasis patients with genital involvement had not had these lesions examined by a physician.²⁸

Theoretically, TBSEs that include genital examination would yield higher and earlier detection rates of neoplasms as well as inflammatory dermatoses.^29-32 Thus, there is real value in diagnosing ailments of the genital skin, and dermatologists are well prepared to manage these conditions. Consistently incorporating a genital examination within the TBSE is the first step.

An Approach to the Genital Skin Examination

As with the TBSE, no standardized protocol for the genital skin examination exists, and there is no consensus for how best to perform this evaluation. Ideally, both male and female patients should remove all clothing, including undergarments, though one study found patients preferred to keep undergarments on during the genital examination.^10,33,34

In general, adult female genital anatomy is best viewed with the patient in the supine position.^6,33,35 There is no clear agreement on the use of stirrups, and the decision to use these may be left to the discretion of the patient. One randomized clinical trial found that women undergoing routine gynecologic examination without stirrups reported less physical discomfort and had a reduced sense of vulnerability than women examined in stirrups.³⁶ During the female genital examination, the head of the bed ideally should be positioned at a 30° to 45° angle to allow the provider to maintain eye contact and face-to-face communication with the patient.³³ This positioning also facilitates the use of a handheld mirror to instruct patients on techniques for medication application as well as to point out sites of disease.

For adult males, the genital examination can be performed with the patient standing facing a seated examiner.³⁵ The patient’s gown should be raised to the level of the umbilicus to expose the entire genital region. Good lighting is essential. These recommendations apply mainly to adults, but helpful tips on how to approach evaluating prepubertal children in the dermatology clinic are available.³⁷

The presence of a chaperone also is optional for maximizing patient comfort but also may be helpful for providing medicolegal protection for the provider. It always should be offered regardless of patient gender. A dermatology study found that when patients were examined by a same-gender physician, women and men were more comfortable without a chaperone than with a chaperone, and patients generally preferred fewer bodies in the room during sensitive examinations.⁹

Educating Patients About the TBSE

The most helpful recommendation for successfully incorporating and performing the genital skin examination as part of the TBSE appears to be patient education. In a randomized double-arm study, patients who received pre-education consisting of written information explaining the need for a TBSE were less likely to be concerned about a genital examination compared to patients who received no information.³⁸ Discussing that skin diseases, including melanoma, can arise in all areas of the body including the genital skin and encouraging patients to perform genital self-examinations is critical.³⁵ In the age of the electronic health record and virtual communication, disseminating this information has become even easier.³⁹ It may be beneficial to explore patients’ TBSE expectations at the outset through these varied avenues to help establish a trusted physician-patient relationship.⁴⁰

Final Thoughts

Dermatologists should consistently offer a genital examination to all patients who present for a routine TBSE. Patients should be provided with adequate education to assess their comfort level for the skin examination. If a patient declines this examination, the dermatologist should ensure that another physician—be it a gynecologist, primary care provider, or other specialist—is routinely examining the area.^6,7

A casual survey of my dermatology co-residents yielded overwhelmingly unanimous results: A complete skin check goes from head to toe but does not routinely include an examination of the genital area. This observation contrasts starkly with the American Academy of Dermatology’s Basic Dermatology Curriculum, which recommends inspection of the entire skin surface including the mucous membranes (ie, eyes, mouth, anus, genital area) as part of the total-body skin examination (TBSE).¹ It even draws attention to so-called hidden areas where lesions easily can be missed, such as the perianal skin. My observation seems far from anecdotal; even a recent attempt at optimizing movements in the TBSE neglected to include examination of the genitalia in the proposed method,^2-4 and many practicing dermatologists seem to agree. A survey of international dermatologists at high-risk skin cancer clinics found male and female genitalia were the least frequently examined anatomy sites during the TBSE. Additionally, female genitalia were examined less frequently than male genitalia (labia majora, 28%; penis, 52%; P=.003).⁵ Another survey of US academic dermatologists (23 dermatologists, 1 nurse practitioner) found that only 4% always visually inspected the vulva during routine annual examinations, and 50% did not think that vulvar examination was the dermatologist’s responsibility.⁶ Similar findings were reported in a survey of US dermatology residents.⁷

Why is the genital area routinely omitted from the dermatologic TBSE? Based on the surveys of dermatologists and dermatology residents, the most common reason cited for not examining these sites was patient discomfort, but there also was a dominant belief that other specialties, such as gynecologists, urologists, or primary care providers, routinely examine these areas.^5,7 Time constraints also were a concern.

Although examination of sensitive areas can be uncomfortable,⁸ most patients still expect these locations to be examined during the TBSE. In a survey of 500 adults presenting for TBSE at an academic dermatology clinic, 84% of respondents expected the dermatologist to examine the genital area.⁹ Similarly, another survey of patient preferences (N=443) for the TBSE found that only 31.3% of women and 12.5% of men preferred not to have their genital area examined.¹⁰ As providers, we may be uncomfortable examining the genital area; however, our patients mostly expect it as part of routine practice. There are a number of barriers that may prevent incorporating the genital examination into daily dermatologic practice.

Training in Genital Examinations

Adequate training may be an issue for provider comfort when examining the genital skin. In a survey of dermatology residency program directors (n=38) and residents (n=91), 61.7% reported receiving formal instruction on TBSE technique and 38.3% reported being self-taught. Examination of the genital skin was included only 40% of the time.¹¹ Even vulvar disorder experts have admitted to receiving their training by self-teaching, with only 19% receiving vulvar training during residency and 11% during fellowship.¹² Improving this training appears to be an ongoing effort.²

Passing the Buck

It may be easier to think that another provider is routinely examining genital skin based on the relative absence of this area in dermatologic training; however, that does not appear to be the case. In a 1999 survey of primary care providers, only 31% reported performing skin cancer screenings on their adult patients, citing lack of confidence in this clinical skill as the biggest hurdle.¹³ Similarly, changes in recommendations for the utility of the screening pelvic examination in asymptomatic, average-risk, nonpregnant adult women have decreased the performance of this examination in actual practice.¹⁴ Reviews of resident training in vulvovaginal disease also have shown that although dermatology residents receive slightly less formal training hours on vulvar skin disease, they see more than double the number of patients with vulvar disease per year when compared to obstetrics and gynecology residents.¹⁵ In practice, dermatologists generally are more confident when evaluating vulvar pigmented lesions than gynecologists.⁶

The Importance of the Genital Examination

Looking past these barriers seems essential to providing the best dermatologic care, as there are a multitude of neoplastic and inflammatory dermatoses that can affect the genital skin. Furthermore, early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions potentially can limit morbidity and mortality as well as improve quality of life. Genital melanomas are a good example. Although they may be rare, it is well known that genital melanomas are associated with an aggressive disease course and have worse outcomes than melanomas found elsewhere on the body.^16,17 Increasing rates of genital and perianal keratinocyte carcinomas make including this as part of the TBSE even more important.¹⁸

We also should not forget that inflammatory conditions can routinely involve the genitals.^19-21 Although robust data are lacking, chronic vulvar concerns frequently are seen in the primary care setting. In one study in the United Kingdom, 52% of general practitioners surveyed saw more than 3 patients per month with vulvar concerns.²² Even in common dermatologic conditions such as psoriasis and lichen planus, genital involvement often is overlooked despite its relative frequency.^23-27 In one study, 60% of psoriasis patients with genital involvement had not had these lesions examined by a physician.²⁸

Theoretically, TBSEs that include genital examination would yield higher and earlier detection rates of neoplasms as well as inflammatory dermatoses.^29-32 Thus, there is real value in diagnosing ailments of the genital skin, and dermatologists are well prepared to manage these conditions. Consistently incorporating a genital examination within the TBSE is the first step.

An Approach to the Genital Skin Examination

As with the TBSE, no standardized protocol for the genital skin examination exists, and there is no consensus for how best to perform this evaluation. Ideally, both male and female patients should remove all clothing, including undergarments, though one study found patients preferred to keep undergarments on during the genital examination.^10,33,34

In general, adult female genital anatomy is best viewed with the patient in the supine position.^6,33,35 There is no clear agreement on the use of stirrups, and the decision to use these may be left to the discretion of the patient. One randomized clinical trial found that women undergoing routine gynecologic examination without stirrups reported less physical discomfort and had a reduced sense of vulnerability than women examined in stirrups.³⁶ During the female genital examination, the head of the bed ideally should be positioned at a 30° to 45° angle to allow the provider to maintain eye contact and face-to-face communication with the patient.³³ This positioning also facilitates the use of a handheld mirror to instruct patients on techniques for medication application as well as to point out sites of disease.

For adult males, the genital examination can be performed with the patient standing facing a seated examiner.³⁵ The patient’s gown should be raised to the level of the umbilicus to expose the entire genital region. Good lighting is essential. These recommendations apply mainly to adults, but helpful tips on how to approach evaluating prepubertal children in the dermatology clinic are available.³⁷

The presence of a chaperone also is optional for maximizing patient comfort but also may be helpful for providing medicolegal protection for the provider. It always should be offered regardless of patient gender. A dermatology study found that when patients were examined by a same-gender physician, women and men were more comfortable without a chaperone than with a chaperone, and patients generally preferred fewer bodies in the room during sensitive examinations.⁹

Educating Patients About the TBSE

The most helpful recommendation for successfully incorporating and performing the genital skin examination as part of the TBSE appears to be patient education. In a randomized double-arm study, patients who received pre-education consisting of written information explaining the need for a TBSE were less likely to be concerned about a genital examination compared to patients who received no information.³⁸ Discussing that skin diseases, including melanoma, can arise in all areas of the body including the genital skin and encouraging patients to perform genital self-examinations is critical.³⁵ In the age of the electronic health record and virtual communication, disseminating this information has become even easier.³⁹ It may be beneficial to explore patients’ TBSE expectations at the outset through these varied avenues to help establish a trusted physician-patient relationship.⁴⁰

Final Thoughts

Dermatologists should consistently offer a genital examination to all patients who present for a routine TBSE. Patients should be provided with adequate education to assess their comfort level for the skin examination. If a patient declines this examination, the dermatologist should ensure that another physician—be it a gynecologist, primary care provider, or other specialist—is routinely examining the area.^6,7

Patients with actinic keratosis (AK) had significantly more total or partial clearance of their lesions with a 5-day course of tirbanibulin 1% ointment, compared with those on placebo, “with transient local reactions,” according to the results of two identically designed trials.

However, the results, assessed at day 57 and out to 1 year of follow-up, were associated with recurrence of lesions at 1 year, noted lead author Andrew Blauvelt, MD, president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, and colleagues.

“The incidence of recurrence with conventional treatment has ranged from 20% to 96%,” they noted. “Among patients who had complete clearance at day 57 in the current trials, the estimated incidence of recurrence of previously cleared lesions was 47% at 1 year.” At 1 year, they added, “the estimated incidence of any lesions (new or recurrent) within the application area was 73%” and the estimate of sustained complete clearance was 27%.

A total of 700 adults completed the two multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, vehicle-controlled trials, conducted concurrently between September 2017 and April 2019 at 62 U.S. sites. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To be eligible, patients, mostly White men, had to have four to eight clinically typical, visible, and discrete AK lesions on the face or scalp within a contiguous area measuring 25 cm². They were randomly assigned to treatment with either tirbanibulin 1% ointment or vehicle ointment (containing monoglycerides, diglycerides, and propylene glycol), which they applied once daily to the entire contiguous area for 5 days.

Pooled data across the two trials showed that the primary outcome, complete clearance of all lesions at day 57, occurred in 49% of the tirbanibulin groups versus 9% of the vehicle groups, and partial clearance (the secondary outcome) occurred in 72% versus 18% respectively. For both outcomes, and in both trials, all results were statistically significant.

Of the 174 patients who received tirbanibulin and had complete clearance, 124 had one or more lesions develop within the application area during follow-up, the authors reported. Of these, 58% had recurrences, while 42% had new lesions.

While individual AK lesions are typically treated with cryosurgery, the study authors noted that treatment of multiple lesions involves topical agents, such as fluorouracil, diclofenac, imiquimod, or ingenol mebutate, and photodynamic therapy, some of which have to be administered over periods of weeks or months and “may be associated with local reactions of pain, irritation, erosions, ulcerations, and irreversible skin changes of pigmentation and scarring,” which may reduce adherence.

In contrast, the current studies showed the most common local reactions to tirbanibulin were erythema in 91% of patients and flaking or scaling in 82%, with transient adverse events including application-site pain in 10% and pruritus in 9%.

“Unlike with most topical treatments for actinic keratosis ... severe local reactions, including vesiculation or pustulation and erosion or ulceration, were infrequent with tirbanibulin ointment,” the authors noted. “This could be due to the relatively short, 5-day course of once-daily treatment.”

They concluded that “larger and longer trials are necessary to determine the effects and risks” of treatment with tirbanibulin for treating AK.

Tirbanibulin, a synthetic inhibitor of tubulin polymerization and Src kinase signaling, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in December 2020, for the topical treatment of AK of the face or scalp.

Asked to comment on the findings, Neal Bhatia, MD, a dermatologist and researcher at Therapeutics Dermatology, San Diego, who was not involved with the study, said that “a treatment with a 5-day course and excellent tolerability will make dermatologists rethink the old practice of ‘freeze and go.’ ”

In an interview, he added, “tirbanibulin comes to the U.S. market for treating AKs at a great time, as ingenol mebutate has been withdrawn and the others are not widely supported. The mechanism of promoting apoptosis and inducing cell cycle arrest directly correlates to the local skin reaction profile of less crusting, vesiculation, and overall signs of skin necrosis as compared to [5-fluorouracil] and ingenol mebutate, which work via that pathway. As a result, there is a direct impact on the hyperproliferation of atypical keratinocytes that will treat visible and subclinical disease.”

“The ointment vehicle is also novel as previous therapies have been in either creams or gels,” he said.

The two trials were funded by tirbanibulin manufacturer Athenex. Dr. Blauvelt reported receiving consulting fees from Athenex and other pharmaceutical companies, including Almirall, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant Sciences. Other author disclosures included serving as a consultant to Athenex and other companies. Several authors are Athenex employees. Dr. Bhatia disclosed that he is an adviser and consultant for Almirall and has been an investigator for multiple other AK treatments.

Patients with actinic keratosis (AK) had significantly more total or partial clearance of their lesions with a 5-day course of tirbanibulin 1% ointment, compared with those on placebo, “with transient local reactions,” according to the results of two identically designed trials.

However, the results, assessed at day 57 and out to 1 year of follow-up, were associated with recurrence of lesions at 1 year, noted lead author Andrew Blauvelt, MD, president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, and colleagues.

“The incidence of recurrence with conventional treatment has ranged from 20% to 96%,” they noted. “Among patients who had complete clearance at day 57 in the current trials, the estimated incidence of recurrence of previously cleared lesions was 47% at 1 year.” At 1 year, they added, “the estimated incidence of any lesions (new or recurrent) within the application area was 73%” and the estimate of sustained complete clearance was 27%.

A total of 700 adults completed the two multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, vehicle-controlled trials, conducted concurrently between September 2017 and April 2019 at 62 U.S. sites. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To be eligible, patients, mostly White men, had to have four to eight clinically typical, visible, and discrete AK lesions on the face or scalp within a contiguous area measuring 25 cm². They were randomly assigned to treatment with either tirbanibulin 1% ointment or vehicle ointment (containing monoglycerides, diglycerides, and propylene glycol), which they applied once daily to the entire contiguous area for 5 days.

Pooled data across the two trials showed that the primary outcome, complete clearance of all lesions at day 57, occurred in 49% of the tirbanibulin groups versus 9% of the vehicle groups, and partial clearance (the secondary outcome) occurred in 72% versus 18% respectively. For both outcomes, and in both trials, all results were statistically significant.

Of the 174 patients who received tirbanibulin and had complete clearance, 124 had one or more lesions develop within the application area during follow-up, the authors reported. Of these, 58% had recurrences, while 42% had new lesions.

While individual AK lesions are typically treated with cryosurgery, the study authors noted that treatment of multiple lesions involves topical agents, such as fluorouracil, diclofenac, imiquimod, or ingenol mebutate, and photodynamic therapy, some of which have to be administered over periods of weeks or months and “may be associated with local reactions of pain, irritation, erosions, ulcerations, and irreversible skin changes of pigmentation and scarring,” which may reduce adherence.

In contrast, the current studies showed the most common local reactions to tirbanibulin were erythema in 91% of patients and flaking or scaling in 82%, with transient adverse events including application-site pain in 10% and pruritus in 9%.

“Unlike with most topical treatments for actinic keratosis ... severe local reactions, including vesiculation or pustulation and erosion or ulceration, were infrequent with tirbanibulin ointment,” the authors noted. “This could be due to the relatively short, 5-day course of once-daily treatment.”

They concluded that “larger and longer trials are necessary to determine the effects and risks” of treatment with tirbanibulin for treating AK.

Tirbanibulin, a synthetic inhibitor of tubulin polymerization and Src kinase signaling, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in December 2020, for the topical treatment of AK of the face or scalp.

Asked to comment on the findings, Neal Bhatia, MD, a dermatologist and researcher at Therapeutics Dermatology, San Diego, who was not involved with the study, said that “a treatment with a 5-day course and excellent tolerability will make dermatologists rethink the old practice of ‘freeze and go.’ ”

In an interview, he added, “tirbanibulin comes to the U.S. market for treating AKs at a great time, as ingenol mebutate has been withdrawn and the others are not widely supported. The mechanism of promoting apoptosis and inducing cell cycle arrest directly correlates to the local skin reaction profile of less crusting, vesiculation, and overall signs of skin necrosis as compared to [5-fluorouracil] and ingenol mebutate, which work via that pathway. As a result, there is a direct impact on the hyperproliferation of atypical keratinocytes that will treat visible and subclinical disease.”

“The ointment vehicle is also novel as previous therapies have been in either creams or gels,” he said.

The two trials were funded by tirbanibulin manufacturer Athenex. Dr. Blauvelt reported receiving consulting fees from Athenex and other pharmaceutical companies, including Almirall, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant Sciences. Other author disclosures included serving as a consultant to Athenex and other companies. Several authors are Athenex employees. Dr. Bhatia disclosed that he is an adviser and consultant for Almirall and has been an investigator for multiple other AK treatments.

Patients with actinic keratosis (AK) had significantly more total or partial clearance of their lesions with a 5-day course of tirbanibulin 1% ointment, compared with those on placebo, “with transient local reactions,” according to the results of two identically designed trials.

However, the results, assessed at day 57 and out to 1 year of follow-up, were associated with recurrence of lesions at 1 year, noted lead author Andrew Blauvelt, MD, president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, and colleagues.

“The incidence of recurrence with conventional treatment has ranged from 20% to 96%,” they noted. “Among patients who had complete clearance at day 57 in the current trials, the estimated incidence of recurrence of previously cleared lesions was 47% at 1 year.” At 1 year, they added, “the estimated incidence of any lesions (new or recurrent) within the application area was 73%” and the estimate of sustained complete clearance was 27%.

A total of 700 adults completed the two multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, vehicle-controlled trials, conducted concurrently between September 2017 and April 2019 at 62 U.S. sites. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To be eligible, patients, mostly White men, had to have four to eight clinically typical, visible, and discrete AK lesions on the face or scalp within a contiguous area measuring 25 cm². They were randomly assigned to treatment with either tirbanibulin 1% ointment or vehicle ointment (containing monoglycerides, diglycerides, and propylene glycol), which they applied once daily to the entire contiguous area for 5 days.

Pooled data across the two trials showed that the primary outcome, complete clearance of all lesions at day 57, occurred in 49% of the tirbanibulin groups versus 9% of the vehicle groups, and partial clearance (the secondary outcome) occurred in 72% versus 18% respectively. For both outcomes, and in both trials, all results were statistically significant.

Of the 174 patients who received tirbanibulin and had complete clearance, 124 had one or more lesions develop within the application area during follow-up, the authors reported. Of these, 58% had recurrences, while 42% had new lesions.

While individual AK lesions are typically treated with cryosurgery, the study authors noted that treatment of multiple lesions involves topical agents, such as fluorouracil, diclofenac, imiquimod, or ingenol mebutate, and photodynamic therapy, some of which have to be administered over periods of weeks or months and “may be associated with local reactions of pain, irritation, erosions, ulcerations, and irreversible skin changes of pigmentation and scarring,” which may reduce adherence.

In contrast, the current studies showed the most common local reactions to tirbanibulin were erythema in 91% of patients and flaking or scaling in 82%, with transient adverse events including application-site pain in 10% and pruritus in 9%.

“Unlike with most topical treatments for actinic keratosis ... severe local reactions, including vesiculation or pustulation and erosion or ulceration, were infrequent with tirbanibulin ointment,” the authors noted. “This could be due to the relatively short, 5-day course of once-daily treatment.”

They concluded that “larger and longer trials are necessary to determine the effects and risks” of treatment with tirbanibulin for treating AK.

Tirbanibulin, a synthetic inhibitor of tubulin polymerization and Src kinase signaling, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in December 2020, for the topical treatment of AK of the face or scalp.

Asked to comment on the findings, Neal Bhatia, MD, a dermatologist and researcher at Therapeutics Dermatology, San Diego, who was not involved with the study, said that “a treatment with a 5-day course and excellent tolerability will make dermatologists rethink the old practice of ‘freeze and go.’ ”

In an interview, he added, “tirbanibulin comes to the U.S. market for treating AKs at a great time, as ingenol mebutate has been withdrawn and the others are not widely supported. The mechanism of promoting apoptosis and inducing cell cycle arrest directly correlates to the local skin reaction profile of less crusting, vesiculation, and overall signs of skin necrosis as compared to [5-fluorouracil] and ingenol mebutate, which work via that pathway. As a result, there is a direct impact on the hyperproliferation of atypical keratinocytes that will treat visible and subclinical disease.”

“The ointment vehicle is also novel as previous therapies have been in either creams or gels,” he said.

The two trials were funded by tirbanibulin manufacturer Athenex. Dr. Blauvelt reported receiving consulting fees from Athenex and other pharmaceutical companies, including Almirall, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant Sciences. Other author disclosures included serving as a consultant to Athenex and other companies. Several authors are Athenex employees. Dr. Bhatia disclosed that he is an adviser and consultant for Almirall and has been an investigator for multiple other AK treatments.