Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are used for a variety of advanced malignancies, including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, urothelial cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Anti–programmed cell death 1 (PD1) targeted therapies, such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab, are improving patient survival. This class of immunotherapy is revolutionary but is associated with autoimmune adverse effects. A rare but increasingly reported adverse effect of anti-PD1 therapy is bullous pemphigoid (BP), an autoimmune blistering disease directed against BP antigen 1 and BP antigen 2 in the basement membrane of the epidermis. Lopez et al¹ reported that development of BP leads to discontinuation of immunotherapy in more than 70% of patients.

High clinical suspicion, early diagnosis, and proper management of immunotherapy-related BP are imperative for keeping patients on life-prolonging treatment. We present 3 cases of BP secondary to anti-PD1 immunotherapy in patients with melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer to highlight the diagnosis and treatment of BP as well as emphasize the importance of the dermatologist in the care of patients with immunotherapy-related skin disease.

Case Reports

Patient 1
​​​​​​​A 72-year-old woman with metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma from an unknown primary site presented with intensely pruritic papules on the back, chest, and extremities of 4 months’ duration. She described her symptoms as insidious in onset and refractory to clobetasol ointment, oral diphenhydramine, and over-the-counter anti-itch creams. The patient had been treated with oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg/d but was switched to pembrolizumab when the disease progressed. After 8 months, she had a complete radiologic response to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, which was discontinued in favor of observation 3 months prior to presentation to dermatology.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed innumerable erythematous, excoriated, 2- to 4-mm, red papules diffusely scattered on the upper back, chest, abdomen, and thighs, with one 8×4-mm vesicle on the right side of the upper back (Figure 1). Discrete areas of depigmented macules, consistent with vitiligo, coalesced into patches on the legs, thighs, arms, and back. The patient was started on a 3-week oral prednisone taper for symptom relief. A hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)–stained punch biopsy of the back revealed a subepidermal split with eosinophils and a dense eosinophilic infiltrate in the dermis (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) studies from a specimen adjacent to the biopsy collected for H&E staining showed linear deposition of IgA, IgG, and C3 along the dermoepidermal junction (Figure 3). Histologic findings were consistent with BP.

The patient was started on doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and clobetasol ointment 0.05% once daily to supplement the prednisone taper. At 3-week follow-up, she reported pruritus and a few erythematous macules but no new bullae. At 12 weeks, some papules persisted; however, the patient was averse to using systemic agents and decided that symptoms were adequately controlled with clobetasol ointment and oral doxycycline.

Because the patient currently remains in clinical and radiologic remission, anti-PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitors have not been restarted but remain an option for the future if disease recurs

Six months prior to presenting to dermatology, the patient underwent immunotherapy with 4 cycles of ipilimumab 200 mg intravenous (IV) and nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks, receiving ipilimumab during the first cycle only because of a lack of availability at the pharmacy. He then received nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy. After the second dose of nivolumab maintenance therapy, however, he developed generalized bullae and pruritus. Dermatology was consulted during an oncology appointment, and his oncologist decided to hold nivolumab.

Physical examination revealed generalized tense and eroded bullae covering more than 50% of the body surface area and affecting the scalp, arms, legs, torso, and buttocks. Two punch biopsies were obtained. Hematoxylin and eosin staining revealed a subepidermal split with predominantly eosinophils and scattered neutrophils. Direct immunofluorescence studies showed linear deposition of IgG, IgA, and C3 along the dermoepidermal junction, consistent with BP.

The patient’s BP was difficult to control, requiring several hospital admissions for wound care, high-dose systemic steroids, and initiation of mycophenolate mofetil. After 4 months of waxing and waning symptoms, the BP was controlled with mycophenolate mofetil 1500 mg/d; clobetasol ointment 0.05%; and diphenhydramine for pruritus. Due to the prolonged recovery and severity of BP, the patient’s oncologist deemed that he was not a candidate for future immunotherapy.

Patient 3
A 68-year-old man with PD1-negative, metastatic, well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma of the lung presented to dermatology with a pruritic rash of 3 weeks’ duration. He had been receiving nivolumab for 2 years after disease progressed on prior chemotherapies and experienced several grade 1 or grade 2 nivolumab-induced autoimmune reactions including thyroiditis, dermatitis, and nephritis, for which he was taking prednisone 5 mg/d for suppression.

Physical examination revealed psoriasiform pink plaques on the arms, chest, and legs. The differential diagnosis at the time favored psoriasiform dermatitis over lichenoid dermatitis. A punch biopsy revealed psoriasiform dermatitis. The patient was prescribed fluocinonide ointment 0.05% daily. His plaques improved with topical steroids.

The patient returned approximately 1 month later with a report of a new blistering rash on the legs. Physical examination revealed interval improvement of the psoriasiform plaques on the scalp, torso, and extremities, but tense bullae were seen on the thighs, with surrounding superficial erosions at sites of recent bullae. Punch biopsies of the skin for H&E staining and DIF showed BP.

Prednisone was increased to 50 mg/d for a 3-week taper. Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was started. The patient’s skin disease continued to be difficult to control with therapy; nivolumab was held by his oncologist.

Comment

Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockade represents a successful application of immune recognition to treat metastatic cancers, including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, urothelial cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Programmed cell death 1 downregulates T-cell immune function through blocking interaction with its ligand, programmed death ligand 1. Inhibiting this brake on the immune system permits T cells to attack malignant cells.

Anti-PD1 targeted therapies improve survival in solid and hematologic malignancies, with a response rate as high as 40% in melanoma.² Although these medications can prolong survival, many are associated with loss of self-tolerance and severe autoimmunelike events that can limit therapy.³ An exception is PD1-induced vitiligo, which patient 1 developed and has been associated with a better response to therapy.⁴

Anti-PD1–induced BP is a newly reported adverse effect. In its early stages, BP can be difficult to differentiate from eczematous or urticarial dermatitis.^5-8 Discontinuation of immunotherapy has been reported in more than 70% of patients who develop BP.¹ There are reports of successful treatment of BP with a course of a PD1 inhibitor,⁹ but 2 of our patients had severe BP that led to discontinuation of immunotherapy.

Consider Prescreening
Given that development of BP often leads to cessation of therapy, identifying patients at risk prior to starting an immune checkpoint inhibitor might have clinical utility. Biopsy with DIF is the gold standard for diagnosis, but serologic testing can be a useful adjunct because enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for BP antigen 1 and BP antigen 2 has a reported sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 98%, respectively.¹⁰ Serologic testing prior to starting therapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor can provide a baseline for patients. A rise in titer, in conjunction with onset of a rash, might aid in earlier diagnosis, particularly because urticarial BP can be difficult to diagnose clinically.

Further study on the utility vs cost-benefit of these screening modalities is warranted. Their predictive utility might be limited, however, and positive serologic test results might have unanticipated consequences, such as hesitation in treating patients, thus leading to a delay in therapy or access to these medications.

Conclusion

The expanding use of immune checkpoint inhibitors is increasing survival in patients with metastatic melanoma and other malignancies. Adverse effects are part of the continuum of immune system stimulation, with overstimulation resulting in dermatitis; thyroiditis; pneumonitis; and less commonly hypophysitis, vitiligo, and colitis.

Rarely, immune checkpoint inhibition induces BP. Development of BP leads to discontinuation of therapy in more than half of reported cases due to lack of adequate treatment for this skin disease and its impact on quality of life. Therefore, quick diagnosis of BP in patients on immunotherapy and successful management techniques can prevent discontinuation of these lifesaving cancer therapies. For that reason, dermatologists play an important role in the management of patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are used for a variety of advanced malignancies, including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, urothelial cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Anti–programmed cell death 1 (PD1) targeted therapies, such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab, are improving patient survival. This class of immunotherapy is revolutionary but is associated with autoimmune adverse effects. A rare but increasingly reported adverse effect of anti-PD1 therapy is bullous pemphigoid (BP), an autoimmune blistering disease directed against BP antigen 1 and BP antigen 2 in the basement membrane of the epidermis. Lopez et al¹ reported that development of BP leads to discontinuation of immunotherapy in more than 70% of patients.

High clinical suspicion, early diagnosis, and proper management of immunotherapy-related BP are imperative for keeping patients on life-prolonging treatment. We present 3 cases of BP secondary to anti-PD1 immunotherapy in patients with melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer to highlight the diagnosis and treatment of BP as well as emphasize the importance of the dermatologist in the care of patients with immunotherapy-related skin disease.

Case Reports

Patient 1
​​​​​​​A 72-year-old woman with metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma from an unknown primary site presented with intensely pruritic papules on the back, chest, and extremities of 4 months’ duration. She described her symptoms as insidious in onset and refractory to clobetasol ointment, oral diphenhydramine, and over-the-counter anti-itch creams. The patient had been treated with oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg/d but was switched to pembrolizumab when the disease progressed. After 8 months, she had a complete radiologic response to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, which was discontinued in favor of observation 3 months prior to presentation to dermatology.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed innumerable erythematous, excoriated, 2- to 4-mm, red papules diffusely scattered on the upper back, chest, abdomen, and thighs, with one 8×4-mm vesicle on the right side of the upper back (Figure 1). Discrete areas of depigmented macules, consistent with vitiligo, coalesced into patches on the legs, thighs, arms, and back. The patient was started on a 3-week oral prednisone taper for symptom relief. A hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)–stained punch biopsy of the back revealed a subepidermal split with eosinophils and a dense eosinophilic infiltrate in the dermis (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) studies from a specimen adjacent to the biopsy collected for H&E staining showed linear deposition of IgA, IgG, and C3 along the dermoepidermal junction (Figure 3). Histologic findings were consistent with BP.

The patient was started on doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and clobetasol ointment 0.05% once daily to supplement the prednisone taper. At 3-week follow-up, she reported pruritus and a few erythematous macules but no new bullae. At 12 weeks, some papules persisted; however, the patient was averse to using systemic agents and decided that symptoms were adequately controlled with clobetasol ointment and oral doxycycline.

Because the patient currently remains in clinical and radiologic remission, anti-PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitors have not been restarted but remain an option for the future if disease recurs

Six months prior to presenting to dermatology, the patient underwent immunotherapy with 4 cycles of ipilimumab 200 mg intravenous (IV) and nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks, receiving ipilimumab during the first cycle only because of a lack of availability at the pharmacy. He then received nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy. After the second dose of nivolumab maintenance therapy, however, he developed generalized bullae and pruritus. Dermatology was consulted during an oncology appointment, and his oncologist decided to hold nivolumab.

Physical examination revealed generalized tense and eroded bullae covering more than 50% of the body surface area and affecting the scalp, arms, legs, torso, and buttocks. Two punch biopsies were obtained. Hematoxylin and eosin staining revealed a subepidermal split with predominantly eosinophils and scattered neutrophils. Direct immunofluorescence studies showed linear deposition of IgG, IgA, and C3 along the dermoepidermal junction, consistent with BP.

The patient’s BP was difficult to control, requiring several hospital admissions for wound care, high-dose systemic steroids, and initiation of mycophenolate mofetil. After 4 months of waxing and waning symptoms, the BP was controlled with mycophenolate mofetil 1500 mg/d; clobetasol ointment 0.05%; and diphenhydramine for pruritus. Due to the prolonged recovery and severity of BP, the patient’s oncologist deemed that he was not a candidate for future immunotherapy.

Patient 3
A 68-year-old man with PD1-negative, metastatic, well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma of the lung presented to dermatology with a pruritic rash of 3 weeks’ duration. He had been receiving nivolumab for 2 years after disease progressed on prior chemotherapies and experienced several grade 1 or grade 2 nivolumab-induced autoimmune reactions including thyroiditis, dermatitis, and nephritis, for which he was taking prednisone 5 mg/d for suppression.

Physical examination revealed psoriasiform pink plaques on the arms, chest, and legs. The differential diagnosis at the time favored psoriasiform dermatitis over lichenoid dermatitis. A punch biopsy revealed psoriasiform dermatitis. The patient was prescribed fluocinonide ointment 0.05% daily. His plaques improved with topical steroids.

The patient returned approximately 1 month later with a report of a new blistering rash on the legs. Physical examination revealed interval improvement of the psoriasiform plaques on the scalp, torso, and extremities, but tense bullae were seen on the thighs, with surrounding superficial erosions at sites of recent bullae. Punch biopsies of the skin for H&E staining and DIF showed BP.

Prednisone was increased to 50 mg/d for a 3-week taper. Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was started. The patient’s skin disease continued to be difficult to control with therapy; nivolumab was held by his oncologist.

Comment

Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockade represents a successful application of immune recognition to treat metastatic cancers, including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, urothelial cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Programmed cell death 1 downregulates T-cell immune function through blocking interaction with its ligand, programmed death ligand 1. Inhibiting this brake on the immune system permits T cells to attack malignant cells.

Anti-PD1 targeted therapies improve survival in solid and hematologic malignancies, with a response rate as high as 40% in melanoma.² Although these medications can prolong survival, many are associated with loss of self-tolerance and severe autoimmunelike events that can limit therapy.³ An exception is PD1-induced vitiligo, which patient 1 developed and has been associated with a better response to therapy.⁴

Anti-PD1–induced BP is a newly reported adverse effect. In its early stages, BP can be difficult to differentiate from eczematous or urticarial dermatitis.^5-8 Discontinuation of immunotherapy has been reported in more than 70% of patients who develop BP.¹ There are reports of successful treatment of BP with a course of a PD1 inhibitor,⁹ but 2 of our patients had severe BP that led to discontinuation of immunotherapy.

Consider Prescreening
Given that development of BP often leads to cessation of therapy, identifying patients at risk prior to starting an immune checkpoint inhibitor might have clinical utility. Biopsy with DIF is the gold standard for diagnosis, but serologic testing can be a useful adjunct because enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for BP antigen 1 and BP antigen 2 has a reported sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 98%, respectively.¹⁰ Serologic testing prior to starting therapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor can provide a baseline for patients. A rise in titer, in conjunction with onset of a rash, might aid in earlier diagnosis, particularly because urticarial BP can be difficult to diagnose clinically.

Further study on the utility vs cost-benefit of these screening modalities is warranted. Their predictive utility might be limited, however, and positive serologic test results might have unanticipated consequences, such as hesitation in treating patients, thus leading to a delay in therapy or access to these medications.

Conclusion

The expanding use of immune checkpoint inhibitors is increasing survival in patients with metastatic melanoma and other malignancies. Adverse effects are part of the continuum of immune system stimulation, with overstimulation resulting in dermatitis; thyroiditis; pneumonitis; and less commonly hypophysitis, vitiligo, and colitis.

Rarely, immune checkpoint inhibition induces BP. Development of BP leads to discontinuation of therapy in more than half of reported cases due to lack of adequate treatment for this skin disease and its impact on quality of life. Therefore, quick diagnosis of BP in patients on immunotherapy and successful management techniques can prevent discontinuation of these lifesaving cancer therapies. For that reason, dermatologists play an important role in the management of patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are used for a variety of advanced malignancies, including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, urothelial cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Anti–programmed cell death 1 (PD1) targeted therapies, such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab, are improving patient survival. This class of immunotherapy is revolutionary but is associated with autoimmune adverse effects. A rare but increasingly reported adverse effect of anti-PD1 therapy is bullous pemphigoid (BP), an autoimmune blistering disease directed against BP antigen 1 and BP antigen 2 in the basement membrane of the epidermis. Lopez et al¹ reported that development of BP leads to discontinuation of immunotherapy in more than 70% of patients.

High clinical suspicion, early diagnosis, and proper management of immunotherapy-related BP are imperative for keeping patients on life-prolonging treatment. We present 3 cases of BP secondary to anti-PD1 immunotherapy in patients with melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer to highlight the diagnosis and treatment of BP as well as emphasize the importance of the dermatologist in the care of patients with immunotherapy-related skin disease.

Case Reports

Patient 1
​​​​​​​A 72-year-old woman with metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma from an unknown primary site presented with intensely pruritic papules on the back, chest, and extremities of 4 months’ duration. She described her symptoms as insidious in onset and refractory to clobetasol ointment, oral diphenhydramine, and over-the-counter anti-itch creams. The patient had been treated with oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg/d but was switched to pembrolizumab when the disease progressed. After 8 months, she had a complete radiologic response to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, which was discontinued in favor of observation 3 months prior to presentation to dermatology.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed innumerable erythematous, excoriated, 2- to 4-mm, red papules diffusely scattered on the upper back, chest, abdomen, and thighs, with one 8×4-mm vesicle on the right side of the upper back (Figure 1). Discrete areas of depigmented macules, consistent with vitiligo, coalesced into patches on the legs, thighs, arms, and back. The patient was started on a 3-week oral prednisone taper for symptom relief. A hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)–stained punch biopsy of the back revealed a subepidermal split with eosinophils and a dense eosinophilic infiltrate in the dermis (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) studies from a specimen adjacent to the biopsy collected for H&E staining showed linear deposition of IgA, IgG, and C3 along the dermoepidermal junction (Figure 3). Histologic findings were consistent with BP.

The patient was started on doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and clobetasol ointment 0.05% once daily to supplement the prednisone taper. At 3-week follow-up, she reported pruritus and a few erythematous macules but no new bullae. At 12 weeks, some papules persisted; however, the patient was averse to using systemic agents and decided that symptoms were adequately controlled with clobetasol ointment and oral doxycycline.

Because the patient currently remains in clinical and radiologic remission, anti-PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitors have not been restarted but remain an option for the future if disease recurs

Six months prior to presenting to dermatology, the patient underwent immunotherapy with 4 cycles of ipilimumab 200 mg intravenous (IV) and nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks, receiving ipilimumab during the first cycle only because of a lack of availability at the pharmacy. He then received nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy. After the second dose of nivolumab maintenance therapy, however, he developed generalized bullae and pruritus. Dermatology was consulted during an oncology appointment, and his oncologist decided to hold nivolumab.

Physical examination revealed generalized tense and eroded bullae covering more than 50% of the body surface area and affecting the scalp, arms, legs, torso, and buttocks. Two punch biopsies were obtained. Hematoxylin and eosin staining revealed a subepidermal split with predominantly eosinophils and scattered neutrophils. Direct immunofluorescence studies showed linear deposition of IgG, IgA, and C3 along the dermoepidermal junction, consistent with BP.

The patient’s BP was difficult to control, requiring several hospital admissions for wound care, high-dose systemic steroids, and initiation of mycophenolate mofetil. After 4 months of waxing and waning symptoms, the BP was controlled with mycophenolate mofetil 1500 mg/d; clobetasol ointment 0.05%; and diphenhydramine for pruritus. Due to the prolonged recovery and severity of BP, the patient’s oncologist deemed that he was not a candidate for future immunotherapy.

Patient 3
A 68-year-old man with PD1-negative, metastatic, well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma of the lung presented to dermatology with a pruritic rash of 3 weeks’ duration. He had been receiving nivolumab for 2 years after disease progressed on prior chemotherapies and experienced several grade 1 or grade 2 nivolumab-induced autoimmune reactions including thyroiditis, dermatitis, and nephritis, for which he was taking prednisone 5 mg/d for suppression.

Physical examination revealed psoriasiform pink plaques on the arms, chest, and legs. The differential diagnosis at the time favored psoriasiform dermatitis over lichenoid dermatitis. A punch biopsy revealed psoriasiform dermatitis. The patient was prescribed fluocinonide ointment 0.05% daily. His plaques improved with topical steroids.

The patient returned approximately 1 month later with a report of a new blistering rash on the legs. Physical examination revealed interval improvement of the psoriasiform plaques on the scalp, torso, and extremities, but tense bullae were seen on the thighs, with surrounding superficial erosions at sites of recent bullae. Punch biopsies of the skin for H&E staining and DIF showed BP.

Prednisone was increased to 50 mg/d for a 3-week taper. Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was started. The patient’s skin disease continued to be difficult to control with therapy; nivolumab was held by his oncologist.

Comment

Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockade represents a successful application of immune recognition to treat metastatic cancers, including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, urothelial cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Programmed cell death 1 downregulates T-cell immune function through blocking interaction with its ligand, programmed death ligand 1. Inhibiting this brake on the immune system permits T cells to attack malignant cells.

Anti-PD1 targeted therapies improve survival in solid and hematologic malignancies, with a response rate as high as 40% in melanoma.² Although these medications can prolong survival, many are associated with loss of self-tolerance and severe autoimmunelike events that can limit therapy.³ An exception is PD1-induced vitiligo, which patient 1 developed and has been associated with a better response to therapy.⁴

Anti-PD1–induced BP is a newly reported adverse effect. In its early stages, BP can be difficult to differentiate from eczematous or urticarial dermatitis.^5-8 Discontinuation of immunotherapy has been reported in more than 70% of patients who develop BP.¹ There are reports of successful treatment of BP with a course of a PD1 inhibitor,⁹ but 2 of our patients had severe BP that led to discontinuation of immunotherapy.

Consider Prescreening
Given that development of BP often leads to cessation of therapy, identifying patients at risk prior to starting an immune checkpoint inhibitor might have clinical utility. Biopsy with DIF is the gold standard for diagnosis, but serologic testing can be a useful adjunct because enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for BP antigen 1 and BP antigen 2 has a reported sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 98%, respectively.¹⁰ Serologic testing prior to starting therapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor can provide a baseline for patients. A rise in titer, in conjunction with onset of a rash, might aid in earlier diagnosis, particularly because urticarial BP can be difficult to diagnose clinically.

Further study on the utility vs cost-benefit of these screening modalities is warranted. Their predictive utility might be limited, however, and positive serologic test results might have unanticipated consequences, such as hesitation in treating patients, thus leading to a delay in therapy or access to these medications.

Conclusion

The expanding use of immune checkpoint inhibitors is increasing survival in patients with metastatic melanoma and other malignancies. Adverse effects are part of the continuum of immune system stimulation, with overstimulation resulting in dermatitis; thyroiditis; pneumonitis; and less commonly hypophysitis, vitiligo, and colitis.

Rarely, immune checkpoint inhibition induces BP. Development of BP leads to discontinuation of therapy in more than half of reported cases due to lack of adequate treatment for this skin disease and its impact on quality of life. Therefore, quick diagnosis of BP in patients on immunotherapy and successful management techniques can prevent discontinuation of these lifesaving cancer therapies. For that reason, dermatologists play an important role in the management of patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer.

Mycosis fungoides (MF), the most common variant of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, is a non-Hodgkin lymphoma of T-cell origin that primarily develops in the skin and has a chronic relapsing course. Early-stage MF (stages IA–IIA) is defined as papules, patches, or plaques with limited (if any) lymph node and blood involvement and no visceral involvement.¹ Early-stage MF has a favorable prognosis, and first-line treatments are skin-directed therapies including topical corticosteroids (CSs), topical chemotherapy (nitrogen mustard or carmustine), topical retinoids, topical imiquimod, local radiation, or phototherapy.² Topical CSs are effective in treating early-stage MF and have been widely used for this indication for several decades; however, there are very little data in the literature on topical CS use in MF.³ Superpotent topical CSs have been shown to have a high overall response rate in early-stage MF³; however, cutaneous side effects associated with long-term topical use include cutaneous atrophy, striae formation, skin fragility, and irritation.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved bexarotene gel and mechlorethamine gel for topical treatment of cutaneous lesions in patients with stage IA and IB MF in 2000 and 2013, respectively. Although each may be effective in achieving complete or partial response in MF, both agents are associated with cutaneous side effects, mainly irritation and frequent contact hypersensitivity reactions, respectively.^4,5 Additionally, their high prices and limited availability are other major drawbacks of treatment.

At our institution, high-potency topical CSs, specifically once or twice daily clobetasol propionate cream 0.05% prescribed as monotherapy for at least several months, remain the mainstay of treatment in patients with limited patches, papules, and plaques covering less than 10% of the skin surface (stage IA). In this study, we aimed to assess the risk of cutaneous side effects in patients with early-stage MF who were treated with long-term, high-potency topical CSs.

Methods

This prospective observational cohort study included patients with early-stage MF who were seen at the Cutaneous Lymphoma Clinic at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, New York, and were started on a superpotent (class I) topical CS (clobetasol propionate cream 0.05%) as monotherapy for MF from July 2016 to July 2017. The diagnosis of MF had to be supported by clinical findings and histopathologic features. All patients were Fitzpatrick skin types I, II, or III. Eligible patients were evaluated for development of CS-induced cutaneous AEs by physical examination and clinical photography of the treated lesions performed at baseline and as part of routine follow-up visits (usually scheduled every 2 to 6 months) at the MSKCC Cutaneous Lymphoma Clinic. Patients’ skin was evaluated clinically for MF activity, atrophy, telangiectasia, purpura, hypopigmentation, and stretch marks (striae). Use of the topical CS was self-reported and also was documented at follow-up visits. Treatment response was defined as follows: complete clinical response (CCR) if the treated lesions resolved completely compared to initial photography; minimal active disease (MAD) if resolution of the vast majority (≥75%) of lesions was seen; and partial response (PR) if some of the lesions resolved (<75%). We analyzed the treatment response rates and adverse effects (AEs). Results were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Results

We identified 13 patients who were started on topical clobetasol propionate as monotherapy for early-stage MF during the study period. Our cohort included 6 males and 7 females aged 36 to 76 years (median age, 61 years). All but 1 participant were diagnosed with stage IA MF (12/13 [92.3%]); of those, 9 (75.0%) had patch-stage disease and 3 (25.0%) presented with plaques. One (7.7%) participant presented with hyperpigmented patches and plaques that involved a little more than 10% of the skin surface (stage IB), and involvement of the hair follicles was noted on histology (folliculotropic MF). All prior treatments were stopped when participants started the superpotent topical CS: 6 (46.2%) participants had been treated with lower-potency topical agents and 1 (7.7%) participant was getting psoralen plus UVA therapy, while the other 6 (46.2%) participants were receiving no therapy for MF prior to starting the study. All participants were prescribed clobetasol propionate cream 0.05% once or twice daily as monotherapy and were instructed to apply it to the MF lesions only, avoiding skin folds and the face. One participant was lost to follow-up, and another stopped using the clobetasol propionate cream after 1.5 months due to local irritation associated with treatment. At their follow-up visits, the other 11 participants were advised to continue with once-daily treatment with clobetasol propionate or were tapered to once every other day, twice weekly, or once weekly depending on their response to treatment and AEs (Table). Participants were advised not to use more than 50 g of clobetasol propionate cream weekly.

All participants responded to the clobetasol propionate cream, and improvement was noted in the treated lesions; however, progression of disease (from stage IA to stage IB) occurred in 1 (8.3%) participant, and phototherapy was added with good response. The participants in our cohort were followed for 4 to 17 months (median, 11.5 months). At the last follow-up visit, all 12 participants showed treatment response: 4 (33.3%) had CCR, 5 (41.7%) had MAD; and 3 (25.0%) had PR. In one participant with a history of partial response to bexarotene gel 1%, daily clobetasol propionate cream 0.05% initially was used alone for 9 months and was later combined with bexarotene gel once weekly, resulting in MAD.

In 7 (58.3%) participants, no AEs to topical clobetasol propionate were recorded. Four (33.3%) participants developed local hypopigmentation at the application site, and 2 (16.7%) developed cutaneous atrophy with local fine wrinkling of the skin (Figure 1); none of the participants developed stretch marks (striae), telangiectases, or skin fragility. One (8.3%) participant developed a petechial rash at the clobetasol propionate application site that resolved once treatment was discontinued and did not recur after restarting clobetasol propionate twice weekly.

Comment

Topical CSs are the most commonly prescribed agents, either as monotherapy or in combination with other agents, in the treatment of numerous dermatologic conditions, including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and MF. Cutaneous and systemic AEs have been associated with topical CS use. Local AEs are encountered more frequently and include cutaneous atrophy, striae, telangiectasia, purpura, skin fragility, hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, acneform eruptions, and hypertrichosis.⁶ Factors other than potency of the topical CS agent may affect the development of skin atrophy, including anatomic location, duration of therapy, vehicle, and method and frequency of application.⁷ The potential for systemic AEs due to percutaneous absorption of high-potency CSs, specifically Cushing syndrome and pathologic adrenal suppression, has been a long-standing concern and led the FDA to recommend limiting the use of superpotent CSs to 50 g weekly for 2 or 4 consecutive weeks.⁸ However, if using an excess of 50 g weekly is avoided, superpotent topical CSs may be safe to use consecutively for months, perhaps even years, without causing systemic effects.⁹

The effects of topical CSs in MF include induction of apoptosis; inhibition of lymphocyte binding to the endothelium; and downregulation of transcription factors with decreased cytokines, adhesion molecules, and production of growth factors.² For patients with limited early-stage MF patches and thin plaques, topical CSs often control the disease for many years and frequently are the only form of therapy required. Intralesional steroids can be effective in treating thicker lesions, such as plaques or tumors.¹⁰ In an uncontrolled study, Zackheim et al¹¹ prospectively evaluated the effectiveness and safety of twice-daily use of mainly high-potency topical CSs in 79 patients with MF stages IA to IB and observed an overall response rate of 94%. None of the patients were using systemic agents while being treated with topical CSs. Adverse effects were rare: 2 (2.5%) patients experienced temporary minor irritation from the topical CS, 1 (1.3%) patient developed localized skin atrophy under the breast that resolved several months after she stopped treatment, and 1 (1.3%) patient developed stretch marks on the thighs.¹¹ Zackheim¹² later reported treatment of approximately 200 patients with class I topical CSs, and overall response rates were over 90% in stage T1 and over 80% in stage T2 patients. Response to topical CS was reported to be evident within 3 months and often much sooner. Side effects were most likely related to the more prolonged treatment periods. Irritant dermatitis or purpura developed in approximately 10% to 20% of patients, and purpura was seen at the sites of treatment as well as at distant sites. Only a small number of patients developed cutaneous atrophy and striae, which were reversible.¹² Successful use of intralesional steroids for treatment-resistant MF was reported in 4 patients who tolerated treatment well without any side effects other than local hypopigmentation in a single patient.¹³

At MSKCC, the first line of treatment in localized (stage IA) MF in light-skinned individuals most frequently is class I topical CSs, usually clobetasol propionate cream 0.05%. Patients are instructed to apply the cream twice daily on active MF lesions uninterruptedly until completely clear and to avoid using it on the face and in skin folds (axillary, inguinal, and abdominal). Patients are instructed to observe themselves for possible cutaneous AEs related to treatment and to stop or taper treatment if any AEs are noticed. In patients with darker skin, we may recommend other modalities such as narrowband UVB phototherapy for even limited MF disease because of the risk for uneven/hypopigmentation with superpotent CSs.

The current study offers a real-life observation of topical high-potency CSs for treatment of early-stage MF and the associated cutaneous AEs. Local hypopigmentation was identified in 4 participants (33.3%), local skin atrophy was seen in 2 participants (16.7%), and local purpura and irritation were seen in 1 participant each (8.3%). All patients responded to therapy and 75.0% (9/12) achieved CCR or showed only MAD at their last follow-up visit. The limitations of our study were the small number of patients included and the relatively short follow-up period.

In MF patients, patches can present as fine wrinkling of the skin resembling atrophy, which can make it difficult to differentiate active MF from CS-induced atrophy in patients treated with topical CSs (Figure 1) and may have caused us to overestimate the occurrence of this AE. Corticosteroid-induced skin atrophy has been studied mainly in normal skin and to a lesser extent in pathological skin in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Some of these studies reported that CS-induced atrophy is reversible, and skin thickness can return to normal after topical application of CS is stopped.⁷

When hypopigmentation is seen around MF lesions, it is a confirmation that the patient is compliant with the therapy. From our experience, local hypopigmentation due to topical CSs is reversible (Figure 2). In some cases, MF patients have applied topical clobetasol propionate to lesional and surrounding skin, and hypopigmentation can be lessened with more careful limited application. In most cases, after discontinuation or tapering of the therapy, the skin returns to its normal color.

Conclusion

Patients with early-stage MF should be treated with skin-directed therapies, and the choice between different therapeutic options is made based on the physician’s experience with the treatment, patient characteristics, location and morphology of the MF lesions, and the AE profile of the treatment. Based on our experience, superpotent topical CSs are readily available and easily applied, have minor side effects, and remain the mainstay of therapy in patients with stage IA disease. Patients with MF on superpotent topical CS therapy should be monitored periodically and instructed how to identify cutaneous AEs related to treatment.

Mycosis fungoides (MF), the most common variant of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, is a non-Hodgkin lymphoma of T-cell origin that primarily develops in the skin and has a chronic relapsing course. Early-stage MF (stages IA–IIA) is defined as papules, patches, or plaques with limited (if any) lymph node and blood involvement and no visceral involvement.¹ Early-stage MF has a favorable prognosis, and first-line treatments are skin-directed therapies including topical corticosteroids (CSs), topical chemotherapy (nitrogen mustard or carmustine), topical retinoids, topical imiquimod, local radiation, or phototherapy.² Topical CSs are effective in treating early-stage MF and have been widely used for this indication for several decades; however, there are very little data in the literature on topical CS use in MF.³ Superpotent topical CSs have been shown to have a high overall response rate in early-stage MF³; however, cutaneous side effects associated with long-term topical use include cutaneous atrophy, striae formation, skin fragility, and irritation.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved bexarotene gel and mechlorethamine gel for topical treatment of cutaneous lesions in patients with stage IA and IB MF in 2000 and 2013, respectively. Although each may be effective in achieving complete or partial response in MF, both agents are associated with cutaneous side effects, mainly irritation and frequent contact hypersensitivity reactions, respectively.^4,5 Additionally, their high prices and limited availability are other major drawbacks of treatment.

At our institution, high-potency topical CSs, specifically once or twice daily clobetasol propionate cream 0.05% prescribed as monotherapy for at least several months, remain the mainstay of treatment in patients with limited patches, papules, and plaques covering less than 10% of the skin surface (stage IA). In this study, we aimed to assess the risk of cutaneous side effects in patients with early-stage MF who were treated with long-term, high-potency topical CSs.

Methods

This prospective observational cohort study included patients with early-stage MF who were seen at the Cutaneous Lymphoma Clinic at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, New York, and were started on a superpotent (class I) topical CS (clobetasol propionate cream 0.05%) as monotherapy for MF from July 2016 to July 2017. The diagnosis of MF had to be supported by clinical findings and histopathologic features. All patients were Fitzpatrick skin types I, II, or III. Eligible patients were evaluated for development of CS-induced cutaneous AEs by physical examination and clinical photography of the treated lesions performed at baseline and as part of routine follow-up visits (usually scheduled every 2 to 6 months) at the MSKCC Cutaneous Lymphoma Clinic. Patients’ skin was evaluated clinically for MF activity, atrophy, telangiectasia, purpura, hypopigmentation, and stretch marks (striae). Use of the topical CS was self-reported and also was documented at follow-up visits. Treatment response was defined as follows: complete clinical response (CCR) if the treated lesions resolved completely compared to initial photography; minimal active disease (MAD) if resolution of the vast majority (≥75%) of lesions was seen; and partial response (PR) if some of the lesions resolved (<75%). We analyzed the treatment response rates and adverse effects (AEs). Results were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Results

We identified 13 patients who were started on topical clobetasol propionate as monotherapy for early-stage MF during the study period. Our cohort included 6 males and 7 females aged 36 to 76 years (median age, 61 years). All but 1 participant were diagnosed with stage IA MF (12/13 [92.3%]); of those, 9 (75.0%) had patch-stage disease and 3 (25.0%) presented with plaques. One (7.7%) participant presented with hyperpigmented patches and plaques that involved a little more than 10% of the skin surface (stage IB), and involvement of the hair follicles was noted on histology (folliculotropic MF). All prior treatments were stopped when participants started the superpotent topical CS: 6 (46.2%) participants had been treated with lower-potency topical agents and 1 (7.7%) participant was getting psoralen plus UVA therapy, while the other 6 (46.2%) participants were receiving no therapy for MF prior to starting the study. All participants were prescribed clobetasol propionate cream 0.05% once or twice daily as monotherapy and were instructed to apply it to the MF lesions only, avoiding skin folds and the face. One participant was lost to follow-up, and another stopped using the clobetasol propionate cream after 1.5 months due to local irritation associated with treatment. At their follow-up visits, the other 11 participants were advised to continue with once-daily treatment with clobetasol propionate or were tapered to once every other day, twice weekly, or once weekly depending on their response to treatment and AEs (Table). Participants were advised not to use more than 50 g of clobetasol propionate cream weekly.

All participants responded to the clobetasol propionate cream, and improvement was noted in the treated lesions; however, progression of disease (from stage IA to stage IB) occurred in 1 (8.3%) participant, and phototherapy was added with good response. The participants in our cohort were followed for 4 to 17 months (median, 11.5 months). At the last follow-up visit, all 12 participants showed treatment response: 4 (33.3%) had CCR, 5 (41.7%) had MAD; and 3 (25.0%) had PR. In one participant with a history of partial response to bexarotene gel 1%, daily clobetasol propionate cream 0.05% initially was used alone for 9 months and was later combined with bexarotene gel once weekly, resulting in MAD.

In 7 (58.3%) participants, no AEs to topical clobetasol propionate were recorded. Four (33.3%) participants developed local hypopigmentation at the application site, and 2 (16.7%) developed cutaneous atrophy with local fine wrinkling of the skin (Figure 1); none of the participants developed stretch marks (striae), telangiectases, or skin fragility. One (8.3%) participant developed a petechial rash at the clobetasol propionate application site that resolved once treatment was discontinued and did not recur after restarting clobetasol propionate twice weekly.

Comment

Topical CSs are the most commonly prescribed agents, either as monotherapy or in combination with other agents, in the treatment of numerous dermatologic conditions, including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and MF. Cutaneous and systemic AEs have been associated with topical CS use. Local AEs are encountered more frequently and include cutaneous atrophy, striae, telangiectasia, purpura, skin fragility, hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, acneform eruptions, and hypertrichosis.⁶ Factors other than potency of the topical CS agent may affect the development of skin atrophy, including anatomic location, duration of therapy, vehicle, and method and frequency of application.⁷ The potential for systemic AEs due to percutaneous absorption of high-potency CSs, specifically Cushing syndrome and pathologic adrenal suppression, has been a long-standing concern and led the FDA to recommend limiting the use of superpotent CSs to 50 g weekly for 2 or 4 consecutive weeks.⁸ However, if using an excess of 50 g weekly is avoided, superpotent topical CSs may be safe to use consecutively for months, perhaps even years, without causing systemic effects.⁹

The effects of topical CSs in MF include induction of apoptosis; inhibition of lymphocyte binding to the endothelium; and downregulation of transcription factors with decreased cytokines, adhesion molecules, and production of growth factors.² For patients with limited early-stage MF patches and thin plaques, topical CSs often control the disease for many years and frequently are the only form of therapy required. Intralesional steroids can be effective in treating thicker lesions, such as plaques or tumors.¹⁰ In an uncontrolled study, Zackheim et al¹¹ prospectively evaluated the effectiveness and safety of twice-daily use of mainly high-potency topical CSs in 79 patients with MF stages IA to IB and observed an overall response rate of 94%. None of the patients were using systemic agents while being treated with topical CSs. Adverse effects were rare: 2 (2.5%) patients experienced temporary minor irritation from the topical CS, 1 (1.3%) patient developed localized skin atrophy under the breast that resolved several months after she stopped treatment, and 1 (1.3%) patient developed stretch marks on the thighs.¹¹ Zackheim¹² later reported treatment of approximately 200 patients with class I topical CSs, and overall response rates were over 90% in stage T1 and over 80% in stage T2 patients. Response to topical CS was reported to be evident within 3 months and often much sooner. Side effects were most likely related to the more prolonged treatment periods. Irritant dermatitis or purpura developed in approximately 10% to 20% of patients, and purpura was seen at the sites of treatment as well as at distant sites. Only a small number of patients developed cutaneous atrophy and striae, which were reversible.¹² Successful use of intralesional steroids for treatment-resistant MF was reported in 4 patients who tolerated treatment well without any side effects other than local hypopigmentation in a single patient.¹³

At MSKCC, the first line of treatment in localized (stage IA) MF in light-skinned individuals most frequently is class I topical CSs, usually clobetasol propionate cream 0.05%. Patients are instructed to apply the cream twice daily on active MF lesions uninterruptedly until completely clear and to avoid using it on the face and in skin folds (axillary, inguinal, and abdominal). Patients are instructed to observe themselves for possible cutaneous AEs related to treatment and to stop or taper treatment if any AEs are noticed. In patients with darker skin, we may recommend other modalities such as narrowband UVB phototherapy for even limited MF disease because of the risk for uneven/hypopigmentation with superpotent CSs.

The current study offers a real-life observation of topical high-potency CSs for treatment of early-stage MF and the associated cutaneous AEs. Local hypopigmentation was identified in 4 participants (33.3%), local skin atrophy was seen in 2 participants (16.7%), and local purpura and irritation were seen in 1 participant each (8.3%). All patients responded to therapy and 75.0% (9/12) achieved CCR or showed only MAD at their last follow-up visit. The limitations of our study were the small number of patients included and the relatively short follow-up period.

In MF patients, patches can present as fine wrinkling of the skin resembling atrophy, which can make it difficult to differentiate active MF from CS-induced atrophy in patients treated with topical CSs (Figure 1) and may have caused us to overestimate the occurrence of this AE. Corticosteroid-induced skin atrophy has been studied mainly in normal skin and to a lesser extent in pathological skin in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Some of these studies reported that CS-induced atrophy is reversible, and skin thickness can return to normal after topical application of CS is stopped.⁷

When hypopigmentation is seen around MF lesions, it is a confirmation that the patient is compliant with the therapy. From our experience, local hypopigmentation due to topical CSs is reversible (Figure 2). In some cases, MF patients have applied topical clobetasol propionate to lesional and surrounding skin, and hypopigmentation can be lessened with more careful limited application. In most cases, after discontinuation or tapering of the therapy, the skin returns to its normal color.

Conclusion

Patients with early-stage MF should be treated with skin-directed therapies, and the choice between different therapeutic options is made based on the physician’s experience with the treatment, patient characteristics, location and morphology of the MF lesions, and the AE profile of the treatment. Based on our experience, superpotent topical CSs are readily available and easily applied, have minor side effects, and remain the mainstay of therapy in patients with stage IA disease. Patients with MF on superpotent topical CS therapy should be monitored periodically and instructed how to identify cutaneous AEs related to treatment.

Mycosis fungoides (MF), the most common variant of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, is a non-Hodgkin lymphoma of T-cell origin that primarily develops in the skin and has a chronic relapsing course. Early-stage MF (stages IA–IIA) is defined as papules, patches, or plaques with limited (if any) lymph node and blood involvement and no visceral involvement.¹ Early-stage MF has a favorable prognosis, and first-line treatments are skin-directed therapies including topical corticosteroids (CSs), topical chemotherapy (nitrogen mustard or carmustine), topical retinoids, topical imiquimod, local radiation, or phototherapy.² Topical CSs are effective in treating early-stage MF and have been widely used for this indication for several decades; however, there are very little data in the literature on topical CS use in MF.³ Superpotent topical CSs have been shown to have a high overall response rate in early-stage MF³; however, cutaneous side effects associated with long-term topical use include cutaneous atrophy, striae formation, skin fragility, and irritation.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved bexarotene gel and mechlorethamine gel for topical treatment of cutaneous lesions in patients with stage IA and IB MF in 2000 and 2013, respectively. Although each may be effective in achieving complete or partial response in MF, both agents are associated with cutaneous side effects, mainly irritation and frequent contact hypersensitivity reactions, respectively.^4,5 Additionally, their high prices and limited availability are other major drawbacks of treatment.

At our institution, high-potency topical CSs, specifically once or twice daily clobetasol propionate cream 0.05% prescribed as monotherapy for at least several months, remain the mainstay of treatment in patients with limited patches, papules, and plaques covering less than 10% of the skin surface (stage IA). In this study, we aimed to assess the risk of cutaneous side effects in patients with early-stage MF who were treated with long-term, high-potency topical CSs.

Methods

This prospective observational cohort study included patients with early-stage MF who were seen at the Cutaneous Lymphoma Clinic at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, New York, and were started on a superpotent (class I) topical CS (clobetasol propionate cream 0.05%) as monotherapy for MF from July 2016 to July 2017. The diagnosis of MF had to be supported by clinical findings and histopathologic features. All patients were Fitzpatrick skin types I, II, or III. Eligible patients were evaluated for development of CS-induced cutaneous AEs by physical examination and clinical photography of the treated lesions performed at baseline and as part of routine follow-up visits (usually scheduled every 2 to 6 months) at the MSKCC Cutaneous Lymphoma Clinic. Patients’ skin was evaluated clinically for MF activity, atrophy, telangiectasia, purpura, hypopigmentation, and stretch marks (striae). Use of the topical CS was self-reported and also was documented at follow-up visits. Treatment response was defined as follows: complete clinical response (CCR) if the treated lesions resolved completely compared to initial photography; minimal active disease (MAD) if resolution of the vast majority (≥75%) of lesions was seen; and partial response (PR) if some of the lesions resolved (<75%). We analyzed the treatment response rates and adverse effects (AEs). Results were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Results

We identified 13 patients who were started on topical clobetasol propionate as monotherapy for early-stage MF during the study period. Our cohort included 6 males and 7 females aged 36 to 76 years (median age, 61 years). All but 1 participant were diagnosed with stage IA MF (12/13 [92.3%]); of those, 9 (75.0%) had patch-stage disease and 3 (25.0%) presented with plaques. One (7.7%) participant presented with hyperpigmented patches and plaques that involved a little more than 10% of the skin surface (stage IB), and involvement of the hair follicles was noted on histology (folliculotropic MF). All prior treatments were stopped when participants started the superpotent topical CS: 6 (46.2%) participants had been treated with lower-potency topical agents and 1 (7.7%) participant was getting psoralen plus UVA therapy, while the other 6 (46.2%) participants were receiving no therapy for MF prior to starting the study. All participants were prescribed clobetasol propionate cream 0.05% once or twice daily as monotherapy and were instructed to apply it to the MF lesions only, avoiding skin folds and the face. One participant was lost to follow-up, and another stopped using the clobetasol propionate cream after 1.5 months due to local irritation associated with treatment. At their follow-up visits, the other 11 participants were advised to continue with once-daily treatment with clobetasol propionate or were tapered to once every other day, twice weekly, or once weekly depending on their response to treatment and AEs (Table). Participants were advised not to use more than 50 g of clobetasol propionate cream weekly.

All participants responded to the clobetasol propionate cream, and improvement was noted in the treated lesions; however, progression of disease (from stage IA to stage IB) occurred in 1 (8.3%) participant, and phototherapy was added with good response. The participants in our cohort were followed for 4 to 17 months (median, 11.5 months). At the last follow-up visit, all 12 participants showed treatment response: 4 (33.3%) had CCR, 5 (41.7%) had MAD; and 3 (25.0%) had PR. In one participant with a history of partial response to bexarotene gel 1%, daily clobetasol propionate cream 0.05% initially was used alone for 9 months and was later combined with bexarotene gel once weekly, resulting in MAD.

In 7 (58.3%) participants, no AEs to topical clobetasol propionate were recorded. Four (33.3%) participants developed local hypopigmentation at the application site, and 2 (16.7%) developed cutaneous atrophy with local fine wrinkling of the skin (Figure 1); none of the participants developed stretch marks (striae), telangiectases, or skin fragility. One (8.3%) participant developed a petechial rash at the clobetasol propionate application site that resolved once treatment was discontinued and did not recur after restarting clobetasol propionate twice weekly.

Comment

Topical CSs are the most commonly prescribed agents, either as monotherapy or in combination with other agents, in the treatment of numerous dermatologic conditions, including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and MF. Cutaneous and systemic AEs have been associated with topical CS use. Local AEs are encountered more frequently and include cutaneous atrophy, striae, telangiectasia, purpura, skin fragility, hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, acneform eruptions, and hypertrichosis.⁶ Factors other than potency of the topical CS agent may affect the development of skin atrophy, including anatomic location, duration of therapy, vehicle, and method and frequency of application.⁷ The potential for systemic AEs due to percutaneous absorption of high-potency CSs, specifically Cushing syndrome and pathologic adrenal suppression, has been a long-standing concern and led the FDA to recommend limiting the use of superpotent CSs to 50 g weekly for 2 or 4 consecutive weeks.⁸ However, if using an excess of 50 g weekly is avoided, superpotent topical CSs may be safe to use consecutively for months, perhaps even years, without causing systemic effects.⁹

The effects of topical CSs in MF include induction of apoptosis; inhibition of lymphocyte binding to the endothelium; and downregulation of transcription factors with decreased cytokines, adhesion molecules, and production of growth factors.² For patients with limited early-stage MF patches and thin plaques, topical CSs often control the disease for many years and frequently are the only form of therapy required. Intralesional steroids can be effective in treating thicker lesions, such as plaques or tumors.¹⁰ In an uncontrolled study, Zackheim et al¹¹ prospectively evaluated the effectiveness and safety of twice-daily use of mainly high-potency topical CSs in 79 patients with MF stages IA to IB and observed an overall response rate of 94%. None of the patients were using systemic agents while being treated with topical CSs. Adverse effects were rare: 2 (2.5%) patients experienced temporary minor irritation from the topical CS, 1 (1.3%) patient developed localized skin atrophy under the breast that resolved several months after she stopped treatment, and 1 (1.3%) patient developed stretch marks on the thighs.¹¹ Zackheim¹² later reported treatment of approximately 200 patients with class I topical CSs, and overall response rates were over 90% in stage T1 and over 80% in stage T2 patients. Response to topical CS was reported to be evident within 3 months and often much sooner. Side effects were most likely related to the more prolonged treatment periods. Irritant dermatitis or purpura developed in approximately 10% to 20% of patients, and purpura was seen at the sites of treatment as well as at distant sites. Only a small number of patients developed cutaneous atrophy and striae, which were reversible.¹² Successful use of intralesional steroids for treatment-resistant MF was reported in 4 patients who tolerated treatment well without any side effects other than local hypopigmentation in a single patient.¹³

At MSKCC, the first line of treatment in localized (stage IA) MF in light-skinned individuals most frequently is class I topical CSs, usually clobetasol propionate cream 0.05%. Patients are instructed to apply the cream twice daily on active MF lesions uninterruptedly until completely clear and to avoid using it on the face and in skin folds (axillary, inguinal, and abdominal). Patients are instructed to observe themselves for possible cutaneous AEs related to treatment and to stop or taper treatment if any AEs are noticed. In patients with darker skin, we may recommend other modalities such as narrowband UVB phototherapy for even limited MF disease because of the risk for uneven/hypopigmentation with superpotent CSs.

The current study offers a real-life observation of topical high-potency CSs for treatment of early-stage MF and the associated cutaneous AEs. Local hypopigmentation was identified in 4 participants (33.3%), local skin atrophy was seen in 2 participants (16.7%), and local purpura and irritation were seen in 1 participant each (8.3%). All patients responded to therapy and 75.0% (9/12) achieved CCR or showed only MAD at their last follow-up visit. The limitations of our study were the small number of patients included and the relatively short follow-up period.

In MF patients, patches can present as fine wrinkling of the skin resembling atrophy, which can make it difficult to differentiate active MF from CS-induced atrophy in patients treated with topical CSs (Figure 1) and may have caused us to overestimate the occurrence of this AE. Corticosteroid-induced skin atrophy has been studied mainly in normal skin and to a lesser extent in pathological skin in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Some of these studies reported that CS-induced atrophy is reversible, and skin thickness can return to normal after topical application of CS is stopped.⁷

When hypopigmentation is seen around MF lesions, it is a confirmation that the patient is compliant with the therapy. From our experience, local hypopigmentation due to topical CSs is reversible (Figure 2). In some cases, MF patients have applied topical clobetasol propionate to lesional and surrounding skin, and hypopigmentation can be lessened with more careful limited application. In most cases, after discontinuation or tapering of the therapy, the skin returns to its normal color.

Conclusion

Patients with early-stage MF should be treated with skin-directed therapies, and the choice between different therapeutic options is made based on the physician’s experience with the treatment, patient characteristics, location and morphology of the MF lesions, and the AE profile of the treatment. Based on our experience, superpotent topical CSs are readily available and easily applied, have minor side effects, and remain the mainstay of therapy in patients with stage IA disease. Patients with MF on superpotent topical CS therapy should be monitored periodically and instructed how to identify cutaneous AEs related to treatment.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with Merkel cell carcinoma and chronic immunosuppression may fare better or worse on immunotherapy based on the reason for immunosuppression, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

About 10% of patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) are immunosuppressed at diagnosis, and these patients tend to have a more aggressive disease course and worse disease-specific survival compared with immunocompetent patients, Lauren Zawacki, a research assistant in the Nghiem Lab at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in her presentation. Although patients are receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 as treatments, the efficacy and side effects on immunosuppressed patients have not been well studied because many of these patients are not eligible for clinical trials.

Ms. Zawacki and colleagues analyzed data from a prospective Seattle registry of 1,442 patients with MCC, identifying 179 patients with MCC who had chronic immunosuppression due to chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), solid organ transplants, autoimmune disorders, other hematological malignancies, and HIV and AIDS. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma comprised 7 of 8 patients in the group with other hematological malignancies, and Crohn’s disease made up 5 of 6 patients in the autoimmune disorder group. Of the 179 patients with MCC and immunosuppression, 31 patients were treated with either anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy.

There was an objective response rate of 52%, with 14 patients having a complete response, 2 patients having a partial response, and 15 patients experiencing disease progression. Of the patients with disease progression, 11 died of MCC. The response rate in immunocompromised patients is similar to results seen by her group in immunocompetent patients (Nghiem P et al. N Engl J Med 2016; 374:2542-52), said Ms. Zawacki. “While the overall objective response rate is comparable between immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients, the response rates vary greatly between the different types of immunosuppression,” she said.

When grouping response rates by immunosuppression type, they found 2 of 11 patients with CLL (18%) and 2 of 6 patients with autoimmune disease (33%) had an objective response, while 2 of 3 patients with HIV/AIDS (66%) and 7 of 7 patients with other hematologic malignancies (100%) had an objective response.

“While the numbers of the cohort are small, there still seems to be a considerable difference in the response rate between the different types of immune suppression, which is critical when we’re treating patients who typically have a more aggressive disease course,” said Ms. Zawacki.

In particular, the finding of no patients with MCC and CLL achieving a complete response interested Ms. Zawacki and her colleagues, since about one-fourth of patients in the Seattle registry have this combination of disease. “Not only did none of the CLL patients have a complete response, but 7 out of the 11 patients with CLL died from MCC,” she explained. When examining further, the researchers found 45% of patients in this group discontinued because of side effects of immunotherapy and had a median time to recurrence of 1.5 months. “This finding suggests that CLL in particular plays a large role in impairing the function of the immune system, leading to not only a more aggressive disease course, but a poorer response to immunotherapy,” she said.

“There is a significant need for improved interventions for patients with CLL and autoimmune disorders,” she added. “Research for immunosuppressed patients is critical given the associated aggressive disease course and their lack of inclusion in clinical trials.”

Ms. Zawacki acknowledged the small number of patients in the study as a limitation, and patients who received follow-up at outside facilities may have received slightly different care, which could impact adverse event reporting or reasons for study discontinuation.

“A multi-institutional study would be beneficial to expand the number of patients in that cohort and to help confirm the trend observed in this study. In addition, future studies should assess the role of combination systemic therapy, such as neutron radiation and immunotherapy together in order to see if the objective response can be approved among immunosuppressed patients,” she said.

This study was supported by funding from the MCC Patient Gift Fund, the National Cancer Institute, and a grant from NIH. Ms. Zawacki reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zawacki L. SID 2020, Abstract 497.

Patients with Merkel cell carcinoma and chronic immunosuppression may fare better or worse on immunotherapy based on the reason for immunosuppression, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

About 10% of patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) are immunosuppressed at diagnosis, and these patients tend to have a more aggressive disease course and worse disease-specific survival compared with immunocompetent patients, Lauren Zawacki, a research assistant in the Nghiem Lab at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in her presentation. Although patients are receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 as treatments, the efficacy and side effects on immunosuppressed patients have not been well studied because many of these patients are not eligible for clinical trials.

Ms. Zawacki and colleagues analyzed data from a prospective Seattle registry of 1,442 patients with MCC, identifying 179 patients with MCC who had chronic immunosuppression due to chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), solid organ transplants, autoimmune disorders, other hematological malignancies, and HIV and AIDS. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma comprised 7 of 8 patients in the group with other hematological malignancies, and Crohn’s disease made up 5 of 6 patients in the autoimmune disorder group. Of the 179 patients with MCC and immunosuppression, 31 patients were treated with either anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy.

There was an objective response rate of 52%, with 14 patients having a complete response, 2 patients having a partial response, and 15 patients experiencing disease progression. Of the patients with disease progression, 11 died of MCC. The response rate in immunocompromised patients is similar to results seen by her group in immunocompetent patients (Nghiem P et al. N Engl J Med 2016; 374:2542-52), said Ms. Zawacki. “While the overall objective response rate is comparable between immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients, the response rates vary greatly between the different types of immunosuppression,” she said.

When grouping response rates by immunosuppression type, they found 2 of 11 patients with CLL (18%) and 2 of 6 patients with autoimmune disease (33%) had an objective response, while 2 of 3 patients with HIV/AIDS (66%) and 7 of 7 patients with other hematologic malignancies (100%) had an objective response.

“While the numbers of the cohort are small, there still seems to be a considerable difference in the response rate between the different types of immune suppression, which is critical when we’re treating patients who typically have a more aggressive disease course,” said Ms. Zawacki.

In particular, the finding of no patients with MCC and CLL achieving a complete response interested Ms. Zawacki and her colleagues, since about one-fourth of patients in the Seattle registry have this combination of disease. “Not only did none of the CLL patients have a complete response, but 7 out of the 11 patients with CLL died from MCC,” she explained. When examining further, the researchers found 45% of patients in this group discontinued because of side effects of immunotherapy and had a median time to recurrence of 1.5 months. “This finding suggests that CLL in particular plays a large role in impairing the function of the immune system, leading to not only a more aggressive disease course, but a poorer response to immunotherapy,” she said.

“There is a significant need for improved interventions for patients with CLL and autoimmune disorders,” she added. “Research for immunosuppressed patients is critical given the associated aggressive disease course and their lack of inclusion in clinical trials.”

Ms. Zawacki acknowledged the small number of patients in the study as a limitation, and patients who received follow-up at outside facilities may have received slightly different care, which could impact adverse event reporting or reasons for study discontinuation.

“A multi-institutional study would be beneficial to expand the number of patients in that cohort and to help confirm the trend observed in this study. In addition, future studies should assess the role of combination systemic therapy, such as neutron radiation and immunotherapy together in order to see if the objective response can be approved among immunosuppressed patients,” she said.

This study was supported by funding from the MCC Patient Gift Fund, the National Cancer Institute, and a grant from NIH. Ms. Zawacki reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zawacki L. SID 2020, Abstract 497.

Patients with Merkel cell carcinoma and chronic immunosuppression may fare better or worse on immunotherapy based on the reason for immunosuppression, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

About 10% of patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) are immunosuppressed at diagnosis, and these patients tend to have a more aggressive disease course and worse disease-specific survival compared with immunocompetent patients, Lauren Zawacki, a research assistant in the Nghiem Lab at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in her presentation. Although patients are receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 as treatments, the efficacy and side effects on immunosuppressed patients have not been well studied because many of these patients are not eligible for clinical trials.

Ms. Zawacki and colleagues analyzed data from a prospective Seattle registry of 1,442 patients with MCC, identifying 179 patients with MCC who had chronic immunosuppression due to chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), solid organ transplants, autoimmune disorders, other hematological malignancies, and HIV and AIDS. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma comprised 7 of 8 patients in the group with other hematological malignancies, and Crohn’s disease made up 5 of 6 patients in the autoimmune disorder group. Of the 179 patients with MCC and immunosuppression, 31 patients were treated with either anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy.

There was an objective response rate of 52%, with 14 patients having a complete response, 2 patients having a partial response, and 15 patients experiencing disease progression. Of the patients with disease progression, 11 died of MCC. The response rate in immunocompromised patients is similar to results seen by her group in immunocompetent patients (Nghiem P et al. N Engl J Med 2016; 374:2542-52), said Ms. Zawacki. “While the overall objective response rate is comparable between immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients, the response rates vary greatly between the different types of immunosuppression,” she said.

When grouping response rates by immunosuppression type, they found 2 of 11 patients with CLL (18%) and 2 of 6 patients with autoimmune disease (33%) had an objective response, while 2 of 3 patients with HIV/AIDS (66%) and 7 of 7 patients with other hematologic malignancies (100%) had an objective response.

“While the numbers of the cohort are small, there still seems to be a considerable difference in the response rate between the different types of immune suppression, which is critical when we’re treating patients who typically have a more aggressive disease course,” said Ms. Zawacki.

In particular, the finding of no patients with MCC and CLL achieving a complete response interested Ms. Zawacki and her colleagues, since about one-fourth of patients in the Seattle registry have this combination of disease. “Not only did none of the CLL patients have a complete response, but 7 out of the 11 patients with CLL died from MCC,” she explained. When examining further, the researchers found 45% of patients in this group discontinued because of side effects of immunotherapy and had a median time to recurrence of 1.5 months. “This finding suggests that CLL in particular plays a large role in impairing the function of the immune system, leading to not only a more aggressive disease course, but a poorer response to immunotherapy,” she said.

“There is a significant need for improved interventions for patients with CLL and autoimmune disorders,” she added. “Research for immunosuppressed patients is critical given the associated aggressive disease course and their lack of inclusion in clinical trials.”

Ms. Zawacki acknowledged the small number of patients in the study as a limitation, and patients who received follow-up at outside facilities may have received slightly different care, which could impact adverse event reporting or reasons for study discontinuation.

“A multi-institutional study would be beneficial to expand the number of patients in that cohort and to help confirm the trend observed in this study. In addition, future studies should assess the role of combination systemic therapy, such as neutron radiation and immunotherapy together in order to see if the objective response can be approved among immunosuppressed patients,” she said.

This study was supported by funding from the MCC Patient Gift Fund, the National Cancer Institute, and a grant from NIH. Ms. Zawacki reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zawacki L. SID 2020, Abstract 497.

Oncologists continue to rank above the middle range for all specialties in annual compensation for physicians, according to findings from the newly released Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020.

The average earnings for oncologists who participated in the survey was $377,000, which was a 5% increase from the $359,000 reported for 2018.

Just over two-thirds (67%) of oncologists reported that they felt that they were fairly compensated, which is quite a jump from 53% last year.

In addition, oncologists appear to be very satisfied with their profession. Similar to last year’s findings, 84% said they would choose medicine again, and 96% said they would choose the specialty of oncology again.
 

Earning in top third of all specialties

The average annual earnings reported by oncologists put this specialty in eleventh place among 29 specialties. Orthopedic specialists remain at the head of the list, with estimated earnings of $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to Medscape’s compensation report, which included responses from 17,461 physicians in over 30 specialties.

At the bottom of the estimated earnings list were public health and preventive medicine doctors and pediatricians. For both specialties, the reported annual earnings was $232,000. Family medicine specialists were only marginally higher at $234,000.

Radiologists ($427,000), gastroenterologists ($419,000), and urologists ($417,000) all reported higher earnings than oncologists, whereas neurologists, at $280,000, rheumatologists, at $262,000, and internal medicine physicians, at $251,000, earned less.

The report also found that gender disparities in income persist, with male oncologists earning 17% more than their female colleagues. The gender gap in oncology is somewhat less than that seen for all specialties combined, in which men earned 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%.

Male oncologists reported spending 38.8 hours per week seeing patients, compared with 34.9 hours reported by female oncologists. This could be a factor contributing to the gender pay disparity. Overall, the average amount of time seeing patients was 37.9 hours per week.
 

Frustrations with paperwork and denied claims

Surveyed oncologists cited some of the frustrations they are facing, such as spending nearly 17 hours a week on paperwork and administrative tasks. They reported that 16% of claims are denied or have to be resubmitted. As for the most challenging part of the job, oncologists (22%), similar to physicians overall (26%), found that having so many rules and regulations takes first place, followed by working with electronic health record systems (20%), difficulties getting fair reimbursement (19%), having to work long hours (12%), and dealing with difficult patients (8%). Few oncologists were concerned about lawsuits (4%), and 4% reported that there were no challenges.

Oncologists reported that the most rewarding part of their job was gratitude/relationships with patients (31%), followed by knowing that they are making the world a better place (27%). After that, oncologists agreed with statements about being very good at what they do/finding answers/diagnoses (22%), having pride in being a doctor (9%), and making good money at a job they like (8%).
 

Other key findings

Other key findings from the Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020 included the following:

• Regarding payment models, 80% take insurance, 41% are in fee-for-service arrangements, and 18% are in accountable care organizations (21%). Only 3% are in direct primary care, and 1% are cash-only practices or have a concierge practice.
• 65% of oncologists state that they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients. None said that they would not take on new Medicare/Medicaid patients, and 35% remain undecided. These numbers differed from physicians overall; 73% of all physicians surveyed said they would continue taking new/current Medicare/Medicaid patients, 6% said that will not take on new Medicare patients, and 4% said they will not take new Medicaid patients. In addition, 3% and 2% said that they would stop treating some or all of their Medicare and Medicaid patients, respectively.
• About half (51%) of oncologists use nurse practitioners, about a third (34%) use physician assistants, and 37% use neither. This was about the same as physicians overall.
• A larger percentage of oncologists (38%) expect to participate in MIPS (merit-based incentive payment system), and only 8% expect to participate in APMs (alternative payment models). This was similar to the findings for physicians overall, with more than one-third (37%) expecting to participate in MIPS and 9% planning to take part in APMs.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The Medscape compensation reports also gives a glimpse of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on physician compensation.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% drop in patient volume. Physician practices and hospitals have laid off or furloughed personnel and have cut pay, and 9% of practices have closed their doors, at least for the time being.

A total of 43,000 health care workers were laid off in March, the report notes.

The findings tie in with those reported elsewhere. For example, a survey conducted by the Medical Group Management Association, which was reported by Medscape Medical News, found that 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

Specialties were hard hit, especially those that rely on elective procedures, such as dermatology and cardiology. Oncology care has also been disrupted. For example, a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network found that half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncologists continue to rank above the middle range for all specialties in annual compensation for physicians, according to findings from the newly released Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020.

The average earnings for oncologists who participated in the survey was $377,000, which was a 5% increase from the $359,000 reported for 2018.

Just over two-thirds (67%) of oncologists reported that they felt that they were fairly compensated, which is quite a jump from 53% last year.

In addition, oncologists appear to be very satisfied with their profession. Similar to last year’s findings, 84% said they would choose medicine again, and 96% said they would choose the specialty of oncology again.
 

Earning in top third of all specialties

The average annual earnings reported by oncologists put this specialty in eleventh place among 29 specialties. Orthopedic specialists remain at the head of the list, with estimated earnings of $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to Medscape’s compensation report, which included responses from 17,461 physicians in over 30 specialties.

At the bottom of the estimated earnings list were public health and preventive medicine doctors and pediatricians. For both specialties, the reported annual earnings was $232,000. Family medicine specialists were only marginally higher at $234,000.

Radiologists ($427,000), gastroenterologists ($419,000), and urologists ($417,000) all reported higher earnings than oncologists, whereas neurologists, at $280,000, rheumatologists, at $262,000, and internal medicine physicians, at $251,000, earned less.

The report also found that gender disparities in income persist, with male oncologists earning 17% more than their female colleagues. The gender gap in oncology is somewhat less than that seen for all specialties combined, in which men earned 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%.

Male oncologists reported spending 38.8 hours per week seeing patients, compared with 34.9 hours reported by female oncologists. This could be a factor contributing to the gender pay disparity. Overall, the average amount of time seeing patients was 37.9 hours per week.
 

Frustrations with paperwork and denied claims

Surveyed oncologists cited some of the frustrations they are facing, such as spending nearly 17 hours a week on paperwork and administrative tasks. They reported that 16% of claims are denied or have to be resubmitted. As for the most challenging part of the job, oncologists (22%), similar to physicians overall (26%), found that having so many rules and regulations takes first place, followed by working with electronic health record systems (20%), difficulties getting fair reimbursement (19%), having to work long hours (12%), and dealing with difficult patients (8%). Few oncologists were concerned about lawsuits (4%), and 4% reported that there were no challenges.

Oncologists reported that the most rewarding part of their job was gratitude/relationships with patients (31%), followed by knowing that they are making the world a better place (27%). After that, oncologists agreed with statements about being very good at what they do/finding answers/diagnoses (22%), having pride in being a doctor (9%), and making good money at a job they like (8%).
 

Other key findings

Other key findings from the Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020 included the following:

• Regarding payment models, 80% take insurance, 41% are in fee-for-service arrangements, and 18% are in accountable care organizations (21%). Only 3% are in direct primary care, and 1% are cash-only practices or have a concierge practice.
• 65% of oncologists state that they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients. None said that they would not take on new Medicare/Medicaid patients, and 35% remain undecided. These numbers differed from physicians overall; 73% of all physicians surveyed said they would continue taking new/current Medicare/Medicaid patients, 6% said that will not take on new Medicare patients, and 4% said they will not take new Medicaid patients. In addition, 3% and 2% said that they would stop treating some or all of their Medicare and Medicaid patients, respectively.
• About half (51%) of oncologists use nurse practitioners, about a third (34%) use physician assistants, and 37% use neither. This was about the same as physicians overall.
• A larger percentage of oncologists (38%) expect to participate in MIPS (merit-based incentive payment system), and only 8% expect to participate in APMs (alternative payment models). This was similar to the findings for physicians overall, with more than one-third (37%) expecting to participate in MIPS and 9% planning to take part in APMs.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The Medscape compensation reports also gives a glimpse of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on physician compensation.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% drop in patient volume. Physician practices and hospitals have laid off or furloughed personnel and have cut pay, and 9% of practices have closed their doors, at least for the time being.

A total of 43,000 health care workers were laid off in March, the report notes.

The findings tie in with those reported elsewhere. For example, a survey conducted by the Medical Group Management Association, which was reported by Medscape Medical News, found that 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

Specialties were hard hit, especially those that rely on elective procedures, such as dermatology and cardiology. Oncology care has also been disrupted. For example, a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network found that half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncologists continue to rank above the middle range for all specialties in annual compensation for physicians, according to findings from the newly released Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020.

The average earnings for oncologists who participated in the survey was $377,000, which was a 5% increase from the $359,000 reported for 2018.

Just over two-thirds (67%) of oncologists reported that they felt that they were fairly compensated, which is quite a jump from 53% last year.

In addition, oncologists appear to be very satisfied with their profession. Similar to last year’s findings, 84% said they would choose medicine again, and 96% said they would choose the specialty of oncology again.
 

Earning in top third of all specialties

The average annual earnings reported by oncologists put this specialty in eleventh place among 29 specialties. Orthopedic specialists remain at the head of the list, with estimated earnings of $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to Medscape’s compensation report, which included responses from 17,461 physicians in over 30 specialties.

At the bottom of the estimated earnings list were public health and preventive medicine doctors and pediatricians. For both specialties, the reported annual earnings was $232,000. Family medicine specialists were only marginally higher at $234,000.

Radiologists ($427,000), gastroenterologists ($419,000), and urologists ($417,000) all reported higher earnings than oncologists, whereas neurologists, at $280,000, rheumatologists, at $262,000, and internal medicine physicians, at $251,000, earned less.

The report also found that gender disparities in income persist, with male oncologists earning 17% more than their female colleagues. The gender gap in oncology is somewhat less than that seen for all specialties combined, in which men earned 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%.

Male oncologists reported spending 38.8 hours per week seeing patients, compared with 34.9 hours reported by female oncologists. This could be a factor contributing to the gender pay disparity. Overall, the average amount of time seeing patients was 37.9 hours per week.
 

Frustrations with paperwork and denied claims

Surveyed oncologists cited some of the frustrations they are facing, such as spending nearly 17 hours a week on paperwork and administrative tasks. They reported that 16% of claims are denied or have to be resubmitted. As for the most challenging part of the job, oncologists (22%), similar to physicians overall (26%), found that having so many rules and regulations takes first place, followed by working with electronic health record systems (20%), difficulties getting fair reimbursement (19%), having to work long hours (12%), and dealing with difficult patients (8%). Few oncologists were concerned about lawsuits (4%), and 4% reported that there were no challenges.

Oncologists reported that the most rewarding part of their job was gratitude/relationships with patients (31%), followed by knowing that they are making the world a better place (27%). After that, oncologists agreed with statements about being very good at what they do/finding answers/diagnoses (22%), having pride in being a doctor (9%), and making good money at a job they like (8%).
 

Other key findings

Other key findings from the Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020 included the following:

• Regarding payment models, 80% take insurance, 41% are in fee-for-service arrangements, and 18% are in accountable care organizations (21%). Only 3% are in direct primary care, and 1% are cash-only practices or have a concierge practice.
• 65% of oncologists state that they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients. None said that they would not take on new Medicare/Medicaid patients, and 35% remain undecided. These numbers differed from physicians overall; 73% of all physicians surveyed said they would continue taking new/current Medicare/Medicaid patients, 6% said that will not take on new Medicare patients, and 4% said they will not take new Medicaid patients. In addition, 3% and 2% said that they would stop treating some or all of their Medicare and Medicaid patients, respectively.
• About half (51%) of oncologists use nurse practitioners, about a third (34%) use physician assistants, and 37% use neither. This was about the same as physicians overall.
• A larger percentage of oncologists (38%) expect to participate in MIPS (merit-based incentive payment system), and only 8% expect to participate in APMs (alternative payment models). This was similar to the findings for physicians overall, with more than one-third (37%) expecting to participate in MIPS and 9% planning to take part in APMs.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The Medscape compensation reports also gives a glimpse of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on physician compensation.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% drop in patient volume. Physician practices and hospitals have laid off or furloughed personnel and have cut pay, and 9% of practices have closed their doors, at least for the time being.

A total of 43,000 health care workers were laid off in March, the report notes.

The findings tie in with those reported elsewhere. For example, a survey conducted by the Medical Group Management Association, which was reported by Medscape Medical News, found that 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

Specialties were hard hit, especially those that rely on elective procedures, such as dermatology and cardiology. Oncology care has also been disrupted. For example, a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network found that half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pomalidomide (Pomalyst, Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma that is resistant to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) or that occurs in HIV-negative patients.

Pomalidomide is the only oral agent and first new treatment option for Kaposi sarcoma in more than 20 years, according to the company.

The drug, a thalidomide analogue, is already marketed for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide has “shown positive results in Kaposi sarcoma patients, regardless of their HIV status,” said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch, National Cancer Institute, in a press statement.

The conditional approval is based on the 71% overall response rate observed in a phase 1/2 open-label, single-arm clinical trial that involved 28 patients, 18 of whom were HIV positive and 10 of whom were HIV negative.

Most of the responses were partial (57%; 16/28); 14% (4/28) were complete. Median duration of response was 12.1 months. Additionally, for half of the patients who showed a response, that response was maintained for more than 12 months.

Patients received 5 mg of pomalidomide once daily for 21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 11% (3/28) of patients.

Adverse reactions (≥20%) included maculopapular rash (71%), constipation (71%), fatigue (68%), nausea (36%), diarrhea (32%), cough (29%), dyspnea (29%), peripheral edema (29%), upper respiratory tract infection (29%), muscle spasms (25%), hypothyroidism (21%), dry skin (21%), and chills (21%).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included maculopapular rash (3.6%), diarrhea (3.6%), and peripheral edema (3.6%).

Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥5%) that worsened from baseline included decreased absolute neutrophil count (50%), decreased phosphate level (25%), elevated glucose level (7%), and elevated creatine kinase level (7%).

As a thalidomide analogue, pomalidomide includes a boxed warning in the prescribing information; thalidomide is a known human teratogen that causes severe birth defects or embryo-fetal death. Deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke can occur in patients treated with pomalidomide; thromboprophylaxis is recommended.

Pomalidomide is available only through a restricted distribution program, Pomalyst REMS.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pomalidomide (Pomalyst, Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma that is resistant to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) or that occurs in HIV-negative patients.

Pomalidomide is the only oral agent and first new treatment option for Kaposi sarcoma in more than 20 years, according to the company.

The drug, a thalidomide analogue, is already marketed for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide has “shown positive results in Kaposi sarcoma patients, regardless of their HIV status,” said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch, National Cancer Institute, in a press statement.

The conditional approval is based on the 71% overall response rate observed in a phase 1/2 open-label, single-arm clinical trial that involved 28 patients, 18 of whom were HIV positive and 10 of whom were HIV negative.

Most of the responses were partial (57%; 16/28); 14% (4/28) were complete. Median duration of response was 12.1 months. Additionally, for half of the patients who showed a response, that response was maintained for more than 12 months.

Patients received 5 mg of pomalidomide once daily for 21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 11% (3/28) of patients.

Adverse reactions (≥20%) included maculopapular rash (71%), constipation (71%), fatigue (68%), nausea (36%), diarrhea (32%), cough (29%), dyspnea (29%), peripheral edema (29%), upper respiratory tract infection (29%), muscle spasms (25%), hypothyroidism (21%), dry skin (21%), and chills (21%).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included maculopapular rash (3.6%), diarrhea (3.6%), and peripheral edema (3.6%).

Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥5%) that worsened from baseline included decreased absolute neutrophil count (50%), decreased phosphate level (25%), elevated glucose level (7%), and elevated creatine kinase level (7%).

As a thalidomide analogue, pomalidomide includes a boxed warning in the prescribing information; thalidomide is a known human teratogen that causes severe birth defects or embryo-fetal death. Deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke can occur in patients treated with pomalidomide; thromboprophylaxis is recommended.

Pomalidomide is available only through a restricted distribution program, Pomalyst REMS.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pomalidomide (Pomalyst, Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma that is resistant to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) or that occurs in HIV-negative patients.

Pomalidomide is the only oral agent and first new treatment option for Kaposi sarcoma in more than 20 years, according to the company.

The drug, a thalidomide analogue, is already marketed for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide has “shown positive results in Kaposi sarcoma patients, regardless of their HIV status,” said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch, National Cancer Institute, in a press statement.

The conditional approval is based on the 71% overall response rate observed in a phase 1/2 open-label, single-arm clinical trial that involved 28 patients, 18 of whom were HIV positive and 10 of whom were HIV negative.

Most of the responses were partial (57%; 16/28); 14% (4/28) were complete. Median duration of response was 12.1 months. Additionally, for half of the patients who showed a response, that response was maintained for more than 12 months.

Patients received 5 mg of pomalidomide once daily for 21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 11% (3/28) of patients.

Adverse reactions (≥20%) included maculopapular rash (71%), constipation (71%), fatigue (68%), nausea (36%), diarrhea (32%), cough (29%), dyspnea (29%), peripheral edema (29%), upper respiratory tract infection (29%), muscle spasms (25%), hypothyroidism (21%), dry skin (21%), and chills (21%).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included maculopapular rash (3.6%), diarrhea (3.6%), and peripheral edema (3.6%).

Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥5%) that worsened from baseline included decreased absolute neutrophil count (50%), decreased phosphate level (25%), elevated glucose level (7%), and elevated creatine kinase level (7%).

As a thalidomide analogue, pomalidomide includes a boxed warning in the prescribing information; thalidomide is a known human teratogen that causes severe birth defects or embryo-fetal death. Deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke can occur in patients treated with pomalidomide; thromboprophylaxis is recommended.

Pomalidomide is available only through a restricted distribution program, Pomalyst REMS.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Anxiety and distress related to caring for a cancer patient who lives far away may be alleviated through an intervention that includes video-based coaching sessions with a nurse practitioner or social worker, a randomized study suggests.

AJ_Watt/E+

About 20% of long-distance caregivers had a significant reduction in anxiety and 25% had a significant reduction in distress when they received video coaching sessions, attended oncologist visits via video, and had access to a website specifically designed for their needs.

Adding the caregiver to oncologist office visits made the patients feel better supported and didn’t add a significant amount of time to the encounter, said Sara L. Douglas, PhD, RN, of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Taken together, these results suggest that fairly simple technologies can be leveraged to help caregivers cope with psychological strains related to supporting a patient who doesn’t live nearby, Dr. Douglas said.

Distance caregivers, defined as those who live an hour or more away from the patient, can experience high rates of distress and anxiety because they lack first-hand information or may have uncertainty about the patient’s current condition, according to Dr. Douglas and colleagues.

“Caregivers’ high rates of anxiety and distress have been found to have a negative impact not only upon their own health but upon their ability to provide high quality care to the patient,” Dr. Douglas said.

With this in mind, she and her colleagues conducted a 4-month study of distance caregivers. Dr. Douglas presented results from the study at the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program during a press briefing in advance of the meeting. This year, ASCO’s annual meeting is split into two parts. The virtual scientific program will be presented online on May 29-31, and the virtual education program will be available Aug. 8-10.
 

Study details

The study enrolled 441 distance caregivers of cancer patients, and Dr. Douglas presented results in 311 of those caregivers. (Data in the presentation differ from the abstract.) The caregivers were, on average, 47 years of age. Most were female (72%), white (67%), the child of the patient (63%), currently employed (81%), and new to the distance caregiver role (89%).

The caregivers were randomized to one of three study arms.

One arm received the full intervention, which consisted of four video-coaching sessions with an advanced practice nurse or social worker, videoconference office visits with the physician and patient, and access to a website with information for cancer distance caregivers. A second arm received no video coaching but had access to the website and participated in video visits with the physician and patient. The third arm, which only received access to the website, served as the study’s control group.
 

Results

Dr. Douglas said that the full intervention had the biggest impact on caregivers’ distress and anxiety.

Among distance caregivers who received the full intervention, 19.2% had a significant reduction in anxiety (P = .03), as measured in online surveys before and after the intervention using the PROMIS Anxiety instrument. Furthermore, 24.8% of these caregivers had a significant reduction in distress (P = .02) from preintervention to post intervention, as measured by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer. Overall, distress and anxiety scores decreased in this arm.

Distance caregivers who only had physician-patient video visits and website access had a “moderate” reduction in distress and anxiety, Dr. Douglas said. Among these caregivers, 17.3% had an improvement in anxiety from baseline, and 19.8% had an improvement in distress. Overall, distress scores decreased, but anxiety scores increased slightly in this arm.

In the control arm, 13.1% of caregivers had an improvement in anxiety from baseline, and 18% had an improvement in distress. Overall, both anxiety and distress scores increased in this arm.

“While the full intervention yielded the best results for distance caregivers, we recognize that not all health care systems have the resources to provide individualized coaching sessions to distance caregivers,” Dr. Douglas said. “Therefore, it is worth noting that videoconference office visits alone are found to be of some benefit in improving distress and anxiety in this group of cancer caregivers.”

The study results suggest videoconferencing interventions can improve the emotional well-being of remote caregivers who provide “critical support” for cancer patients, said ASCO President Howard A. “Skip” Burris III, MD.

“As COVID-19 forces separation from loved ones and increases anxiety for people with cancer and their caregivers, providing emotional support virtually is more important than ever,” Dr. Burris said in a news release highlighting the study.

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Douglas reported having no disclosures. Other researchers involved in the study disclosed relationships with BridgeBio Pharma, Cardinal Health, Apexigen, Roche/Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Celgene. A full list of Dr. Burris’s financial disclosures is available on the ASCO website.

SOURCE: Douglas SL et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 12123.

Anxiety and distress related to caring for a cancer patient who lives far away may be alleviated through an intervention that includes video-based coaching sessions with a nurse practitioner or social worker, a randomized study suggests.

AJ_Watt/E+

About 20% of long-distance caregivers had a significant reduction in anxiety and 25% had a significant reduction in distress when they received video coaching sessions, attended oncologist visits via video, and had access to a website specifically designed for their needs.

Adding the caregiver to oncologist office visits made the patients feel better supported and didn’t add a significant amount of time to the encounter, said Sara L. Douglas, PhD, RN, of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Taken together, these results suggest that fairly simple technologies can be leveraged to help caregivers cope with psychological strains related to supporting a patient who doesn’t live nearby, Dr. Douglas said.

Distance caregivers, defined as those who live an hour or more away from the patient, can experience high rates of distress and anxiety because they lack first-hand information or may have uncertainty about the patient’s current condition, according to Dr. Douglas and colleagues.

“Caregivers’ high rates of anxiety and distress have been found to have a negative impact not only upon their own health but upon their ability to provide high quality care to the patient,” Dr. Douglas said.

With this in mind, she and her colleagues conducted a 4-month study of distance caregivers. Dr. Douglas presented results from the study at the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program during a press briefing in advance of the meeting. This year, ASCO’s annual meeting is split into two parts. The virtual scientific program will be presented online on May 29-31, and the virtual education program will be available Aug. 8-10.
 

Study details

The study enrolled 441 distance caregivers of cancer patients, and Dr. Douglas presented results in 311 of those caregivers. (Data in the presentation differ from the abstract.) The caregivers were, on average, 47 years of age. Most were female (72%), white (67%), the child of the patient (63%), currently employed (81%), and new to the distance caregiver role (89%).

The caregivers were randomized to one of three study arms.

One arm received the full intervention, which consisted of four video-coaching sessions with an advanced practice nurse or social worker, videoconference office visits with the physician and patient, and access to a website with information for cancer distance caregivers. A second arm received no video coaching but had access to the website and participated in video visits with the physician and patient. The third arm, which only received access to the website, served as the study’s control group.
 

Results

Dr. Douglas said that the full intervention had the biggest impact on caregivers’ distress and anxiety.

Among distance caregivers who received the full intervention, 19.2% had a significant reduction in anxiety (P = .03), as measured in online surveys before and after the intervention using the PROMIS Anxiety instrument. Furthermore, 24.8% of these caregivers had a significant reduction in distress (P = .02) from preintervention to post intervention, as measured by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer. Overall, distress and anxiety scores decreased in this arm.

Distance caregivers who only had physician-patient video visits and website access had a “moderate” reduction in distress and anxiety, Dr. Douglas said. Among these caregivers, 17.3% had an improvement in anxiety from baseline, and 19.8% had an improvement in distress. Overall, distress scores decreased, but anxiety scores increased slightly in this arm.

In the control arm, 13.1% of caregivers had an improvement in anxiety from baseline, and 18% had an improvement in distress. Overall, both anxiety and distress scores increased in this arm.

“While the full intervention yielded the best results for distance caregivers, we recognize that not all health care systems have the resources to provide individualized coaching sessions to distance caregivers,” Dr. Douglas said. “Therefore, it is worth noting that videoconference office visits alone are found to be of some benefit in improving distress and anxiety in this group of cancer caregivers.”

The study results suggest videoconferencing interventions can improve the emotional well-being of remote caregivers who provide “critical support” for cancer patients, said ASCO President Howard A. “Skip” Burris III, MD.

“As COVID-19 forces separation from loved ones and increases anxiety for people with cancer and their caregivers, providing emotional support virtually is more important than ever,” Dr. Burris said in a news release highlighting the study.

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Douglas reported having no disclosures. Other researchers involved in the study disclosed relationships with BridgeBio Pharma, Cardinal Health, Apexigen, Roche/Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Celgene. A full list of Dr. Burris’s financial disclosures is available on the ASCO website.

SOURCE: Douglas SL et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 12123.

Anxiety and distress related to caring for a cancer patient who lives far away may be alleviated through an intervention that includes video-based coaching sessions with a nurse practitioner or social worker, a randomized study suggests.

AJ_Watt/E+

About 20% of long-distance caregivers had a significant reduction in anxiety and 25% had a significant reduction in distress when they received video coaching sessions, attended oncologist visits via video, and had access to a website specifically designed for their needs.

Adding the caregiver to oncologist office visits made the patients feel better supported and didn’t add a significant amount of time to the encounter, said Sara L. Douglas, PhD, RN, of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Taken together, these results suggest that fairly simple technologies can be leveraged to help caregivers cope with psychological strains related to supporting a patient who doesn’t live nearby, Dr. Douglas said.

Distance caregivers, defined as those who live an hour or more away from the patient, can experience high rates of distress and anxiety because they lack first-hand information or may have uncertainty about the patient’s current condition, according to Dr. Douglas and colleagues.

“Caregivers’ high rates of anxiety and distress have been found to have a negative impact not only upon their own health but upon their ability to provide high quality care to the patient,” Dr. Douglas said.

With this in mind, she and her colleagues conducted a 4-month study of distance caregivers. Dr. Douglas presented results from the study at the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program during a press briefing in advance of the meeting. This year, ASCO’s annual meeting is split into two parts. The virtual scientific program will be presented online on May 29-31, and the virtual education program will be available Aug. 8-10.
 

Study details

The study enrolled 441 distance caregivers of cancer patients, and Dr. Douglas presented results in 311 of those caregivers. (Data in the presentation differ from the abstract.) The caregivers were, on average, 47 years of age. Most were female (72%), white (67%), the child of the patient (63%), currently employed (81%), and new to the distance caregiver role (89%).

The caregivers were randomized to one of three study arms.

One arm received the full intervention, which consisted of four video-coaching sessions with an advanced practice nurse or social worker, videoconference office visits with the physician and patient, and access to a website with information for cancer distance caregivers. A second arm received no video coaching but had access to the website and participated in video visits with the physician and patient. The third arm, which only received access to the website, served as the study’s control group.
 

Results

Dr. Douglas said that the full intervention had the biggest impact on caregivers’ distress and anxiety.

Among distance caregivers who received the full intervention, 19.2% had a significant reduction in anxiety (P = .03), as measured in online surveys before and after the intervention using the PROMIS Anxiety instrument. Furthermore, 24.8% of these caregivers had a significant reduction in distress (P = .02) from preintervention to post intervention, as measured by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer. Overall, distress and anxiety scores decreased in this arm.

Distance caregivers who only had physician-patient video visits and website access had a “moderate” reduction in distress and anxiety, Dr. Douglas said. Among these caregivers, 17.3% had an improvement in anxiety from baseline, and 19.8% had an improvement in distress. Overall, distress scores decreased, but anxiety scores increased slightly in this arm.

In the control arm, 13.1% of caregivers had an improvement in anxiety from baseline, and 18% had an improvement in distress. Overall, both anxiety and distress scores increased in this arm.

“While the full intervention yielded the best results for distance caregivers, we recognize that not all health care systems have the resources to provide individualized coaching sessions to distance caregivers,” Dr. Douglas said. “Therefore, it is worth noting that videoconference office visits alone are found to be of some benefit in improving distress and anxiety in this group of cancer caregivers.”

The study results suggest videoconferencing interventions can improve the emotional well-being of remote caregivers who provide “critical support” for cancer patients, said ASCO President Howard A. “Skip” Burris III, MD.

“As COVID-19 forces separation from loved ones and increases anxiety for people with cancer and their caregivers, providing emotional support virtually is more important than ever,” Dr. Burris said in a news release highlighting the study.

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Douglas reported having no disclosures. Other researchers involved in the study disclosed relationships with BridgeBio Pharma, Cardinal Health, Apexigen, Roche/Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Celgene. A full list of Dr. Burris’s financial disclosures is available on the ASCO website.

SOURCE: Douglas SL et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 12123.

Traditionally at this time of year, everyone working in cancer turns their attention toward Chicago, and 40,000 or so travel to the city for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Not this year.

The McCormick Place convention center has been converted to a field hospital to cope with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The cavernous meeting halls have been filled with makeshift wards with 750 acute care beds, as shown in a tweet from Toni Choueiri, MD, chief of genitourinary oncology at the Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston.

But the annual meeting is still going ahead, having been transferred online.

“We have to remember that even though there’s a pandemic going on and people are dying every day from coronavirus, people are still dying every day from cancer,” Richard Schilsky, MD, PhD, chief medical officer at ASCO, told Medscape Medical News.

“This pandemic will end, but cancer will continue, and we need to be able to continue to get the most cutting edge scientific results out there to our members and our constituents so they can act on those results on behalf of their patients,” he said.

The ASCO Virtual Scientific Program will take place over the weekend of May 30-31.

“We’re certainly hoping that we’re going to deliver a program that features all of the most important science that would have been presented in person in Chicago,” Schilsky commented in an interview.

Most of the presentations will be prerecorded and then streamed, which “we hope will mitigate any of the technical glitches that could come from trying to do a live broadcast of the meeting,” he said.

There will be 250 oral and 2500 poster presentations in 24 disease-based and specialty tracks.

The majority of the abstracts will be released online on May 13. The majority of the on-demand content will be released on May 29. Some of the abstracts will be highlighted at ASCO press briefings and released on those two dates.

But some of the material will be made available only on the weekend of the meeting. The opening session, plenaries featuring late-breaking abstracts, special highlights sessions, and other clinical science symposia will be broadcast on Saturday, May 30, and Sunday, May 31 (the schedule for the weekend program is available on the ASCO meeting website).

Among the plenary presentations are some clinical results that are likely to change practice immediately, Schilsky predicted. These include data to be presented in the following abstracts:

• Abstract LBA4 on the KEYNOTE-177 study comparing immunotherapy using pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck & Co) with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumors show microsatellite instability or mismatch repair deficiency;
• Abstract LBA5 on the ADAURA study exploring osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) as adjuvant therapy after complete tumor reseaction in patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer whose tumors are EGFR mutation positive;
• Abstract LBA1 on the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study exploring maintenance avelumab (Bavencio, Merck and Pfizer) with best supportive care after platinum-based first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

However, some of the material that would have been part of the annual meeting, which includes mostly educational sessions and invited talks, has been moved to another event, the ASCO Educational Program, to be held in August 2020.

“So I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, the meeting is going to be compressed a little bit,” Schilsky commented. “Obviously, we can’t deliver all the interactions that happen in the hallways and everywhere else at the meeting that really gives so much energy to the meeting, but, at this moment in our history, probably getting the science out there is what’s most important.”
 

Virtual exhibition hall

There will also be a virtual exhibition hall, which will open on May 29.

“Just as there is a typical exhibit hall in the convention center,” Schilsky commented, most of the companies that were planning to be in Chicago have “now transitioned to creating a virtual booth that people who are participating in the virtual meeting can visit.

“I don’t know exactly how each company is going to use their time and their virtual space, and that’s part of the whole learning process here to see how this whole experiment is going to work out,” he added.

Unlike some of the other conferences that have gone virtual, in which access has been made available to everyone for free, registration is still required for the ASCO meeting. But the society notes that the registration fee has been discounted for nonmembers and has been waived for ASCO members. Also, the fee covers both the Virtual Scientific Program in May and the ASCO Educational Program in August.

Registrants will have access to video and slide presentations, as well as discussant commentaries, for 180 days.

The article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Traditionally at this time of year, everyone working in cancer turns their attention toward Chicago, and 40,000 or so travel to the city for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Not this year.

The McCormick Place convention center has been converted to a field hospital to cope with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The cavernous meeting halls have been filled with makeshift wards with 750 acute care beds, as shown in a tweet from Toni Choueiri, MD, chief of genitourinary oncology at the Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston.

But the annual meeting is still going ahead, having been transferred online.

“We have to remember that even though there’s a pandemic going on and people are dying every day from coronavirus, people are still dying every day from cancer,” Richard Schilsky, MD, PhD, chief medical officer at ASCO, told Medscape Medical News.

“This pandemic will end, but cancer will continue, and we need to be able to continue to get the most cutting edge scientific results out there to our members and our constituents so they can act on those results on behalf of their patients,” he said.

The ASCO Virtual Scientific Program will take place over the weekend of May 30-31.

“We’re certainly hoping that we’re going to deliver a program that features all of the most important science that would have been presented in person in Chicago,” Schilsky commented in an interview.

Most of the presentations will be prerecorded and then streamed, which “we hope will mitigate any of the technical glitches that could come from trying to do a live broadcast of the meeting,” he said.

There will be 250 oral and 2500 poster presentations in 24 disease-based and specialty tracks.

The majority of the abstracts will be released online on May 13. The majority of the on-demand content will be released on May 29. Some of the abstracts will be highlighted at ASCO press briefings and released on those two dates.

But some of the material will be made available only on the weekend of the meeting. The opening session, plenaries featuring late-breaking abstracts, special highlights sessions, and other clinical science symposia will be broadcast on Saturday, May 30, and Sunday, May 31 (the schedule for the weekend program is available on the ASCO meeting website).

Among the plenary presentations are some clinical results that are likely to change practice immediately, Schilsky predicted. These include data to be presented in the following abstracts:

• Abstract LBA4 on the KEYNOTE-177 study comparing immunotherapy using pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck & Co) with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumors show microsatellite instability or mismatch repair deficiency;
• Abstract LBA5 on the ADAURA study exploring osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) as adjuvant therapy after complete tumor reseaction in patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer whose tumors are EGFR mutation positive;
• Abstract LBA1 on the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study exploring maintenance avelumab (Bavencio, Merck and Pfizer) with best supportive care after platinum-based first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

However, some of the material that would have been part of the annual meeting, which includes mostly educational sessions and invited talks, has been moved to another event, the ASCO Educational Program, to be held in August 2020.

“So I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, the meeting is going to be compressed a little bit,” Schilsky commented. “Obviously, we can’t deliver all the interactions that happen in the hallways and everywhere else at the meeting that really gives so much energy to the meeting, but, at this moment in our history, probably getting the science out there is what’s most important.”
 

Virtual exhibition hall

There will also be a virtual exhibition hall, which will open on May 29.

“Just as there is a typical exhibit hall in the convention center,” Schilsky commented, most of the companies that were planning to be in Chicago have “now transitioned to creating a virtual booth that people who are participating in the virtual meeting can visit.

“I don’t know exactly how each company is going to use their time and their virtual space, and that’s part of the whole learning process here to see how this whole experiment is going to work out,” he added.

Unlike some of the other conferences that have gone virtual, in which access has been made available to everyone for free, registration is still required for the ASCO meeting. But the society notes that the registration fee has been discounted for nonmembers and has been waived for ASCO members. Also, the fee covers both the Virtual Scientific Program in May and the ASCO Educational Program in August.

Registrants will have access to video and slide presentations, as well as discussant commentaries, for 180 days.

The article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Traditionally at this time of year, everyone working in cancer turns their attention toward Chicago, and 40,000 or so travel to the city for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Not this year.

The McCormick Place convention center has been converted to a field hospital to cope with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The cavernous meeting halls have been filled with makeshift wards with 750 acute care beds, as shown in a tweet from Toni Choueiri, MD, chief of genitourinary oncology at the Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston.

But the annual meeting is still going ahead, having been transferred online.

“We have to remember that even though there’s a pandemic going on and people are dying every day from coronavirus, people are still dying every day from cancer,” Richard Schilsky, MD, PhD, chief medical officer at ASCO, told Medscape Medical News.

“This pandemic will end, but cancer will continue, and we need to be able to continue to get the most cutting edge scientific results out there to our members and our constituents so they can act on those results on behalf of their patients,” he said.

The ASCO Virtual Scientific Program will take place over the weekend of May 30-31.

“We’re certainly hoping that we’re going to deliver a program that features all of the most important science that would have been presented in person in Chicago,” Schilsky commented in an interview.

Most of the presentations will be prerecorded and then streamed, which “we hope will mitigate any of the technical glitches that could come from trying to do a live broadcast of the meeting,” he said.

There will be 250 oral and 2500 poster presentations in 24 disease-based and specialty tracks.

The majority of the abstracts will be released online on May 13. The majority of the on-demand content will be released on May 29. Some of the abstracts will be highlighted at ASCO press briefings and released on those two dates.

But some of the material will be made available only on the weekend of the meeting. The opening session, plenaries featuring late-breaking abstracts, special highlights sessions, and other clinical science symposia will be broadcast on Saturday, May 30, and Sunday, May 31 (the schedule for the weekend program is available on the ASCO meeting website).

Among the plenary presentations are some clinical results that are likely to change practice immediately, Schilsky predicted. These include data to be presented in the following abstracts:

• Abstract LBA4 on the KEYNOTE-177 study comparing immunotherapy using pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck & Co) with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumors show microsatellite instability or mismatch repair deficiency;
• Abstract LBA5 on the ADAURA study exploring osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) as adjuvant therapy after complete tumor reseaction in patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer whose tumors are EGFR mutation positive;
• Abstract LBA1 on the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study exploring maintenance avelumab (Bavencio, Merck and Pfizer) with best supportive care after platinum-based first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

However, some of the material that would have been part of the annual meeting, which includes mostly educational sessions and invited talks, has been moved to another event, the ASCO Educational Program, to be held in August 2020.

“So I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, the meeting is going to be compressed a little bit,” Schilsky commented. “Obviously, we can’t deliver all the interactions that happen in the hallways and everywhere else at the meeting that really gives so much energy to the meeting, but, at this moment in our history, probably getting the science out there is what’s most important.”
 

Virtual exhibition hall

There will also be a virtual exhibition hall, which will open on May 29.

“Just as there is a typical exhibit hall in the convention center,” Schilsky commented, most of the companies that were planning to be in Chicago have “now transitioned to creating a virtual booth that people who are participating in the virtual meeting can visit.

“I don’t know exactly how each company is going to use their time and their virtual space, and that’s part of the whole learning process here to see how this whole experiment is going to work out,” he added.

Unlike some of the other conferences that have gone virtual, in which access has been made available to everyone for free, registration is still required for the ASCO meeting. But the society notes that the registration fee has been discounted for nonmembers and has been waived for ASCO members. Also, the fee covers both the Virtual Scientific Program in May and the ASCO Educational Program in August.

Registrants will have access to video and slide presentations, as well as discussant commentaries, for 180 days.

The article first appeared on Medscape.com.