User login
Study compares noninvasive treatments of cutaneous neurofibromas
PHOENIX – after only one treatment, according to preliminary results of an ongoing prospective trial that compared several treatment modalities.
“Neurofibromatosis type 1 is the most common single-gene disease of mankind, but there is so much we have yet to learn about it,” study author Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. Dr. Richey also conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is working with R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center, on this project. In his words, she said, “the lack of better treatments for cNF is a ‘problem worth solving.’ ”
“The accepted and widely available treatments for cNF result in scars and hypopigmentation. Our treatments do not,” she added. Since the epidermis overlying cNF is normal, “there is no reason to use nonselective or surgical methods and destroy a perfectly good epidermis when you don’t need to.”
Four treatments vs. controls
For the study, Dr. Richey and colleagues enrolled 19 adults with a total of 307 cNFs measuring 2-4 mm in size to receive one of four treatments: electrocautery with an insulated radiofrequency needle; 755-nm alexandrite laser with negative pressure (8-mm spot size, 100 J/cm2 fluence, 3-ms pulse duration); 980-nm diode laser (delivered via 8-mm sapphire skin-contact window), and intratumoral injection of 10 mg/mL deoxycholic acid at a volume approximately equal to that of the tumor. The average age of the participants was 49 years and 15 were female.
The investigators applied 5% lidocaine/prilocaine for 40 minutes to treatment sites before randomizing the tumors to treatment or to the control arm (no treatment). They compared safety, tolerability (including pain scores), and efficacy of each modality as measured by the change in cNF volume/height via three-dimensional imaging and clinical improvement via physician assessment at 6 months. All 19 participants have completed the 6-month assessment.
All modalities reduced or eliminated some of the cNFs by 6 months after treatment, with statistically significant reductions in height and volume across all four treatments. A wide variation of responses was observed. Specifically, the mean tumor volume changes for each modality, compared with controls, were –33.4% versus –5.1% among those treated with the 755-nm alexandrite laser; –24.9% versus –9.2% among those treated with the 980-nm diode laser, –23.3% versus –0.8% among those treated with insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation, and –29.4% versus –3.7% among those treated with deoxycholic acid.
The variation in responses “may be due to histologic diversity of cNF or may indicate a need for more fine-tuned dosimetry, or a combination,” Dr. Richey said. “Our future trials will address this. We will also be treating all skin types in our upcoming trials.”
No adverse events categorized as higher than grade 2 occurred in any of the treatment groups, and no signs of regrowth or growth stimulation have been observed to date.
Tolerability of treatments
As for general tolerability, the 980-nm laser treatment caused moderate to severe pain; the alexandrite laser caused mild pain; insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation caused mild pain, though more than deoxycholic acid injections or alexandrite laser, and pain associated with the deoxycholic acid injections was minimal.
When residual neurofibroma tumor was present histologically, its appearance was similar to that of untreated tumors in controls. There was no evidence of atypia, mitosis, or tumor inflammation, and mild fibrosis was present at the sites of prior tumor.
“It was surprising that all four modalities did work to some extent,” Dr. Richey said, noting that the lack of ulceration with deoxycholic acid injection “was pleasantly surprising.” Treatment with the 980-nm diode laser “was a bit more painful than we anticipated.”
The positive results of this trial has raised “more questions for us to answer. We have three additional trials in the works to fine tune these treatments and optimize dose/delivery, with the end goal of treating younger people.”
Dr. Richey said that she was “amazed” by how motivated the enrollees were to participate in the trial, noting that many patients with cNF undergo general anesthesia to have dozens of tumors surgically removed at once. “They pay $10,000-$20,000 on average out of pocket, as this surgery is considered cosmetic,” she said.
“This very important study could lead to effective, relatively noninvasive, therapy for small neurofibromas,” said Jeffrey S. Dover, MD, codirector of SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass., who was not involved with the study and was asked to comment on the results.
“Remarkably, all four treatments worked to varying degrees, but of all the treatments, the selective alexandrite laser appeared to achieve the best results. Further study will be needed to see just how effective these treatments are, and to determine the best and safest treatment parameters. Given how common this autosomal dominant disease is, and how disfiguring neurofibromas become as they enlarge, a well-tolerated noninvasive nonsurgical treatment with limited side effects is highly sought after.”
The study, which was named the best clinical abstract at the meeting, was supported by the Neurofibromatosis Therapeutic Acceleration Program. Dr. Anderson is supported in part as the Lancer Endowed Chair in Dermatology at MGH. Dr. Dover reported having no relevant disclosures.
PHOENIX – after only one treatment, according to preliminary results of an ongoing prospective trial that compared several treatment modalities.
“Neurofibromatosis type 1 is the most common single-gene disease of mankind, but there is so much we have yet to learn about it,” study author Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. Dr. Richey also conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is working with R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center, on this project. In his words, she said, “the lack of better treatments for cNF is a ‘problem worth solving.’ ”
“The accepted and widely available treatments for cNF result in scars and hypopigmentation. Our treatments do not,” she added. Since the epidermis overlying cNF is normal, “there is no reason to use nonselective or surgical methods and destroy a perfectly good epidermis when you don’t need to.”
Four treatments vs. controls
For the study, Dr. Richey and colleagues enrolled 19 adults with a total of 307 cNFs measuring 2-4 mm in size to receive one of four treatments: electrocautery with an insulated radiofrequency needle; 755-nm alexandrite laser with negative pressure (8-mm spot size, 100 J/cm2 fluence, 3-ms pulse duration); 980-nm diode laser (delivered via 8-mm sapphire skin-contact window), and intratumoral injection of 10 mg/mL deoxycholic acid at a volume approximately equal to that of the tumor. The average age of the participants was 49 years and 15 were female.
The investigators applied 5% lidocaine/prilocaine for 40 minutes to treatment sites before randomizing the tumors to treatment or to the control arm (no treatment). They compared safety, tolerability (including pain scores), and efficacy of each modality as measured by the change in cNF volume/height via three-dimensional imaging and clinical improvement via physician assessment at 6 months. All 19 participants have completed the 6-month assessment.
All modalities reduced or eliminated some of the cNFs by 6 months after treatment, with statistically significant reductions in height and volume across all four treatments. A wide variation of responses was observed. Specifically, the mean tumor volume changes for each modality, compared with controls, were –33.4% versus –5.1% among those treated with the 755-nm alexandrite laser; –24.9% versus –9.2% among those treated with the 980-nm diode laser, –23.3% versus –0.8% among those treated with insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation, and –29.4% versus –3.7% among those treated with deoxycholic acid.
The variation in responses “may be due to histologic diversity of cNF or may indicate a need for more fine-tuned dosimetry, or a combination,” Dr. Richey said. “Our future trials will address this. We will also be treating all skin types in our upcoming trials.”
No adverse events categorized as higher than grade 2 occurred in any of the treatment groups, and no signs of regrowth or growth stimulation have been observed to date.
Tolerability of treatments
As for general tolerability, the 980-nm laser treatment caused moderate to severe pain; the alexandrite laser caused mild pain; insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation caused mild pain, though more than deoxycholic acid injections or alexandrite laser, and pain associated with the deoxycholic acid injections was minimal.
When residual neurofibroma tumor was present histologically, its appearance was similar to that of untreated tumors in controls. There was no evidence of atypia, mitosis, or tumor inflammation, and mild fibrosis was present at the sites of prior tumor.
“It was surprising that all four modalities did work to some extent,” Dr. Richey said, noting that the lack of ulceration with deoxycholic acid injection “was pleasantly surprising.” Treatment with the 980-nm diode laser “was a bit more painful than we anticipated.”
The positive results of this trial has raised “more questions for us to answer. We have three additional trials in the works to fine tune these treatments and optimize dose/delivery, with the end goal of treating younger people.”
Dr. Richey said that she was “amazed” by how motivated the enrollees were to participate in the trial, noting that many patients with cNF undergo general anesthesia to have dozens of tumors surgically removed at once. “They pay $10,000-$20,000 on average out of pocket, as this surgery is considered cosmetic,” she said.
“This very important study could lead to effective, relatively noninvasive, therapy for small neurofibromas,” said Jeffrey S. Dover, MD, codirector of SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass., who was not involved with the study and was asked to comment on the results.
“Remarkably, all four treatments worked to varying degrees, but of all the treatments, the selective alexandrite laser appeared to achieve the best results. Further study will be needed to see just how effective these treatments are, and to determine the best and safest treatment parameters. Given how common this autosomal dominant disease is, and how disfiguring neurofibromas become as they enlarge, a well-tolerated noninvasive nonsurgical treatment with limited side effects is highly sought after.”
The study, which was named the best clinical abstract at the meeting, was supported by the Neurofibromatosis Therapeutic Acceleration Program. Dr. Anderson is supported in part as the Lancer Endowed Chair in Dermatology at MGH. Dr. Dover reported having no relevant disclosures.
PHOENIX – after only one treatment, according to preliminary results of an ongoing prospective trial that compared several treatment modalities.
“Neurofibromatosis type 1 is the most common single-gene disease of mankind, but there is so much we have yet to learn about it,” study author Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. Dr. Richey also conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is working with R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center, on this project. In his words, she said, “the lack of better treatments for cNF is a ‘problem worth solving.’ ”
“The accepted and widely available treatments for cNF result in scars and hypopigmentation. Our treatments do not,” she added. Since the epidermis overlying cNF is normal, “there is no reason to use nonselective or surgical methods and destroy a perfectly good epidermis when you don’t need to.”
Four treatments vs. controls
For the study, Dr. Richey and colleagues enrolled 19 adults with a total of 307 cNFs measuring 2-4 mm in size to receive one of four treatments: electrocautery with an insulated radiofrequency needle; 755-nm alexandrite laser with negative pressure (8-mm spot size, 100 J/cm2 fluence, 3-ms pulse duration); 980-nm diode laser (delivered via 8-mm sapphire skin-contact window), and intratumoral injection of 10 mg/mL deoxycholic acid at a volume approximately equal to that of the tumor. The average age of the participants was 49 years and 15 were female.
The investigators applied 5% lidocaine/prilocaine for 40 minutes to treatment sites before randomizing the tumors to treatment or to the control arm (no treatment). They compared safety, tolerability (including pain scores), and efficacy of each modality as measured by the change in cNF volume/height via three-dimensional imaging and clinical improvement via physician assessment at 6 months. All 19 participants have completed the 6-month assessment.
All modalities reduced or eliminated some of the cNFs by 6 months after treatment, with statistically significant reductions in height and volume across all four treatments. A wide variation of responses was observed. Specifically, the mean tumor volume changes for each modality, compared with controls, were –33.4% versus –5.1% among those treated with the 755-nm alexandrite laser; –24.9% versus –9.2% among those treated with the 980-nm diode laser, –23.3% versus –0.8% among those treated with insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation, and –29.4% versus –3.7% among those treated with deoxycholic acid.
The variation in responses “may be due to histologic diversity of cNF or may indicate a need for more fine-tuned dosimetry, or a combination,” Dr. Richey said. “Our future trials will address this. We will also be treating all skin types in our upcoming trials.”
No adverse events categorized as higher than grade 2 occurred in any of the treatment groups, and no signs of regrowth or growth stimulation have been observed to date.
Tolerability of treatments
As for general tolerability, the 980-nm laser treatment caused moderate to severe pain; the alexandrite laser caused mild pain; insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation caused mild pain, though more than deoxycholic acid injections or alexandrite laser, and pain associated with the deoxycholic acid injections was minimal.
When residual neurofibroma tumor was present histologically, its appearance was similar to that of untreated tumors in controls. There was no evidence of atypia, mitosis, or tumor inflammation, and mild fibrosis was present at the sites of prior tumor.
“It was surprising that all four modalities did work to some extent,” Dr. Richey said, noting that the lack of ulceration with deoxycholic acid injection “was pleasantly surprising.” Treatment with the 980-nm diode laser “was a bit more painful than we anticipated.”
The positive results of this trial has raised “more questions for us to answer. We have three additional trials in the works to fine tune these treatments and optimize dose/delivery, with the end goal of treating younger people.”
Dr. Richey said that she was “amazed” by how motivated the enrollees were to participate in the trial, noting that many patients with cNF undergo general anesthesia to have dozens of tumors surgically removed at once. “They pay $10,000-$20,000 on average out of pocket, as this surgery is considered cosmetic,” she said.
“This very important study could lead to effective, relatively noninvasive, therapy for small neurofibromas,” said Jeffrey S. Dover, MD, codirector of SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass., who was not involved with the study and was asked to comment on the results.
“Remarkably, all four treatments worked to varying degrees, but of all the treatments, the selective alexandrite laser appeared to achieve the best results. Further study will be needed to see just how effective these treatments are, and to determine the best and safest treatment parameters. Given how common this autosomal dominant disease is, and how disfiguring neurofibromas become as they enlarge, a well-tolerated noninvasive nonsurgical treatment with limited side effects is highly sought after.”
The study, which was named the best clinical abstract at the meeting, was supported by the Neurofibromatosis Therapeutic Acceleration Program. Dr. Anderson is supported in part as the Lancer Endowed Chair in Dermatology at MGH. Dr. Dover reported having no relevant disclosures.
AT ASLMS 2023
What happens to melanocytic nevi during laser hair removal?
PHOENIX – , while common histologic changes include mild atypia and thermal damage, according to results from a systematic review of literature on the topic. To date, no severe cases of severe dysplasia or melanoma have been reported.
“That’s reassuring,” study author Ahuva Cices, MD, said in an interview at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. “But, with that in mind, we want to avoid treating nevi with laser hair removal to avoid changes that could be concerning. We also recommend baseline skin exams so we know what we’re looking at before we start treating with lasers, and any changes can be recognized from that baseline status. It’s important to keep an eye out for changes and always be evaluating.”
In December of 2022, Dr. Cices, chief dermatology resident at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, searched PubMed for articles that evaluated changes in melanocytic nevi after laser hair removal procedures. She used the search terms “nevi laser hair removal,” “nevi diode,” “nevi long pulse alexandrite,” “nevi long pulse neodymium doped yttrium aluminum garnet,” and “melanoma laser hair removal,” and limited the analysis to English language patient-based reports that discussed incidental treatment of melanocytic nevi while undergoing hair removal with a laser.
Reports excluded from the analysis were those that focused on changes following hair removal with nonlaser devices such as intense pulsed light (IPL), those evaluating nonmelanocytic nevi such as Becker’s nevus or nevus of Ota, and those evaluating the intentional ablation or removal of melanocytic lesions.
The search yielded 10 relevant studies for systematic review: seven case reports or series and three observational trials, two of which were prospective and one retrospective.
The results of the review, according to Dr. Cices, revealed that clinical and dermoscopic changes were noted to present as early as 15 days after treatment and persist to the maximum follow up time, at 3 years. Commonly reported changes included regression, decreased size, laser-induced asymmetry, bleaching, darkening, and altered pattern on dermoscopy. Histologic changes included mild atypia, thermal damage, scar formation, and regression.
“Although some of the clinical and dermoscopic alterations may be concerning for malignancy, to our knowledge, there are no documented cases of malignant transformation of nevi following treatment with laser hair removal,” she wrote in the abstract.
Dr. Cices acknowledged certain limitations of the systematic review, including the low number of relevant reports and their generally small sample size, many of which were limited to single cases.
Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, Stamford, who was asked to comment on the review, characterized the findings as important because laser hair removal is such a commonly performed procedure.
While the study is limited by the small number of studies on the subject matter, “it brings up an important discussion,” Dr. Ibrahimi said in an interview. “Generally speaking, we know that most hair removal lasers do indeed target melanin pigment and can be absorbed by melanocytes. While the wavelengths used for LHR [laser hair removal] will not result in DNA damage or cause mutations that can lead to melanoma, they can sometimes alter the appearance of pigmented lesions and that may change the dermatologist’s ability to monitor them for atypia,” he noted.
“For that reason, I would recommend all patients see a dermatologist for evaluation of their nevi prior to any treatments and they consider very carefully where they get their laser treatments. If they have any atypical pigmented lesions, then that information should be disclosed with the person performing the laser hair removal procedure particularly if there are lesions that are being specifically monitored.”
Dr. Cices reported having no disclosures. Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he is a member of the advisory board for Accure Acne, AbbVie, Cutera, Lutronic, Blueberry Therapeutics, Cytrellis, and Quthero. He also holds stock in many device and pharmaceutical companies.
PHOENIX – , while common histologic changes include mild atypia and thermal damage, according to results from a systematic review of literature on the topic. To date, no severe cases of severe dysplasia or melanoma have been reported.
“That’s reassuring,” study author Ahuva Cices, MD, said in an interview at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. “But, with that in mind, we want to avoid treating nevi with laser hair removal to avoid changes that could be concerning. We also recommend baseline skin exams so we know what we’re looking at before we start treating with lasers, and any changes can be recognized from that baseline status. It’s important to keep an eye out for changes and always be evaluating.”
In December of 2022, Dr. Cices, chief dermatology resident at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, searched PubMed for articles that evaluated changes in melanocytic nevi after laser hair removal procedures. She used the search terms “nevi laser hair removal,” “nevi diode,” “nevi long pulse alexandrite,” “nevi long pulse neodymium doped yttrium aluminum garnet,” and “melanoma laser hair removal,” and limited the analysis to English language patient-based reports that discussed incidental treatment of melanocytic nevi while undergoing hair removal with a laser.
Reports excluded from the analysis were those that focused on changes following hair removal with nonlaser devices such as intense pulsed light (IPL), those evaluating nonmelanocytic nevi such as Becker’s nevus or nevus of Ota, and those evaluating the intentional ablation or removal of melanocytic lesions.
The search yielded 10 relevant studies for systematic review: seven case reports or series and three observational trials, two of which were prospective and one retrospective.
The results of the review, according to Dr. Cices, revealed that clinical and dermoscopic changes were noted to present as early as 15 days after treatment and persist to the maximum follow up time, at 3 years. Commonly reported changes included regression, decreased size, laser-induced asymmetry, bleaching, darkening, and altered pattern on dermoscopy. Histologic changes included mild atypia, thermal damage, scar formation, and regression.
“Although some of the clinical and dermoscopic alterations may be concerning for malignancy, to our knowledge, there are no documented cases of malignant transformation of nevi following treatment with laser hair removal,” she wrote in the abstract.
Dr. Cices acknowledged certain limitations of the systematic review, including the low number of relevant reports and their generally small sample size, many of which were limited to single cases.
Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, Stamford, who was asked to comment on the review, characterized the findings as important because laser hair removal is such a commonly performed procedure.
While the study is limited by the small number of studies on the subject matter, “it brings up an important discussion,” Dr. Ibrahimi said in an interview. “Generally speaking, we know that most hair removal lasers do indeed target melanin pigment and can be absorbed by melanocytes. While the wavelengths used for LHR [laser hair removal] will not result in DNA damage or cause mutations that can lead to melanoma, they can sometimes alter the appearance of pigmented lesions and that may change the dermatologist’s ability to monitor them for atypia,” he noted.
“For that reason, I would recommend all patients see a dermatologist for evaluation of their nevi prior to any treatments and they consider very carefully where they get their laser treatments. If they have any atypical pigmented lesions, then that information should be disclosed with the person performing the laser hair removal procedure particularly if there are lesions that are being specifically monitored.”
Dr. Cices reported having no disclosures. Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he is a member of the advisory board for Accure Acne, AbbVie, Cutera, Lutronic, Blueberry Therapeutics, Cytrellis, and Quthero. He also holds stock in many device and pharmaceutical companies.
PHOENIX – , while common histologic changes include mild atypia and thermal damage, according to results from a systematic review of literature on the topic. To date, no severe cases of severe dysplasia or melanoma have been reported.
“That’s reassuring,” study author Ahuva Cices, MD, said in an interview at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. “But, with that in mind, we want to avoid treating nevi with laser hair removal to avoid changes that could be concerning. We also recommend baseline skin exams so we know what we’re looking at before we start treating with lasers, and any changes can be recognized from that baseline status. It’s important to keep an eye out for changes and always be evaluating.”
In December of 2022, Dr. Cices, chief dermatology resident at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, searched PubMed for articles that evaluated changes in melanocytic nevi after laser hair removal procedures. She used the search terms “nevi laser hair removal,” “nevi diode,” “nevi long pulse alexandrite,” “nevi long pulse neodymium doped yttrium aluminum garnet,” and “melanoma laser hair removal,” and limited the analysis to English language patient-based reports that discussed incidental treatment of melanocytic nevi while undergoing hair removal with a laser.
Reports excluded from the analysis were those that focused on changes following hair removal with nonlaser devices such as intense pulsed light (IPL), those evaluating nonmelanocytic nevi such as Becker’s nevus or nevus of Ota, and those evaluating the intentional ablation or removal of melanocytic lesions.
The search yielded 10 relevant studies for systematic review: seven case reports or series and three observational trials, two of which were prospective and one retrospective.
The results of the review, according to Dr. Cices, revealed that clinical and dermoscopic changes were noted to present as early as 15 days after treatment and persist to the maximum follow up time, at 3 years. Commonly reported changes included regression, decreased size, laser-induced asymmetry, bleaching, darkening, and altered pattern on dermoscopy. Histologic changes included mild atypia, thermal damage, scar formation, and regression.
“Although some of the clinical and dermoscopic alterations may be concerning for malignancy, to our knowledge, there are no documented cases of malignant transformation of nevi following treatment with laser hair removal,” she wrote in the abstract.
Dr. Cices acknowledged certain limitations of the systematic review, including the low number of relevant reports and their generally small sample size, many of which were limited to single cases.
Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, Stamford, who was asked to comment on the review, characterized the findings as important because laser hair removal is such a commonly performed procedure.
While the study is limited by the small number of studies on the subject matter, “it brings up an important discussion,” Dr. Ibrahimi said in an interview. “Generally speaking, we know that most hair removal lasers do indeed target melanin pigment and can be absorbed by melanocytes. While the wavelengths used for LHR [laser hair removal] will not result in DNA damage or cause mutations that can lead to melanoma, they can sometimes alter the appearance of pigmented lesions and that may change the dermatologist’s ability to monitor them for atypia,” he noted.
“For that reason, I would recommend all patients see a dermatologist for evaluation of their nevi prior to any treatments and they consider very carefully where they get their laser treatments. If they have any atypical pigmented lesions, then that information should be disclosed with the person performing the laser hair removal procedure particularly if there are lesions that are being specifically monitored.”
Dr. Cices reported having no disclosures. Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he is a member of the advisory board for Accure Acne, AbbVie, Cutera, Lutronic, Blueberry Therapeutics, Cytrellis, and Quthero. He also holds stock in many device and pharmaceutical companies.
AT ASLMS 2023