Melanoma

It had only been 3 weeks since I first met this patient. She presented with an advanced case of colon cancer, but instead of treatment, we had to have a serious talk about death and dying and the goals of care. She died soon after our talk.

Within the course of 2 weeks I saw another new patient, but this time with pancreatic cancer that metastasized to the liver. “When can we start treatment?” he asked. Like my female patient with colon cancer, he was diagnosed too late as he was already in an incurable stage. He was shocked to learn that his condition was in stage 4, that achieving remission would be difficult and a cure, not likely. Certainly, standard of care treatments and clinical trials offered him hope, but they were unlikely to change the outcome.

We take a course in this – that is, in giving bad news, but every doctor has his or her own approach. Some are so uncomfortable with the talk, they choose avoidance and adopt the “look like you gotta go approach.” Or, the doctor may schedule another treatment or another test with the intention of avoiding end-of-life discussions. Other doctors opt for straight talk: “I think you should get your affairs in order. You’ve got 3 months to live.” These are extreme behaviors I wouldn’t recommend.

In my practice, I sit with my patients and explain the diagnosis. After discussing all options and the advanced stage and diagnosis, it ultimately comes down to “Win or lose, I will be here to take care of you.” Sometimes there is therapy that may help, but either way, the patient understands that death is a real possibility.

I find that people just want to know if there is hope. A different treatment regimen or a clinical trial may (or may not) extend their life. And while we cannot predict outcomes, we can give them hope. You can’t shut down hope. True for some people the cup is always half empty, but most people want to live and are optimistic no matter how small the chances are.

These conversations are very difficult. I don’t like them, but then I don’t avoid them either. Fortunately, patients don’t usually come to my office for the first visit presenting with advanced disease. In the cases I described above, one patient had been experiencing unexplained weight loss, but didn’t share it with a physician. And, for the patient with pancreatic cancer, other than some discomfort in the last couple of weeks, the disease was not associated with other symptoms. But the absence of symptoms should not in any way rule out a malignant disease. A diagnosis should be based on a complete evaluation of signs and symptoms followed by testing.

We’ve got to be able to take the time to listen to our patients during these encounters. We may not spend as much time as we should because we’re so busy now and we’re slaves to EMRs. It helps if we take more time to probe symptoms a little longer, especially in the primary care setting.

It is possible for a patient with cancer to be asymptomatic up until the later stages of the disease. A study published in ESMO Open in 2020 found that fewer than half of patients with stage 4 non–small cell lung cancer have only one or two symptoms at diagnosis regardless of whether the patient was a smoker. In this study only 33% of patients reported having a cough and 25% had chest pain.

A study presented in October at the United European Gastroenterology Week found that of 600 pancreatic cancer cases, 46 of these were not detected by CT or MRI conducted 3-18 months prior to diagnosis. Of the 46 cases, 26% were not picked up by the radiologist and the rest were largely as a result of imaging changes over time. Radiology techniques are good, but they cannot pick up lesions that are too small. And some lesions, particularly in pancreatic cancer, can grow and metastasize rather quickly.

When a patient is diagnosed with advanced disease, it is most often simply because of the nature of the disease. But sometimes patients put off scheduling a doctor visit because of fear of the potential for bad news or fear of the doctor belittling their symptoms. Some tell me they were “just hoping the symptoms would disappear.” Waiting too long to see a doctor is never a good idea because timing is crucial. In many cases, there is a small window of opportunity to treat disease if remission is to be achieved.


Dr. Henry is a practicing clinical oncologist with PennMedicine in Philadelphia where he also serves as Vice Chair of the Department of Medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital.
 

This article was updated 12/7/22.

It had only been 3 weeks since I first met this patient. She presented with an advanced case of colon cancer, but instead of treatment, we had to have a serious talk about death and dying and the goals of care. She died soon after our talk.

Within the course of 2 weeks I saw another new patient, but this time with pancreatic cancer that metastasized to the liver. “When can we start treatment?” he asked. Like my female patient with colon cancer, he was diagnosed too late as he was already in an incurable stage. He was shocked to learn that his condition was in stage 4, that achieving remission would be difficult and a cure, not likely. Certainly, standard of care treatments and clinical trials offered him hope, but they were unlikely to change the outcome.

We take a course in this – that is, in giving bad news, but every doctor has his or her own approach. Some are so uncomfortable with the talk, they choose avoidance and adopt the “look like you gotta go approach.” Or, the doctor may schedule another treatment or another test with the intention of avoiding end-of-life discussions. Other doctors opt for straight talk: “I think you should get your affairs in order. You’ve got 3 months to live.” These are extreme behaviors I wouldn’t recommend.

In my practice, I sit with my patients and explain the diagnosis. After discussing all options and the advanced stage and diagnosis, it ultimately comes down to “Win or lose, I will be here to take care of you.” Sometimes there is therapy that may help, but either way, the patient understands that death is a real possibility.

I find that people just want to know if there is hope. A different treatment regimen or a clinical trial may (or may not) extend their life. And while we cannot predict outcomes, we can give them hope. You can’t shut down hope. True for some people the cup is always half empty, but most people want to live and are optimistic no matter how small the chances are.

These conversations are very difficult. I don’t like them, but then I don’t avoid them either. Fortunately, patients don’t usually come to my office for the first visit presenting with advanced disease. In the cases I described above, one patient had been experiencing unexplained weight loss, but didn’t share it with a physician. And, for the patient with pancreatic cancer, other than some discomfort in the last couple of weeks, the disease was not associated with other symptoms. But the absence of symptoms should not in any way rule out a malignant disease. A diagnosis should be based on a complete evaluation of signs and symptoms followed by testing.

We’ve got to be able to take the time to listen to our patients during these encounters. We may not spend as much time as we should because we’re so busy now and we’re slaves to EMRs. It helps if we take more time to probe symptoms a little longer, especially in the primary care setting.

It is possible for a patient with cancer to be asymptomatic up until the later stages of the disease. A study published in ESMO Open in 2020 found that fewer than half of patients with stage 4 non–small cell lung cancer have only one or two symptoms at diagnosis regardless of whether the patient was a smoker. In this study only 33% of patients reported having a cough and 25% had chest pain.

A study presented in October at the United European Gastroenterology Week found that of 600 pancreatic cancer cases, 46 of these were not detected by CT or MRI conducted 3-18 months prior to diagnosis. Of the 46 cases, 26% were not picked up by the radiologist and the rest were largely as a result of imaging changes over time. Radiology techniques are good, but they cannot pick up lesions that are too small. And some lesions, particularly in pancreatic cancer, can grow and metastasize rather quickly.

When a patient is diagnosed with advanced disease, it is most often simply because of the nature of the disease. But sometimes patients put off scheduling a doctor visit because of fear of the potential for bad news or fear of the doctor belittling their symptoms. Some tell me they were “just hoping the symptoms would disappear.” Waiting too long to see a doctor is never a good idea because timing is crucial. In many cases, there is a small window of opportunity to treat disease if remission is to be achieved.


Dr. Henry is a practicing clinical oncologist with PennMedicine in Philadelphia where he also serves as Vice Chair of the Department of Medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital.
 

This article was updated 12/7/22.

It had only been 3 weeks since I first met this patient. She presented with an advanced case of colon cancer, but instead of treatment, we had to have a serious talk about death and dying and the goals of care. She died soon after our talk.

Within the course of 2 weeks I saw another new patient, but this time with pancreatic cancer that metastasized to the liver. “When can we start treatment?” he asked. Like my female patient with colon cancer, he was diagnosed too late as he was already in an incurable stage. He was shocked to learn that his condition was in stage 4, that achieving remission would be difficult and a cure, not likely. Certainly, standard of care treatments and clinical trials offered him hope, but they were unlikely to change the outcome.

We take a course in this – that is, in giving bad news, but every doctor has his or her own approach. Some are so uncomfortable with the talk, they choose avoidance and adopt the “look like you gotta go approach.” Or, the doctor may schedule another treatment or another test with the intention of avoiding end-of-life discussions. Other doctors opt for straight talk: “I think you should get your affairs in order. You’ve got 3 months to live.” These are extreme behaviors I wouldn’t recommend.

In my practice, I sit with my patients and explain the diagnosis. After discussing all options and the advanced stage and diagnosis, it ultimately comes down to “Win or lose, I will be here to take care of you.” Sometimes there is therapy that may help, but either way, the patient understands that death is a real possibility.

I find that people just want to know if there is hope. A different treatment regimen or a clinical trial may (or may not) extend their life. And while we cannot predict outcomes, we can give them hope. You can’t shut down hope. True for some people the cup is always half empty, but most people want to live and are optimistic no matter how small the chances are.

These conversations are very difficult. I don’t like them, but then I don’t avoid them either. Fortunately, patients don’t usually come to my office for the first visit presenting with advanced disease. In the cases I described above, one patient had been experiencing unexplained weight loss, but didn’t share it with a physician. And, for the patient with pancreatic cancer, other than some discomfort in the last couple of weeks, the disease was not associated with other symptoms. But the absence of symptoms should not in any way rule out a malignant disease. A diagnosis should be based on a complete evaluation of signs and symptoms followed by testing.

We’ve got to be able to take the time to listen to our patients during these encounters. We may not spend as much time as we should because we’re so busy now and we’re slaves to EMRs. It helps if we take more time to probe symptoms a little longer, especially in the primary care setting.

It is possible for a patient with cancer to be asymptomatic up until the later stages of the disease. A study published in ESMO Open in 2020 found that fewer than half of patients with stage 4 non–small cell lung cancer have only one or two symptoms at diagnosis regardless of whether the patient was a smoker. In this study only 33% of patients reported having a cough and 25% had chest pain.

A study presented in October at the United European Gastroenterology Week found that of 600 pancreatic cancer cases, 46 of these were not detected by CT or MRI conducted 3-18 months prior to diagnosis. Of the 46 cases, 26% were not picked up by the radiologist and the rest were largely as a result of imaging changes over time. Radiology techniques are good, but they cannot pick up lesions that are too small. And some lesions, particularly in pancreatic cancer, can grow and metastasize rather quickly.

When a patient is diagnosed with advanced disease, it is most often simply because of the nature of the disease. But sometimes patients put off scheduling a doctor visit because of fear of the potential for bad news or fear of the doctor belittling their symptoms. Some tell me they were “just hoping the symptoms would disappear.” Waiting too long to see a doctor is never a good idea because timing is crucial. In many cases, there is a small window of opportunity to treat disease if remission is to be achieved.


Dr. Henry is a practicing clinical oncologist with PennMedicine in Philadelphia where he also serves as Vice Chair of the Department of Medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital.
 

This article was updated 12/7/22.

Among adults undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery, individuals most prone to preprocedural anxiety were younger, female, and those with a history of anxiety confirmed by a health care provider (HCP), results from a single-center survey demonstrated.

“Higher patient-reported anxiety in hospital settings is significantly linked to lower patient satisfaction with the quality of care and higher patient-reported postoperative pain,” corresponding author Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in Dermatologic Surgery. “Identifying factors associated with perioperative patient anxiety could improve outcomes and patient satisfaction.”

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at the University of Indiana, Indianapolis, and coauthors surveyed 145 patients who underwent Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) at the university from February 2018 to March 2020. They collected patient self-reported demographics, medical history, and administered a 10-point visual analog scale assessment of anxiety at multiple stages. They also sought HCP-perceived assessments of anxiety and used a stepwise regression mode to explore factors that potentially contributed to anxiety outcomes. The mean age of the 145 patients was 63 years, 60% were female, and 77% had no self-reported anxiety confirmed by a prior HCP’s diagnosis.

Two-thirds of patients (66%) received a pre-MMS consultation with the surgeon, 59% had a history of skin cancer removal surgery, and 86% had 1-2 layers removed during the current MMS.

Prior to MMS, the researchers found that significant risk factors for increased anxiety included younger age, female sex, and self-reported history of anxiety confirmed by an HCP (P < .05), while intraoperatively, HCP-perceived patient anxiety increased with younger patient age and more layers removed. Following MMS, patient anxiety increased significantly with more layers removed and higher self-reported preoperative anxiety levels. “Although existing research is divided regarding the efficacy of pre-MMS consultation for anxiety reduction, these findings suggest that patient-reported and HCP-perceived anxiety were not significantly affected by in-person pre-MMS consultation with the surgeon,” Dr. Somani and colleagues wrote. “Thus, routinely recommending consultations may not be the best approach for improving anxiety outcomes.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including its single-center design, enrollment of demographically similar patients, and the fact that no objective measurements of anxiety such as heart rate or blood pressure were taken.

“One of the main benefits of Mohs surgery is that we are able to operate under local anesthesia, but this also means that our patients are acutely aware of everything going on around them,” said Patricia M. Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the study.

“I think it is so important that this study is primarily focusing on the patient experience,” she said. “While this study did not find that a pre-op consult impacted patient anxiety levels, I do think we can infer that it is critical to connect with your patients on some level prior to surgery, as it helps you tailor your process to make the day more tolerable for them [such as] playing music, determining the need for an oral anxiolytic, etc.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having financial disclosures.

Among adults undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery, individuals most prone to preprocedural anxiety were younger, female, and those with a history of anxiety confirmed by a health care provider (HCP), results from a single-center survey demonstrated.

“Higher patient-reported anxiety in hospital settings is significantly linked to lower patient satisfaction with the quality of care and higher patient-reported postoperative pain,” corresponding author Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in Dermatologic Surgery. “Identifying factors associated with perioperative patient anxiety could improve outcomes and patient satisfaction.”

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at the University of Indiana, Indianapolis, and coauthors surveyed 145 patients who underwent Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) at the university from February 2018 to March 2020. They collected patient self-reported demographics, medical history, and administered a 10-point visual analog scale assessment of anxiety at multiple stages. They also sought HCP-perceived assessments of anxiety and used a stepwise regression mode to explore factors that potentially contributed to anxiety outcomes. The mean age of the 145 patients was 63 years, 60% were female, and 77% had no self-reported anxiety confirmed by a prior HCP’s diagnosis.

Two-thirds of patients (66%) received a pre-MMS consultation with the surgeon, 59% had a history of skin cancer removal surgery, and 86% had 1-2 layers removed during the current MMS.

Prior to MMS, the researchers found that significant risk factors for increased anxiety included younger age, female sex, and self-reported history of anxiety confirmed by an HCP (P < .05), while intraoperatively, HCP-perceived patient anxiety increased with younger patient age and more layers removed. Following MMS, patient anxiety increased significantly with more layers removed and higher self-reported preoperative anxiety levels. “Although existing research is divided regarding the efficacy of pre-MMS consultation for anxiety reduction, these findings suggest that patient-reported and HCP-perceived anxiety were not significantly affected by in-person pre-MMS consultation with the surgeon,” Dr. Somani and colleagues wrote. “Thus, routinely recommending consultations may not be the best approach for improving anxiety outcomes.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including its single-center design, enrollment of demographically similar patients, and the fact that no objective measurements of anxiety such as heart rate or blood pressure were taken.

“One of the main benefits of Mohs surgery is that we are able to operate under local anesthesia, but this also means that our patients are acutely aware of everything going on around them,” said Patricia M. Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the study.

“I think it is so important that this study is primarily focusing on the patient experience,” she said. “While this study did not find that a pre-op consult impacted patient anxiety levels, I do think we can infer that it is critical to connect with your patients on some level prior to surgery, as it helps you tailor your process to make the day more tolerable for them [such as] playing music, determining the need for an oral anxiolytic, etc.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having financial disclosures.

Among adults undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery, individuals most prone to preprocedural anxiety were younger, female, and those with a history of anxiety confirmed by a health care provider (HCP), results from a single-center survey demonstrated.

“Higher patient-reported anxiety in hospital settings is significantly linked to lower patient satisfaction with the quality of care and higher patient-reported postoperative pain,” corresponding author Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in Dermatologic Surgery. “Identifying factors associated with perioperative patient anxiety could improve outcomes and patient satisfaction.”

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at the University of Indiana, Indianapolis, and coauthors surveyed 145 patients who underwent Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) at the university from February 2018 to March 2020. They collected patient self-reported demographics, medical history, and administered a 10-point visual analog scale assessment of anxiety at multiple stages. They also sought HCP-perceived assessments of anxiety and used a stepwise regression mode to explore factors that potentially contributed to anxiety outcomes. The mean age of the 145 patients was 63 years, 60% were female, and 77% had no self-reported anxiety confirmed by a prior HCP’s diagnosis.

Two-thirds of patients (66%) received a pre-MMS consultation with the surgeon, 59% had a history of skin cancer removal surgery, and 86% had 1-2 layers removed during the current MMS.

Prior to MMS, the researchers found that significant risk factors for increased anxiety included younger age, female sex, and self-reported history of anxiety confirmed by an HCP (P < .05), while intraoperatively, HCP-perceived patient anxiety increased with younger patient age and more layers removed. Following MMS, patient anxiety increased significantly with more layers removed and higher self-reported preoperative anxiety levels. “Although existing research is divided regarding the efficacy of pre-MMS consultation for anxiety reduction, these findings suggest that patient-reported and HCP-perceived anxiety were not significantly affected by in-person pre-MMS consultation with the surgeon,” Dr. Somani and colleagues wrote. “Thus, routinely recommending consultations may not be the best approach for improving anxiety outcomes.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including its single-center design, enrollment of demographically similar patients, and the fact that no objective measurements of anxiety such as heart rate or blood pressure were taken.

“One of the main benefits of Mohs surgery is that we are able to operate under local anesthesia, but this also means that our patients are acutely aware of everything going on around them,” said Patricia M. Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the study.

“I think it is so important that this study is primarily focusing on the patient experience,” she said. “While this study did not find that a pre-op consult impacted patient anxiety levels, I do think we can infer that it is critical to connect with your patients on some level prior to surgery, as it helps you tailor your process to make the day more tolerable for them [such as] playing music, determining the need for an oral anxiolytic, etc.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having financial disclosures.

Individuals with a primary melanoma may be more likely to develop a second primary melanoma if they have certain characteristics, a new study suggests.

In a cohort study of more than 38,000 patients, those diagnosed with a second primary melanoma were significantly more likely to have a “nevus-prone” phenotype and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma.

Notably, the researchers also found only limited evidence that elevated levels of sun exposure contributed to second melanoma risk.

Overall, the findings suggest that “within the general population, the presence of many nevi and having a high genetic predisposition to melanoma were associated with the highest risks of developing second primary melanoma,” Catherine M. Olsen, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

People with melanoma are believed to be at high risk for developing subsequent tumors, yet most never do. Population-based studies indicate that only about 8%-18% of patients are diagnosed with a second primary melanoma.

Previous studies using modified case-control design have identified several factors associated with developing multiple primary melanomas, including older age, male sex, a family history of melanoma, high nevus counts or presence of atypical nevi, higher ambient UV radiation and personal sun exposure, as well as certain inherited genetic variants.

However, these studies aren’t equipped to assess the magnitude of risk of developing multiple melanomas among those who have not yet had melanoma.

In the current analysis, Dr. Olsen and colleagues set out to understand the level of risk using a prospective cohort study design. The cohort comprised participants in the QSkin Sun and Health Study and included 38,845 patients with a baseline median age of 56 years, followed for a median of 7.4 years. Among these participants, 1,212 (3.1%) had only one primary melanoma diagnosis, and 245 (0.6%) had two or more primary melanomas. Of those with more primary melanomas, 59 had synchronous primary melanoma, meaning first and second primary melanomas were diagnosed on the same day.

The investigators compared the clinical characteristics of patients with first and second melanomas, looking at demographic, phenotypic, sun exposure, and genetic factors. The team found that the median time between first and second melanoma, excluding cases of synchronous primary melanoma, was 18.4 months.

Those who developed second melanomas were older at baseline than those who developed only one (59.3 years vs. 58.2 years, respectively; P < .001), and were more likely to have a sun-sensitive phenotype, a self-reported history of excisions for nonmelanoma skin cancers, and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma. Among people who developed second primary melanomas, the second melanomas were more likely to be in situ and of the lentigo maligna subtype.

Notably, factors including age, sex, sunburn tendency, and family history of melanoma had similarly elevated effect sizes among those diagnosed with first and second melanomas. The authors also found similar associations with baseline measures for personal sun exposure – including sunburns and cumulative sun exposure; however, the number of past skin cancer excisions was more strongly associated with second primaries (P = .05).

The team did identify two factors associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary melanoma. A nevus phenotype was more strongly associated with developing a second primary melanoma (hazard ratio, 6.36) than the initial one (HR, 3.46). And second primary melanomas had stronger associations with high melanoma polygenic risk scores than first primary melanomas (HR, 3.28 vs HR, 2.06; P = .03).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the generalizability of the findings outside of Australia and the relatively small number of people with second primary melanomas.

Still, the investigators note that the data “offer unique insights that differ from earlier efforts.” Namely, the “findings showed that many of the classic phenotypic risk factors for melanoma were similarly associated with risk of first and second melanomas; however, high numbers of nevi and high genetic predisposition were more strongly associated with second [rather] than first primary melanomas.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Olsen reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Rachel Neale, PhD, reported grants from Viatris and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia outside the submitted work. Coauthor David Whiteman, MBBS, PhD, reported personal fees from Pierre Fabre (speaker fees for conference presentation) outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Individuals with a primary melanoma may be more likely to develop a second primary melanoma if they have certain characteristics, a new study suggests.

In a cohort study of more than 38,000 patients, those diagnosed with a second primary melanoma were significantly more likely to have a “nevus-prone” phenotype and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma.

Notably, the researchers also found only limited evidence that elevated levels of sun exposure contributed to second melanoma risk.

Overall, the findings suggest that “within the general population, the presence of many nevi and having a high genetic predisposition to melanoma were associated with the highest risks of developing second primary melanoma,” Catherine M. Olsen, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

People with melanoma are believed to be at high risk for developing subsequent tumors, yet most never do. Population-based studies indicate that only about 8%-18% of patients are diagnosed with a second primary melanoma.

Previous studies using modified case-control design have identified several factors associated with developing multiple primary melanomas, including older age, male sex, a family history of melanoma, high nevus counts or presence of atypical nevi, higher ambient UV radiation and personal sun exposure, as well as certain inherited genetic variants.

However, these studies aren’t equipped to assess the magnitude of risk of developing multiple melanomas among those who have not yet had melanoma.

In the current analysis, Dr. Olsen and colleagues set out to understand the level of risk using a prospective cohort study design. The cohort comprised participants in the QSkin Sun and Health Study and included 38,845 patients with a baseline median age of 56 years, followed for a median of 7.4 years. Among these participants, 1,212 (3.1%) had only one primary melanoma diagnosis, and 245 (0.6%) had two or more primary melanomas. Of those with more primary melanomas, 59 had synchronous primary melanoma, meaning first and second primary melanomas were diagnosed on the same day.

The investigators compared the clinical characteristics of patients with first and second melanomas, looking at demographic, phenotypic, sun exposure, and genetic factors. The team found that the median time between first and second melanoma, excluding cases of synchronous primary melanoma, was 18.4 months.

Those who developed second melanomas were older at baseline than those who developed only one (59.3 years vs. 58.2 years, respectively; P < .001), and were more likely to have a sun-sensitive phenotype, a self-reported history of excisions for nonmelanoma skin cancers, and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma. Among people who developed second primary melanomas, the second melanomas were more likely to be in situ and of the lentigo maligna subtype.

Notably, factors including age, sex, sunburn tendency, and family history of melanoma had similarly elevated effect sizes among those diagnosed with first and second melanomas. The authors also found similar associations with baseline measures for personal sun exposure – including sunburns and cumulative sun exposure; however, the number of past skin cancer excisions was more strongly associated with second primaries (P = .05).

The team did identify two factors associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary melanoma. A nevus phenotype was more strongly associated with developing a second primary melanoma (hazard ratio, 6.36) than the initial one (HR, 3.46). And second primary melanomas had stronger associations with high melanoma polygenic risk scores than first primary melanomas (HR, 3.28 vs HR, 2.06; P = .03).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the generalizability of the findings outside of Australia and the relatively small number of people with second primary melanomas.

Still, the investigators note that the data “offer unique insights that differ from earlier efforts.” Namely, the “findings showed that many of the classic phenotypic risk factors for melanoma were similarly associated with risk of first and second melanomas; however, high numbers of nevi and high genetic predisposition were more strongly associated with second [rather] than first primary melanomas.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Olsen reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Rachel Neale, PhD, reported grants from Viatris and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia outside the submitted work. Coauthor David Whiteman, MBBS, PhD, reported personal fees from Pierre Fabre (speaker fees for conference presentation) outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Individuals with a primary melanoma may be more likely to develop a second primary melanoma if they have certain characteristics, a new study suggests.

In a cohort study of more than 38,000 patients, those diagnosed with a second primary melanoma were significantly more likely to have a “nevus-prone” phenotype and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma.

Notably, the researchers also found only limited evidence that elevated levels of sun exposure contributed to second melanoma risk.

Overall, the findings suggest that “within the general population, the presence of many nevi and having a high genetic predisposition to melanoma were associated with the highest risks of developing second primary melanoma,” Catherine M. Olsen, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

People with melanoma are believed to be at high risk for developing subsequent tumors, yet most never do. Population-based studies indicate that only about 8%-18% of patients are diagnosed with a second primary melanoma.

Previous studies using modified case-control design have identified several factors associated with developing multiple primary melanomas, including older age, male sex, a family history of melanoma, high nevus counts or presence of atypical nevi, higher ambient UV radiation and personal sun exposure, as well as certain inherited genetic variants.

However, these studies aren’t equipped to assess the magnitude of risk of developing multiple melanomas among those who have not yet had melanoma.

In the current analysis, Dr. Olsen and colleagues set out to understand the level of risk using a prospective cohort study design. The cohort comprised participants in the QSkin Sun and Health Study and included 38,845 patients with a baseline median age of 56 years, followed for a median of 7.4 years. Among these participants, 1,212 (3.1%) had only one primary melanoma diagnosis, and 245 (0.6%) had two or more primary melanomas. Of those with more primary melanomas, 59 had synchronous primary melanoma, meaning first and second primary melanomas were diagnosed on the same day.

The investigators compared the clinical characteristics of patients with first and second melanomas, looking at demographic, phenotypic, sun exposure, and genetic factors. The team found that the median time between first and second melanoma, excluding cases of synchronous primary melanoma, was 18.4 months.

Those who developed second melanomas were older at baseline than those who developed only one (59.3 years vs. 58.2 years, respectively; P < .001), and were more likely to have a sun-sensitive phenotype, a self-reported history of excisions for nonmelanoma skin cancers, and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma. Among people who developed second primary melanomas, the second melanomas were more likely to be in situ and of the lentigo maligna subtype.

Notably, factors including age, sex, sunburn tendency, and family history of melanoma had similarly elevated effect sizes among those diagnosed with first and second melanomas. The authors also found similar associations with baseline measures for personal sun exposure – including sunburns and cumulative sun exposure; however, the number of past skin cancer excisions was more strongly associated with second primaries (P = .05).

The team did identify two factors associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary melanoma. A nevus phenotype was more strongly associated with developing a second primary melanoma (hazard ratio, 6.36) than the initial one (HR, 3.46). And second primary melanomas had stronger associations with high melanoma polygenic risk scores than first primary melanomas (HR, 3.28 vs HR, 2.06; P = .03).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the generalizability of the findings outside of Australia and the relatively small number of people with second primary melanomas.

Still, the investigators note that the data “offer unique insights that differ from earlier efforts.” Namely, the “findings showed that many of the classic phenotypic risk factors for melanoma were similarly associated with risk of first and second melanomas; however, high numbers of nevi and high genetic predisposition were more strongly associated with second [rather] than first primary melanomas.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Olsen reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Rachel Neale, PhD, reported grants from Viatris and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia outside the submitted work. Coauthor David Whiteman, MBBS, PhD, reported personal fees from Pierre Fabre (speaker fees for conference presentation) outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.

The combination of nivolumab and vidutolimod led to a high rate of pathologic complete response and pathologic major response in a phase 2 trial of patients with stage 3 resectable melanoma. The result led researchers to call for a future study comparing the regimen against a suitable control group.

“We were very excited to see the ability of intratumoral vidutolimod to augment T-cell infiltrate. (Pathologic) response was associated with a dense infiltrate of CD8 T cells. We were also able to demonstrate for what I think may be the first time, that intratumoral CpG resulted in clear evidence of CD303+ plasmacytoid dendritic cells [pDCs],” said Diwakar Davar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. He noted that pDCs represent a very rare cell population, less than 0.4% of circulating peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and tend to be found in lymph nodes.

The current standard of care for stage 3 melanoma is up-front surgery followed by adjuvant therapy – anti–PD-1 therapy for patients with wild-type or BRAF-mutant cancers, and targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors in patients with BRAF mutations. However, preclinical studies suggest that neoadjuvant immunotherapy could lead to a stronger antitumor T-cell response than adjuvant immunotherapy.

Vidutolimod targets the toll-like receptor 9 (TLR-9) endosomal receptor found in B cells and pDC cells. The formulation is a virus-like particle (VLP) that contains unmethylated cytosine guanine–rich oligonucleotides (CpG ODN). Bacterial and viral genomes tend to be enriched in CpG ODN, and this acts as a TLR-9 agonist. TLR-9 activation in turn triggers an interferon response, and this may help overcome PD-1 blockade resistance in metastatic melanoma.

The researchers conducted a nonrandomized, open-label trial that included 30 patients with stage 3 melanoma (14 women; median age, 61 years). Patients received neoadjuvant nivolumab and vidutolimod for 8 weeks, then were evaluated for surgery. Patients continued both drugs in the adjuvant setting for 48 weeks. 47% experienced complete pathologic response, 10% a major pathologic response, and 10% a partial pathologic response.

Analysis of resected samples revealed clear evidence of an immune response, Dr. Davar said during a press conference held in advance of the meeting. “Pathologic response was associated with compelling evidence of immune activation both peripherally and within the tumor, with clear evidence of pDC infiltrate and pDC activation – something that has not previously been seen in human specimens.”

The study regimen appeared safe, with no dose-limiting toxicities or grade 4 or 5 adverse events. He noted that the regimen is now being tested in the phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN trial.

The results are “very exciting,” said Pamela Ohashi, PhD, who commented on the study during the press conference. The virus-like nature of vidutolimod may be an important element of the therapy. “I think scientifically we would have predicted that the VLP carrying the CPG would be very good at activating the CD8 cells, which in fact is what you’re seeing. So I think it’s very exciting and has lots of potential for future combinations,” said Dr. Ohashi, who is director of the tumor immunotherapy program at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto.

The study was funded by Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Davar has financial relationships with Checkmate Pharmaceuticals and Regeneron, which has acquired Checkmate Pharmaceuticals.

The combination of nivolumab and vidutolimod led to a high rate of pathologic complete response and pathologic major response in a phase 2 trial of patients with stage 3 resectable melanoma. The result led researchers to call for a future study comparing the regimen against a suitable control group.

“We were very excited to see the ability of intratumoral vidutolimod to augment T-cell infiltrate. (Pathologic) response was associated with a dense infiltrate of CD8 T cells. We were also able to demonstrate for what I think may be the first time, that intratumoral CpG resulted in clear evidence of CD303+ plasmacytoid dendritic cells [pDCs],” said Diwakar Davar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. He noted that pDCs represent a very rare cell population, less than 0.4% of circulating peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and tend to be found in lymph nodes.

The current standard of care for stage 3 melanoma is up-front surgery followed by adjuvant therapy – anti–PD-1 therapy for patients with wild-type or BRAF-mutant cancers, and targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors in patients with BRAF mutations. However, preclinical studies suggest that neoadjuvant immunotherapy could lead to a stronger antitumor T-cell response than adjuvant immunotherapy.

Vidutolimod targets the toll-like receptor 9 (TLR-9) endosomal receptor found in B cells and pDC cells. The formulation is a virus-like particle (VLP) that contains unmethylated cytosine guanine–rich oligonucleotides (CpG ODN). Bacterial and viral genomes tend to be enriched in CpG ODN, and this acts as a TLR-9 agonist. TLR-9 activation in turn triggers an interferon response, and this may help overcome PD-1 blockade resistance in metastatic melanoma.

The researchers conducted a nonrandomized, open-label trial that included 30 patients with stage 3 melanoma (14 women; median age, 61 years). Patients received neoadjuvant nivolumab and vidutolimod for 8 weeks, then were evaluated for surgery. Patients continued both drugs in the adjuvant setting for 48 weeks. 47% experienced complete pathologic response, 10% a major pathologic response, and 10% a partial pathologic response.

Analysis of resected samples revealed clear evidence of an immune response, Dr. Davar said during a press conference held in advance of the meeting. “Pathologic response was associated with compelling evidence of immune activation both peripherally and within the tumor, with clear evidence of pDC infiltrate and pDC activation – something that has not previously been seen in human specimens.”

The study regimen appeared safe, with no dose-limiting toxicities or grade 4 or 5 adverse events. He noted that the regimen is now being tested in the phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN trial.

The results are “very exciting,” said Pamela Ohashi, PhD, who commented on the study during the press conference. The virus-like nature of vidutolimod may be an important element of the therapy. “I think scientifically we would have predicted that the VLP carrying the CPG would be very good at activating the CD8 cells, which in fact is what you’re seeing. So I think it’s very exciting and has lots of potential for future combinations,” said Dr. Ohashi, who is director of the tumor immunotherapy program at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto.

The study was funded by Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Davar has financial relationships with Checkmate Pharmaceuticals and Regeneron, which has acquired Checkmate Pharmaceuticals.

The combination of nivolumab and vidutolimod led to a high rate of pathologic complete response and pathologic major response in a phase 2 trial of patients with stage 3 resectable melanoma. The result led researchers to call for a future study comparing the regimen against a suitable control group.

“We were very excited to see the ability of intratumoral vidutolimod to augment T-cell infiltrate. (Pathologic) response was associated with a dense infiltrate of CD8 T cells. We were also able to demonstrate for what I think may be the first time, that intratumoral CpG resulted in clear evidence of CD303+ plasmacytoid dendritic cells [pDCs],” said Diwakar Davar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. He noted that pDCs represent a very rare cell population, less than 0.4% of circulating peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and tend to be found in lymph nodes.

The current standard of care for stage 3 melanoma is up-front surgery followed by adjuvant therapy – anti–PD-1 therapy for patients with wild-type or BRAF-mutant cancers, and targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors in patients with BRAF mutations. However, preclinical studies suggest that neoadjuvant immunotherapy could lead to a stronger antitumor T-cell response than adjuvant immunotherapy.

Vidutolimod targets the toll-like receptor 9 (TLR-9) endosomal receptor found in B cells and pDC cells. The formulation is a virus-like particle (VLP) that contains unmethylated cytosine guanine–rich oligonucleotides (CpG ODN). Bacterial and viral genomes tend to be enriched in CpG ODN, and this acts as a TLR-9 agonist. TLR-9 activation in turn triggers an interferon response, and this may help overcome PD-1 blockade resistance in metastatic melanoma.

The researchers conducted a nonrandomized, open-label trial that included 30 patients with stage 3 melanoma (14 women; median age, 61 years). Patients received neoadjuvant nivolumab and vidutolimod for 8 weeks, then were evaluated for surgery. Patients continued both drugs in the adjuvant setting for 48 weeks. 47% experienced complete pathologic response, 10% a major pathologic response, and 10% a partial pathologic response.

Analysis of resected samples revealed clear evidence of an immune response, Dr. Davar said during a press conference held in advance of the meeting. “Pathologic response was associated with compelling evidence of immune activation both peripherally and within the tumor, with clear evidence of pDC infiltrate and pDC activation – something that has not previously been seen in human specimens.”

The study regimen appeared safe, with no dose-limiting toxicities or grade 4 or 5 adverse events. He noted that the regimen is now being tested in the phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN trial.

The results are “very exciting,” said Pamela Ohashi, PhD, who commented on the study during the press conference. The virus-like nature of vidutolimod may be an important element of the therapy. “I think scientifically we would have predicted that the VLP carrying the CPG would be very good at activating the CD8 cells, which in fact is what you’re seeing. So I think it’s very exciting and has lots of potential for future combinations,” said Dr. Ohashi, who is director of the tumor immunotherapy program at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto.

The study was funded by Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Davar has financial relationships with Checkmate Pharmaceuticals and Regeneron, which has acquired Checkmate Pharmaceuticals.

In advanced and metastatic melanoma patients, fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) from healthy donors in advance of anti–PD-1 immunotherapy led to a 75% clinical benefit rate, defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted 6 months or longer. The results come from a small, single arm phase 1 study whose primary endpoint was safety.

“We know that the gut microbiome has shown the ability to affect the systemic antitumor immunity by affecting the CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cells, and these are the cells that are ultimately important for the function of checkpoint inhibitors. There is now clinical evidence that has shown that changing patient microbiota via fecal microbiota transplantation using stool from previous responder patients has the capacity to sensitize immunotherapy refractory melanomas to anti–PD-1 therapy, (with) about 30% response in this setting,” said Saman Maleki, PhD, during his presentation of the results at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. He also noted that broad-spectrum antibiotics have been shown to negatively influence responses to immunotherapy.

Rather than using stool from donors who responded to immunotherapy, the researchers chose instead to use stool from healthy donors.

The study included 20 patients with advanced melanoma who had not been treated with anti–PD-1 therapy. The median age was 75.5 years, 40% were female, and 75% had wild type BRAF. All patients underwent bowel prep and then received fecal transplants from healthy donors, followed by a 7-day engraftment period before initiating anti–PD-1 therapy in the form of nivolumab or pembrolizumab.

The primary endpoint of the study was safety, and no grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed during the FMT, and safety signals associated with anti–PD-1 therapies were in line with previous experience.

Fifteen percent of patients had a complete response, 50% had a partial response, 15% had stable disease, and 20% had progressive disease. Seventy-five percent of patients had a complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted at least 6 months.

Analysis of the microbiomes showed much higher diversity in the donor microbiomes than in patients. “What was really interesting was that the success of engraftment and retention of the donor microbiome was really key in determining between responders and nonresponders. Responders had successful engraftment that lasted over time, and in nonresponders we did not see that,” said Dr. Maleki, who is a cancer immunology researcher at the University of Western Ontario, London.

They also saw differences between responders and nonresponders in how their microbiome evolved over time. Responders had enrichment in Ruminococcus callidus and other bacteria, while nonresponders had enrichment in different bacteria, among them Catabacter hongkongensis, which has previously been implicated as negatively impacting anti–PD-1 responses, according to Dr. Maleki.

Microbiomes from healthy donors had greater diversity than the patients. Following FMT, patients’ microbiomes increased regardless of clinical response to immunotherapy. However, the tendency for patients to trend toward and retain greater diversity over time was associated with treatment success. “What we saw that was key in patients’ response to immunotherapy was the ability of the patients to retain the donor microbiome. All patients’ microbiomes changed and shifted toward the donors’ post FMT. However, only the responders were able to keep the donor microbiome over time, and the nonresponders’ microbiomes reverted to the previous microbiome,” Dr. Maleki said.

The researchers also conducted a mouse version of the clinical trial. They transplanted mice with the baseline fecal samples of a human responder and then exposed the animals to tumors. They then conducted a second FMT with stool from the human donor, and the animals then responded to anti–PD-1 therapy. The results further confirm “that the donor still has the capacity to drive response in this setting,” Dr. Maleki said.

Dr. Maleki is a board member of IMV Inc.

In advanced and metastatic melanoma patients, fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) from healthy donors in advance of anti–PD-1 immunotherapy led to a 75% clinical benefit rate, defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted 6 months or longer. The results come from a small, single arm phase 1 study whose primary endpoint was safety.

“We know that the gut microbiome has shown the ability to affect the systemic antitumor immunity by affecting the CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cells, and these are the cells that are ultimately important for the function of checkpoint inhibitors. There is now clinical evidence that has shown that changing patient microbiota via fecal microbiota transplantation using stool from previous responder patients has the capacity to sensitize immunotherapy refractory melanomas to anti–PD-1 therapy, (with) about 30% response in this setting,” said Saman Maleki, PhD, during his presentation of the results at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. He also noted that broad-spectrum antibiotics have been shown to negatively influence responses to immunotherapy.

Rather than using stool from donors who responded to immunotherapy, the researchers chose instead to use stool from healthy donors.

The study included 20 patients with advanced melanoma who had not been treated with anti–PD-1 therapy. The median age was 75.5 years, 40% were female, and 75% had wild type BRAF. All patients underwent bowel prep and then received fecal transplants from healthy donors, followed by a 7-day engraftment period before initiating anti–PD-1 therapy in the form of nivolumab or pembrolizumab.

The primary endpoint of the study was safety, and no grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed during the FMT, and safety signals associated with anti–PD-1 therapies were in line with previous experience.

Fifteen percent of patients had a complete response, 50% had a partial response, 15% had stable disease, and 20% had progressive disease. Seventy-five percent of patients had a complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted at least 6 months.

Analysis of the microbiomes showed much higher diversity in the donor microbiomes than in patients. “What was really interesting was that the success of engraftment and retention of the donor microbiome was really key in determining between responders and nonresponders. Responders had successful engraftment that lasted over time, and in nonresponders we did not see that,” said Dr. Maleki, who is a cancer immunology researcher at the University of Western Ontario, London.

They also saw differences between responders and nonresponders in how their microbiome evolved over time. Responders had enrichment in Ruminococcus callidus and other bacteria, while nonresponders had enrichment in different bacteria, among them Catabacter hongkongensis, which has previously been implicated as negatively impacting anti–PD-1 responses, according to Dr. Maleki.

Microbiomes from healthy donors had greater diversity than the patients. Following FMT, patients’ microbiomes increased regardless of clinical response to immunotherapy. However, the tendency for patients to trend toward and retain greater diversity over time was associated with treatment success. “What we saw that was key in patients’ response to immunotherapy was the ability of the patients to retain the donor microbiome. All patients’ microbiomes changed and shifted toward the donors’ post FMT. However, only the responders were able to keep the donor microbiome over time, and the nonresponders’ microbiomes reverted to the previous microbiome,” Dr. Maleki said.

The researchers also conducted a mouse version of the clinical trial. They transplanted mice with the baseline fecal samples of a human responder and then exposed the animals to tumors. They then conducted a second FMT with stool from the human donor, and the animals then responded to anti–PD-1 therapy. The results further confirm “that the donor still has the capacity to drive response in this setting,” Dr. Maleki said.

Dr. Maleki is a board member of IMV Inc.

In advanced and metastatic melanoma patients, fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) from healthy donors in advance of anti–PD-1 immunotherapy led to a 75% clinical benefit rate, defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted 6 months or longer. The results come from a small, single arm phase 1 study whose primary endpoint was safety.

“We know that the gut microbiome has shown the ability to affect the systemic antitumor immunity by affecting the CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cells, and these are the cells that are ultimately important for the function of checkpoint inhibitors. There is now clinical evidence that has shown that changing patient microbiota via fecal microbiota transplantation using stool from previous responder patients has the capacity to sensitize immunotherapy refractory melanomas to anti–PD-1 therapy, (with) about 30% response in this setting,” said Saman Maleki, PhD, during his presentation of the results at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. He also noted that broad-spectrum antibiotics have been shown to negatively influence responses to immunotherapy.

Rather than using stool from donors who responded to immunotherapy, the researchers chose instead to use stool from healthy donors.

The study included 20 patients with advanced melanoma who had not been treated with anti–PD-1 therapy. The median age was 75.5 years, 40% were female, and 75% had wild type BRAF. All patients underwent bowel prep and then received fecal transplants from healthy donors, followed by a 7-day engraftment period before initiating anti–PD-1 therapy in the form of nivolumab or pembrolizumab.

The primary endpoint of the study was safety, and no grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed during the FMT, and safety signals associated with anti–PD-1 therapies were in line with previous experience.

Fifteen percent of patients had a complete response, 50% had a partial response, 15% had stable disease, and 20% had progressive disease. Seventy-five percent of patients had a complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted at least 6 months.

Analysis of the microbiomes showed much higher diversity in the donor microbiomes than in patients. “What was really interesting was that the success of engraftment and retention of the donor microbiome was really key in determining between responders and nonresponders. Responders had successful engraftment that lasted over time, and in nonresponders we did not see that,” said Dr. Maleki, who is a cancer immunology researcher at the University of Western Ontario, London.

They also saw differences between responders and nonresponders in how their microbiome evolved over time. Responders had enrichment in Ruminococcus callidus and other bacteria, while nonresponders had enrichment in different bacteria, among them Catabacter hongkongensis, which has previously been implicated as negatively impacting anti–PD-1 responses, according to Dr. Maleki.

Microbiomes from healthy donors had greater diversity than the patients. Following FMT, patients’ microbiomes increased regardless of clinical response to immunotherapy. However, the tendency for patients to trend toward and retain greater diversity over time was associated with treatment success. “What we saw that was key in patients’ response to immunotherapy was the ability of the patients to retain the donor microbiome. All patients’ microbiomes changed and shifted toward the donors’ post FMT. However, only the responders were able to keep the donor microbiome over time, and the nonresponders’ microbiomes reverted to the previous microbiome,” Dr. Maleki said.

The researchers also conducted a mouse version of the clinical trial. They transplanted mice with the baseline fecal samples of a human responder and then exposed the animals to tumors. They then conducted a second FMT with stool from the human donor, and the animals then responded to anti–PD-1 therapy. The results further confirm “that the donor still has the capacity to drive response in this setting,” Dr. Maleki said.

Dr. Maleki is a board member of IMV Inc.

LAS VEGAS – Disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of skin of color can stem from incorrect diagnoses and lack of knowledge on the part of clinicians, and also from knowledge gaps on the part of other health care providers and patients, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Additionally, some disparities occur because of gaps in access to health care, said Dr. Taylor, vice chair, diversity, equity and inclusion, in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who moderated an expert panel discussion of treatment tips for several common dermatologic conditions in skin of color patients.

Atopic dermatitis angles

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the fourth most common dermatologic complaint in Black patients, based on data from the United States National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Also, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey show that Black children are nearly twice as likely as White children to develop AD after controlling for socioeconomic factors, Dr. Taylor said.

When Black patients present with AD, “you may not see the erythema,” said Valerie D. Callender, MD, of Howard University, Washington, who presented on AD. Instead, “you may see more follicular and papular presentations.” Erythema and erythroderma can present as shades of violet, gray, or dark brown in patients with rich skin tones, added Dr. Callender, who practices in Glenn Dale, Md.

Consequently, disease severity can be misinterpreted, she said, noting that data suggest that scoring systems such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index and Scoring Atopic Dermatitis underestimate AD severity in dark skin.

As for treatment, skin of color patients with AD are often as bothered by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) as by active lesions, so treatment should take these concerns into account, Dr. Callender said. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of AD treatments in diverse populations are limited by lack of representation of racial groups in clinical trials and lack of subset analyses by race.
 

Acne awareness

An important consideration of acne in skin of color patients is that the acne “might not be red, it might just be darker,” said Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology, and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. A study published in JAMA Dermatology of nearly 30,000 patients with acne from 2007 to 2017 found that non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely than non-Hispanic White patients to see a dermatologist for acne, but Black patients received fewer prescriptions for acne medications than White patients.

The study also showed that Black patients who received prescriptions for acne were more likely to receive topical retinoids and topical antibiotics, and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, spironolactone, or isotretinoin, compared with White patients. Similarly, Asian patients were more likely to receive topical antibiotics and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, compared with White patients.

Other panelists shared some of their best practices for acne in patients with skin of color, including treatment with topical retinoids (for inflammation) and spironolactone, and therapies that address both inflammation and pigmentation, such as salicylic acid and azelaic acid. Dr. Callender also advised asking patients about makeup, as they may not know that many types of makeup used to cover acne are in fact comedogenic.
 

Melanoma misconceptions

One of the most common misperceptions about melanoma among skin of color patients is that they don’t think they can get it, Dr. Taylor said. Many health care providers don’t think about melanoma in skin of color patients because of the dramatically lower incidence in this population, but as a result, cases may go undiagnosed, and as studies have shown, the mortality rate from melanoma is higher in Black patients.

Consider the palms, soles, nails, and web spaces as possible melanoma sites, Dr. Taylor added.

Educating skin of color patients about melanoma is important, although the incidence is 20 to 30 times lower than in non-Hispanic Whites, said Nada Elbuluk, MD, the founder and director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Clinic, Los Angeles. A 2020 editorial published in Cancer Cytopathology pointed out that 1 in 3 Black men or women with a melanoma diagnosis in the United States dies of the disease, compared with 1 in 7 non-Hispanic White men and 1 in 11 non-Hispanic White women with melanoma.

Don’t skip the total body skin exam in these patients, Dr. Elbuluk emphasized. Many patients will only partially undress, and areas such as toes can be missed.
 

Rosacea review

For patients with skin of color, clinicians need to look for different signs of rosacea than those typically seen in White patients, Dr. Elbuluk said. “The most common presentation of rosacea in skin of color is papulopustular,” and the granulomatous variant.

“These patients will often give you a history of sensitivity to products,” Dr. Elbuluk noted. They may not always have the flushing, but they may report warmth or itching, in addition to product sensitivity.

When considering rosacea in skin of color patients, be sure to have good lighting for close examination, as skin thickening is another subtle sign of rosacea in these patients, she said. Skin thickening “is a very early sign that will present in skin of color with no erythema, so keep that in mind.”

Stinging and burning sensations may be reported by skin of color patients with rosacea. Use patient history to confirm the diagnosis of rosacea, which is often delayed in skin of color patients because of a low index of suspicion, she said.

Psoriasis pointers

Psoriasis in skin of color patients used to be considered rare, “but that is far from true,” Dr. Alexis said. In fact, many cases of psoriasis are undiagnosed or the diagnosis is delayed in these patients.

The panelists noted that current guidelines for psoriasis treatment are based on clinical trials composed mainly of White patients, and do not contain specific recommendations for skin of color patients.

Notably, the morphology, location, and color of psoriasis lesions may be different for patients with darker skin, such as thicker plaques and more scaling over larger areas, they said. Also, skin of color patients may experience long-lasting dyspigmentation from psoriasis lesions that have resolved.

When developing a strategy for psoriasis in skin of color patients, consider not only disease severity, but also comorbidities and medications, response (if any) to prior therapies, patient preferences, and quality of life, the panelists said.

Dr. Callender, Dr. Elbuluk, Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Alexis reported conflicts of interest from numerous sources in industry. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of skin of color can stem from incorrect diagnoses and lack of knowledge on the part of clinicians, and also from knowledge gaps on the part of other health care providers and patients, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Additionally, some disparities occur because of gaps in access to health care, said Dr. Taylor, vice chair, diversity, equity and inclusion, in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who moderated an expert panel discussion of treatment tips for several common dermatologic conditions in skin of color patients.

Atopic dermatitis angles

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the fourth most common dermatologic complaint in Black patients, based on data from the United States National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Also, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey show that Black children are nearly twice as likely as White children to develop AD after controlling for socioeconomic factors, Dr. Taylor said.

When Black patients present with AD, “you may not see the erythema,” said Valerie D. Callender, MD, of Howard University, Washington, who presented on AD. Instead, “you may see more follicular and papular presentations.” Erythema and erythroderma can present as shades of violet, gray, or dark brown in patients with rich skin tones, added Dr. Callender, who practices in Glenn Dale, Md.

Consequently, disease severity can be misinterpreted, she said, noting that data suggest that scoring systems such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index and Scoring Atopic Dermatitis underestimate AD severity in dark skin.

As for treatment, skin of color patients with AD are often as bothered by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) as by active lesions, so treatment should take these concerns into account, Dr. Callender said. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of AD treatments in diverse populations are limited by lack of representation of racial groups in clinical trials and lack of subset analyses by race.
 

Acne awareness

An important consideration of acne in skin of color patients is that the acne “might not be red, it might just be darker,” said Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology, and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. A study published in JAMA Dermatology of nearly 30,000 patients with acne from 2007 to 2017 found that non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely than non-Hispanic White patients to see a dermatologist for acne, but Black patients received fewer prescriptions for acne medications than White patients.

The study also showed that Black patients who received prescriptions for acne were more likely to receive topical retinoids and topical antibiotics, and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, spironolactone, or isotretinoin, compared with White patients. Similarly, Asian patients were more likely to receive topical antibiotics and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, compared with White patients.

Other panelists shared some of their best practices for acne in patients with skin of color, including treatment with topical retinoids (for inflammation) and spironolactone, and therapies that address both inflammation and pigmentation, such as salicylic acid and azelaic acid. Dr. Callender also advised asking patients about makeup, as they may not know that many types of makeup used to cover acne are in fact comedogenic.
 

Melanoma misconceptions

One of the most common misperceptions about melanoma among skin of color patients is that they don’t think they can get it, Dr. Taylor said. Many health care providers don’t think about melanoma in skin of color patients because of the dramatically lower incidence in this population, but as a result, cases may go undiagnosed, and as studies have shown, the mortality rate from melanoma is higher in Black patients.

Consider the palms, soles, nails, and web spaces as possible melanoma sites, Dr. Taylor added.

Educating skin of color patients about melanoma is important, although the incidence is 20 to 30 times lower than in non-Hispanic Whites, said Nada Elbuluk, MD, the founder and director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Clinic, Los Angeles. A 2020 editorial published in Cancer Cytopathology pointed out that 1 in 3 Black men or women with a melanoma diagnosis in the United States dies of the disease, compared with 1 in 7 non-Hispanic White men and 1 in 11 non-Hispanic White women with melanoma.

Don’t skip the total body skin exam in these patients, Dr. Elbuluk emphasized. Many patients will only partially undress, and areas such as toes can be missed.
 

Rosacea review

For patients with skin of color, clinicians need to look for different signs of rosacea than those typically seen in White patients, Dr. Elbuluk said. “The most common presentation of rosacea in skin of color is papulopustular,” and the granulomatous variant.

“These patients will often give you a history of sensitivity to products,” Dr. Elbuluk noted. They may not always have the flushing, but they may report warmth or itching, in addition to product sensitivity.

When considering rosacea in skin of color patients, be sure to have good lighting for close examination, as skin thickening is another subtle sign of rosacea in these patients, she said. Skin thickening “is a very early sign that will present in skin of color with no erythema, so keep that in mind.”

Stinging and burning sensations may be reported by skin of color patients with rosacea. Use patient history to confirm the diagnosis of rosacea, which is often delayed in skin of color patients because of a low index of suspicion, she said.

Psoriasis pointers

Psoriasis in skin of color patients used to be considered rare, “but that is far from true,” Dr. Alexis said. In fact, many cases of psoriasis are undiagnosed or the diagnosis is delayed in these patients.

The panelists noted that current guidelines for psoriasis treatment are based on clinical trials composed mainly of White patients, and do not contain specific recommendations for skin of color patients.

Notably, the morphology, location, and color of psoriasis lesions may be different for patients with darker skin, such as thicker plaques and more scaling over larger areas, they said. Also, skin of color patients may experience long-lasting dyspigmentation from psoriasis lesions that have resolved.

When developing a strategy for psoriasis in skin of color patients, consider not only disease severity, but also comorbidities and medications, response (if any) to prior therapies, patient preferences, and quality of life, the panelists said.

Dr. Callender, Dr. Elbuluk, Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Alexis reported conflicts of interest from numerous sources in industry. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of skin of color can stem from incorrect diagnoses and lack of knowledge on the part of clinicians, and also from knowledge gaps on the part of other health care providers and patients, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Additionally, some disparities occur because of gaps in access to health care, said Dr. Taylor, vice chair, diversity, equity and inclusion, in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who moderated an expert panel discussion of treatment tips for several common dermatologic conditions in skin of color patients.

Atopic dermatitis angles

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the fourth most common dermatologic complaint in Black patients, based on data from the United States National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Also, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey show that Black children are nearly twice as likely as White children to develop AD after controlling for socioeconomic factors, Dr. Taylor said.

When Black patients present with AD, “you may not see the erythema,” said Valerie D. Callender, MD, of Howard University, Washington, who presented on AD. Instead, “you may see more follicular and papular presentations.” Erythema and erythroderma can present as shades of violet, gray, or dark brown in patients with rich skin tones, added Dr. Callender, who practices in Glenn Dale, Md.

Consequently, disease severity can be misinterpreted, she said, noting that data suggest that scoring systems such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index and Scoring Atopic Dermatitis underestimate AD severity in dark skin.

As for treatment, skin of color patients with AD are often as bothered by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) as by active lesions, so treatment should take these concerns into account, Dr. Callender said. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of AD treatments in diverse populations are limited by lack of representation of racial groups in clinical trials and lack of subset analyses by race.
 

Acne awareness

An important consideration of acne in skin of color patients is that the acne “might not be red, it might just be darker,” said Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology, and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. A study published in JAMA Dermatology of nearly 30,000 patients with acne from 2007 to 2017 found that non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely than non-Hispanic White patients to see a dermatologist for acne, but Black patients received fewer prescriptions for acne medications than White patients.

The study also showed that Black patients who received prescriptions for acne were more likely to receive topical retinoids and topical antibiotics, and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, spironolactone, or isotretinoin, compared with White patients. Similarly, Asian patients were more likely to receive topical antibiotics and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, compared with White patients.

Other panelists shared some of their best practices for acne in patients with skin of color, including treatment with topical retinoids (for inflammation) and spironolactone, and therapies that address both inflammation and pigmentation, such as salicylic acid and azelaic acid. Dr. Callender also advised asking patients about makeup, as they may not know that many types of makeup used to cover acne are in fact comedogenic.
 

Melanoma misconceptions

One of the most common misperceptions about melanoma among skin of color patients is that they don’t think they can get it, Dr. Taylor said. Many health care providers don’t think about melanoma in skin of color patients because of the dramatically lower incidence in this population, but as a result, cases may go undiagnosed, and as studies have shown, the mortality rate from melanoma is higher in Black patients.

Consider the palms, soles, nails, and web spaces as possible melanoma sites, Dr. Taylor added.

Educating skin of color patients about melanoma is important, although the incidence is 20 to 30 times lower than in non-Hispanic Whites, said Nada Elbuluk, MD, the founder and director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Clinic, Los Angeles. A 2020 editorial published in Cancer Cytopathology pointed out that 1 in 3 Black men or women with a melanoma diagnosis in the United States dies of the disease, compared with 1 in 7 non-Hispanic White men and 1 in 11 non-Hispanic White women with melanoma.

Don’t skip the total body skin exam in these patients, Dr. Elbuluk emphasized. Many patients will only partially undress, and areas such as toes can be missed.
 

Rosacea review

For patients with skin of color, clinicians need to look for different signs of rosacea than those typically seen in White patients, Dr. Elbuluk said. “The most common presentation of rosacea in skin of color is papulopustular,” and the granulomatous variant.

“These patients will often give you a history of sensitivity to products,” Dr. Elbuluk noted. They may not always have the flushing, but they may report warmth or itching, in addition to product sensitivity.

When considering rosacea in skin of color patients, be sure to have good lighting for close examination, as skin thickening is another subtle sign of rosacea in these patients, she said. Skin thickening “is a very early sign that will present in skin of color with no erythema, so keep that in mind.”

Stinging and burning sensations may be reported by skin of color patients with rosacea. Use patient history to confirm the diagnosis of rosacea, which is often delayed in skin of color patients because of a low index of suspicion, she said.

Psoriasis pointers

Psoriasis in skin of color patients used to be considered rare, “but that is far from true,” Dr. Alexis said. In fact, many cases of psoriasis are undiagnosed or the diagnosis is delayed in these patients.

The panelists noted that current guidelines for psoriasis treatment are based on clinical trials composed mainly of White patients, and do not contain specific recommendations for skin of color patients.

Notably, the morphology, location, and color of psoriasis lesions may be different for patients with darker skin, such as thicker plaques and more scaling over larger areas, they said. Also, skin of color patients may experience long-lasting dyspigmentation from psoriasis lesions that have resolved.

When developing a strategy for psoriasis in skin of color patients, consider not only disease severity, but also comorbidities and medications, response (if any) to prior therapies, patient preferences, and quality of life, the panelists said.

Dr. Callender, Dr. Elbuluk, Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Alexis reported conflicts of interest from numerous sources in industry. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

It’s a “champagne problem” many of us have encountered over the past few years in the clinic.

A patient with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is fortunate enough to continue to do well for 2 years on ongoing pembrolizumab or perhaps pemetrexed and pembrolizumab as maintenance therapy. The latest CT shows a residual but far smaller primary tumor than what she started with.

In this instance, you may be considering stopping treatment but are concerned about doing so with evidence of disease still present.

Clinical trials of immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy have generally terminated treatment in nonprogressing patients after 2 years. We also know that some patients in early trials of immunotherapy stopped treatment after a fixed period of 1 or 2 years and continued to show no evidence of progression many years later.

The reason some patients experience this kind of success: Unlike the mechanism of action of conventional chemotherapy or targeted therapies, where ongoing treatment would be important to continue to exert an inhibitory effect, the active substrate of immunotherapy is the patient’s immune system, which can potentially have a self-sustaining efficacy beyond the stimulatory effect of the checkpoint inhibitor.

Though we don’t want to overtreat our patients, the question remains: Will patients do just as well off treatment, with the potential to resume as needed?

One trial directly addressed this question of stopping vs. continuing treatment in patients on immunotherapy. The CheckMate 153 trial, published in 2020, randomly assigned 252 previously treated patients who hadn’t demonstrated progression after 1 year on nivolumab to either discontinue nivolumab or continue nivolumab on an ongoing basis. The results were strongly in favor of ongoing therapy. Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy: PFS of 24.7 months vs. 9.4 months and OS not reached vs. 32.5 months.

This finding is important, but there’s an important caveat. The study population included many heavily pretreated patients, but, in practice, immunotherapy has generally moved into the first-line setting, where we see dramatic responses in a significant subset of patients.

Even more recent data are emerging that may help us evaluate who will do well off therapy and who should continue treatment.

We now have a growing collection of long-term data on patients who are more likely to have good outcomes with immunotherapy, specifically those with high tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥ 50%), from the KEYNOTE-024 trial. In this study, 39 of 151 (25.8%) patients assigned to pembrolizumab completed the planned maximum of 2 years of treatment, among whom 82.1% achieved an objective response; but, only 10% (4 patients) achieved a complete response. The proportion of patients without progression and remaining off therapy wasn’t reported, but the OS rate 3 years after completing treatment was 81.4%.

In addition, restarting immunotherapy after discontinuing appears to be a moderately effective strategy. In the KEYNOTE-024 trial, 12 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab because of disease progression a median of 15.2 months after discontinuing pembrolizumab. In this small cohort, eight of these patients (66.7%) were alive at the data cutoff, and six (50%) achieved stable disease.

Recently, we received additional insight in the follow-up from two chemoimmunotherapy trials that have most shaped my practice for patients with advanced NSCLC and any level of PD-L1 expression. These are the KEYNOTE-189 trial of platinum-pemetrexed with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in those with nonsquamous NSCLC, and the KEYNOTE-407 trial of carboplatin-taxane with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has designated each as a “preferred regimen” for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Both regimens have demonstrated sustained efficacy benefits with prolonged follow-up, including significantly superior objective response rate, PFS, and OS with the addition of pembrolizumab. These findings merely cemented the role of these regimens in our practice, but the trials also reported on the cohort of patients who completed 35 cycles of treatment over 2 years then discontinued therapy. In both, the majority of patients showed an objective response (86% in KEYNOTE-189 and 90% in KEYNOTE-407), with most patients alive at 3 years after 2 years of treatment (71.9% in KEYNOTE-189 and 69.5% in KEYNOTE-407). In addition, the proportion of patients alive without disease progression or subsequent therapy was notable – 40.4% in KEYNOTE-189 and 43.6% KEYNOTE-407.

How should we interpret these data for the patient who is in the exam room with us?

The short answer is that we don’t know. I see this as a half-empty, half-full conundrum.

I’m disappointed that more patients who responded for 2 years will experience disease progression in the 1-3 years that follow. This signals that their immune systems have not perpetuated their initial response over the long-term. But these patients may have demonstrated disease progression even if they had continued therapy.

We also know that some patients can be rechallenged and will respond again. Some of these patients will show stable disease, whereas others will progress with repeat treatment. I would love to be able to better predict which patients are destined to do well without treatment vs. those who benefit from treatment beyond 2 years.

Might the level of PD-L1 expression tell us? Can PET imaging discriminate those with residual hypermetabolism who may need continued treatment from those with no residual uptake who could be spared it? Would serial measurement of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in responding patients identify when they have achieved a point of diminishing returns, potentially indicating that some can safely discontinue treatment after 2 years, whereas others need to continue to suppress on prolonged maintenance therapy?

These questions have yet to be studied systematically. In the meantime, I take an individualized approach with my patients facing this decision. Some have experienced escalating arthralgias and myalgias, cost concerns, or other issues related to immunotherapy that may dissuade us from continuing treatment. But several others have been grateful to continue with their treatment, hesitant to do anything that could change the path of their disease.

In my patients who tolerate therapy well, I’m more worried about potential undertreatment than overtreatment. I tend to favor having my patients continue therapy in the absence of problematic toxicity or practical challenges. There is certainly room for debate here while we await data to better guide these decisions. How do you approach these patients?

Dr. West is Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly.

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

It’s a “champagne problem” many of us have encountered over the past few years in the clinic.

A patient with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is fortunate enough to continue to do well for 2 years on ongoing pembrolizumab or perhaps pemetrexed and pembrolizumab as maintenance therapy. The latest CT shows a residual but far smaller primary tumor than what she started with.

In this instance, you may be considering stopping treatment but are concerned about doing so with evidence of disease still present.

Clinical trials of immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy have generally terminated treatment in nonprogressing patients after 2 years. We also know that some patients in early trials of immunotherapy stopped treatment after a fixed period of 1 or 2 years and continued to show no evidence of progression many years later.

The reason some patients experience this kind of success: Unlike the mechanism of action of conventional chemotherapy or targeted therapies, where ongoing treatment would be important to continue to exert an inhibitory effect, the active substrate of immunotherapy is the patient’s immune system, which can potentially have a self-sustaining efficacy beyond the stimulatory effect of the checkpoint inhibitor.

Though we don’t want to overtreat our patients, the question remains: Will patients do just as well off treatment, with the potential to resume as needed?

One trial directly addressed this question of stopping vs. continuing treatment in patients on immunotherapy. The CheckMate 153 trial, published in 2020, randomly assigned 252 previously treated patients who hadn’t demonstrated progression after 1 year on nivolumab to either discontinue nivolumab or continue nivolumab on an ongoing basis. The results were strongly in favor of ongoing therapy. Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy: PFS of 24.7 months vs. 9.4 months and OS not reached vs. 32.5 months.

This finding is important, but there’s an important caveat. The study population included many heavily pretreated patients, but, in practice, immunotherapy has generally moved into the first-line setting, where we see dramatic responses in a significant subset of patients.

Even more recent data are emerging that may help us evaluate who will do well off therapy and who should continue treatment.

We now have a growing collection of long-term data on patients who are more likely to have good outcomes with immunotherapy, specifically those with high tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥ 50%), from the KEYNOTE-024 trial. In this study, 39 of 151 (25.8%) patients assigned to pembrolizumab completed the planned maximum of 2 years of treatment, among whom 82.1% achieved an objective response; but, only 10% (4 patients) achieved a complete response. The proportion of patients without progression and remaining off therapy wasn’t reported, but the OS rate 3 years after completing treatment was 81.4%.

In addition, restarting immunotherapy after discontinuing appears to be a moderately effective strategy. In the KEYNOTE-024 trial, 12 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab because of disease progression a median of 15.2 months after discontinuing pembrolizumab. In this small cohort, eight of these patients (66.7%) were alive at the data cutoff, and six (50%) achieved stable disease.

Recently, we received additional insight in the follow-up from two chemoimmunotherapy trials that have most shaped my practice for patients with advanced NSCLC and any level of PD-L1 expression. These are the KEYNOTE-189 trial of platinum-pemetrexed with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in those with nonsquamous NSCLC, and the KEYNOTE-407 trial of carboplatin-taxane with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has designated each as a “preferred regimen” for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Both regimens have demonstrated sustained efficacy benefits with prolonged follow-up, including significantly superior objective response rate, PFS, and OS with the addition of pembrolizumab. These findings merely cemented the role of these regimens in our practice, but the trials also reported on the cohort of patients who completed 35 cycles of treatment over 2 years then discontinued therapy. In both, the majority of patients showed an objective response (86% in KEYNOTE-189 and 90% in KEYNOTE-407), with most patients alive at 3 years after 2 years of treatment (71.9% in KEYNOTE-189 and 69.5% in KEYNOTE-407). In addition, the proportion of patients alive without disease progression or subsequent therapy was notable – 40.4% in KEYNOTE-189 and 43.6% KEYNOTE-407.

How should we interpret these data for the patient who is in the exam room with us?

The short answer is that we don’t know. I see this as a half-empty, half-full conundrum.

I’m disappointed that more patients who responded for 2 years will experience disease progression in the 1-3 years that follow. This signals that their immune systems have not perpetuated their initial response over the long-term. But these patients may have demonstrated disease progression even if they had continued therapy.

We also know that some patients can be rechallenged and will respond again. Some of these patients will show stable disease, whereas others will progress with repeat treatment. I would love to be able to better predict which patients are destined to do well without treatment vs. those who benefit from treatment beyond 2 years.

Might the level of PD-L1 expression tell us? Can PET imaging discriminate those with residual hypermetabolism who may need continued treatment from those with no residual uptake who could be spared it? Would serial measurement of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in responding patients identify when they have achieved a point of diminishing returns, potentially indicating that some can safely discontinue treatment after 2 years, whereas others need to continue to suppress on prolonged maintenance therapy?

These questions have yet to be studied systematically. In the meantime, I take an individualized approach with my patients facing this decision. Some have experienced escalating arthralgias and myalgias, cost concerns, or other issues related to immunotherapy that may dissuade us from continuing treatment. But several others have been grateful to continue with their treatment, hesitant to do anything that could change the path of their disease.

In my patients who tolerate therapy well, I’m more worried about potential undertreatment than overtreatment. I tend to favor having my patients continue therapy in the absence of problematic toxicity or practical challenges. There is certainly room for debate here while we await data to better guide these decisions. How do you approach these patients?

Dr. West is Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly.

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

It’s a “champagne problem” many of us have encountered over the past few years in the clinic.

A patient with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is fortunate enough to continue to do well for 2 years on ongoing pembrolizumab or perhaps pemetrexed and pembrolizumab as maintenance therapy. The latest CT shows a residual but far smaller primary tumor than what she started with.

In this instance, you may be considering stopping treatment but are concerned about doing so with evidence of disease still present.

Clinical trials of immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy have generally terminated treatment in nonprogressing patients after 2 years. We also know that some patients in early trials of immunotherapy stopped treatment after a fixed period of 1 or 2 years and continued to show no evidence of progression many years later.

The reason some patients experience this kind of success: Unlike the mechanism of action of conventional chemotherapy or targeted therapies, where ongoing treatment would be important to continue to exert an inhibitory effect, the active substrate of immunotherapy is the patient’s immune system, which can potentially have a self-sustaining efficacy beyond the stimulatory effect of the checkpoint inhibitor.

Though we don’t want to overtreat our patients, the question remains: Will patients do just as well off treatment, with the potential to resume as needed?

One trial directly addressed this question of stopping vs. continuing treatment in patients on immunotherapy. The CheckMate 153 trial, published in 2020, randomly assigned 252 previously treated patients who hadn’t demonstrated progression after 1 year on nivolumab to either discontinue nivolumab or continue nivolumab on an ongoing basis. The results were strongly in favor of ongoing therapy. Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy: PFS of 24.7 months vs. 9.4 months and OS not reached vs. 32.5 months.

This finding is important, but there’s an important caveat. The study population included many heavily pretreated patients, but, in practice, immunotherapy has generally moved into the first-line setting, where we see dramatic responses in a significant subset of patients.

Even more recent data are emerging that may help us evaluate who will do well off therapy and who should continue treatment.

We now have a growing collection of long-term data on patients who are more likely to have good outcomes with immunotherapy, specifically those with high tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥ 50%), from the KEYNOTE-024 trial. In this study, 39 of 151 (25.8%) patients assigned to pembrolizumab completed the planned maximum of 2 years of treatment, among whom 82.1% achieved an objective response; but, only 10% (4 patients) achieved a complete response. The proportion of patients without progression and remaining off therapy wasn’t reported, but the OS rate 3 years after completing treatment was 81.4%.

In addition, restarting immunotherapy after discontinuing appears to be a moderately effective strategy. In the KEYNOTE-024 trial, 12 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab because of disease progression a median of 15.2 months after discontinuing pembrolizumab. In this small cohort, eight of these patients (66.7%) were alive at the data cutoff, and six (50%) achieved stable disease.

Recently, we received additional insight in the follow-up from two chemoimmunotherapy trials that have most shaped my practice for patients with advanced NSCLC and any level of PD-L1 expression. These are the KEYNOTE-189 trial of platinum-pemetrexed with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in those with nonsquamous NSCLC, and the KEYNOTE-407 trial of carboplatin-taxane with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has designated each as a “preferred regimen” for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Both regimens have demonstrated sustained efficacy benefits with prolonged follow-up, including significantly superior objective response rate, PFS, and OS with the addition of pembrolizumab. These findings merely cemented the role of these regimens in our practice, but the trials also reported on the cohort of patients who completed 35 cycles of treatment over 2 years then discontinued therapy. In both, the majority of patients showed an objective response (86% in KEYNOTE-189 and 90% in KEYNOTE-407), with most patients alive at 3 years after 2 years of treatment (71.9% in KEYNOTE-189 and 69.5% in KEYNOTE-407). In addition, the proportion of patients alive without disease progression or subsequent therapy was notable – 40.4% in KEYNOTE-189 and 43.6% KEYNOTE-407.

How should we interpret these data for the patient who is in the exam room with us?

The short answer is that we don’t know. I see this as a half-empty, half-full conundrum.

I’m disappointed that more patients who responded for 2 years will experience disease progression in the 1-3 years that follow. This signals that their immune systems have not perpetuated their initial response over the long-term. But these patients may have demonstrated disease progression even if they had continued therapy.

We also know that some patients can be rechallenged and will respond again. Some of these patients will show stable disease, whereas others will progress with repeat treatment. I would love to be able to better predict which patients are destined to do well without treatment vs. those who benefit from treatment beyond 2 years.

Might the level of PD-L1 expression tell us? Can PET imaging discriminate those with residual hypermetabolism who may need continued treatment from those with no residual uptake who could be spared it? Would serial measurement of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in responding patients identify when they have achieved a point of diminishing returns, potentially indicating that some can safely discontinue treatment after 2 years, whereas others need to continue to suppress on prolonged maintenance therapy?

These questions have yet to be studied systematically. In the meantime, I take an individualized approach with my patients facing this decision. Some have experienced escalating arthralgias and myalgias, cost concerns, or other issues related to immunotherapy that may dissuade us from continuing treatment. But several others have been grateful to continue with their treatment, hesitant to do anything that could change the path of their disease.

In my patients who tolerate therapy well, I’m more worried about potential undertreatment than overtreatment. I tend to favor having my patients continue therapy in the absence of problematic toxicity or practical challenges. There is certainly room for debate here while we await data to better guide these decisions. How do you approach these patients?

Dr. West is Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly.

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

To the Editor:

An 82-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for a total-body skin examination due to a recently diagnosed primary melanoma of the left middle ear. He reported pain of the left ear and water behind the left eardrum of 1 year’s duration. An otorhinolaryngologist performed surgery due to the severe mastoiditis. A biopsy of the contents of the left middle ear revealed malignant melanoma. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography revealed the mass was mainly located in the anterior aspect of the left middle ear with suspicion of tumor extension into the bony portion of the eustachian tube. No other disease was present. Prior to presentation to dermatology, gross excision of the left middle ear with removal of additional melanoma was confirmed by biopsy, and further analysis revealed v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene (BRAF) was not detected while cellular proto-oncogene receptor kinase (KIT) mutation was detected on exon 13p (K642E).

The patient had no family history of melanoma. He never smoked and did not have contact with hazardous material. Initial examination at our clinic revealed no other suspicious pigmented lesions. After additional negative workup by the oncologist, the patient was presented to the tumor board, and postoperative radiotherapy was recommended to improve local control. Eight months after the patient’s initial diagnosis of the primary middle ear melanoma, a computed tomography–guided right lung biopsy showed metastatic melanoma. After various treatment modalities were discussed with the patient and his family, he was started on pembrolizumab. After 6 months on pembrolizumab, the patient developed autoimmune pneumonitis and pembrolizumab was discontinued. The patient elected to discontinue treatment and died 6 months later.

Malignant melanoma with primary involvement of the middle ear and mastoid mucosa rarely has been reported.^1-3 Primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear mucosa is difficult to diagnose clinically. Difficulty and delay in diagnosis occur because of the location and frequent lack of pathognomonic symptoms of the disease.² A comprehensive literature review by Maxwell et al³ in 2018 of the 10 reported primary middle ear mucosal melanomas found that patients most commonly presented with otorrhea, aural fullness, and hearing loss. Less common symptoms included otalgia, tinnitus, and facial weakness. Clinical examination revealed patients presented with serous otitis and/or a visible mass within the middle ear or external auditory canal. These melanomas demonstrated particularly poor outcomes, with 70% mortality, 20% local recurrence, and 50% distant metastasis. Distant metastases that occurred with primary middle ear mucosal melanoma include lung, liver, intraparotid, abdomen, and cutaneous metastasis.³

The specific pathophysiologic factors underlying the development of primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear mucosa are not known.² The middle ear and its components develop from the first and second pharyngeal arches.⁴ Melanocyte precursors from the neural crest migrate during the seventh or eighth week of embryogenesis. These precursors migrate to the epidermis, various mucosal epithelial, hair follicles, dermis, retina, uveal tract, leptomeninges, inner ear, and other tissues.⁵ The ossicles of the middle ear develop from the neural crest⁶ and remain in the mesenchyme until the eighth month, when the surrounding tissue dissolves.⁴ Cutaneous melanomas arise from the malignant transformation of melanocytes in the skin of neural crest lineage. Noncutaneous melanomas are hypothesized to arise from melanoblasts migrating to noncutaneous organs after neural crest cells undergo an epithelial-mesenchymal translation.⁷

Melanoma 5-year survival rates vary based on the melanoma disease stage: 98% for stage 1, 90% for stage 2, 70% for stage 3, and 10% for stage 4. Although early-stage disease mainly is treated with surgery, advanced and unresectable disease is managed with different therapeutic options, including BRAF inhibitors such as vemurafenib, dabrafenib mesylate, and encorafenib; immune checkpoint inhibitors such as ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab; and oncolytic virus such as talimogene laherparepvec.^8,9

Ninety percent of melanomas are of cutaneous origin. Extracutaneous melanomas may be derived from the uvea, leptomeninges, mucous membranes, and gastrointestinal tract.¹⁰ Mucosal melanomas are rare and represent only approximately 1% of all melanomas.¹¹ In order of frequency, primary mucosal melanomas include the head and neck, anorectal region, vulvovaginal region, and urinary tract. UV radiation exposure is an important risk factor for cutaneous melanoma but has not been associated with the development of mucosal melanoma.⁷ In 2019, Altieri et al¹¹ analyzed 1824 cases of mucosal melanoma and found that anatomic site influences survival because mucosal melanomas in the most occult anatomic sites—spinal/central nervous system, lung and pleura, liver, and pancreas—have the worst prognosis, likely because they have already metastasized by the time they are diagnosed. Due to their occult anatomic location and lack of early presenting signs and symptoms, mucosal melanomas are difficult to diagnose at an early stage, resulting in a poorer prognosis compared with cutaneous melanomas. The most important prognostic indicator for cutaneous melanomas of tumor thickness (ie, Breslow depth) provides less prognostic value for patients with mucosal melanoma. Limitations also include the lack of a standardized staging system for mucosal melanoma, but Altieri et al¹¹ found that poorer survival in patients with mucosal melanoma was observed in relation to stage based on the clinical and pathologic tumor-node-metastasis staging system of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. An aggregate 5-year survival estimate of patients diagnosed with mucosal melanoma is 28%, underscoring that mucosal melanoma is an aggressive melanoma that carries a poor prognosis and warrants a more aggressive treatment approach at the time of diagnosis.¹¹

Common treatment of primary middle ear mucosal melanoma involves a multimodality therapy including surgical oncological resection for most patients. Currently, radiation is in use for adjuvant treatment and definitive therapy in unresectable tumors or patients who are poor surgical candidates. Malignant melanoma traditionally was considered radioresistant, yet considerable variability in responsiveness has been observed both within and between tumors. Although there are no defined indications for adjuvant therapy, it is often administered in advanced or recurrent cases and those with positive or close margins. Chemotherapy generally is reserved for patients with systemic disease. The chemotherapeutic agents that have been used in the treatment of patients with melanoma of the middle ear include the alkylating agents dacarbazine, cisplatin, nimustine, paclitaxel, and temozolomide. Also, chemotherapeutic agents that have been reported in the treatment of melanoma of the middle ear include tamoxifen, the selective estrogen receptor inhibitor, and interferon. Most recently, programed cell death protein 1 inhibitors pembrolizumab and nivolumab have been used in the treatment of middle ear melanoma. Outcomes remain poor with a high rate of mortality. Novel immunotherapeutic agents combined with adjuvant radiotherapy have been proposed to improve disease control and survival rates.³

Data on systemic therapies for mucosal melanomas are limited due to the rarity of the disease. Even with the development of novel therapies, outcomes remain poor for mucosal melanomas, and additional treatment strategies are needed. Although proto-oncogene BRAF mutations occur in 50% to 70% of cutaneous melanomas, these mutations are rare in mucosal melanomas.³ In mucosal melanomas, activating mutations of the cell receptor KIT are identified more frequently.⁷ Alterations in proto-oncogene KIT have been found in acral, mucosal, and cutaneous melanoma. KIT mutations were found on exons 11 and 13.¹² Variability in the biology of KIT is suggested. Treatment of melanomas with the KIT mutations with tyrosine inhibitors imatinib and nilotinib have shown variable benefits.¹⁰ In a 2019 study of 44 patients with mucosal melanoma, Moya-Plana et al¹³ found that in cases of unresectable and/or metastatic disease, immunotherapy with pembrolizumab had a better benefit-risk ratio than immune treatment with ipilimumab, a cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor.

Primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear is unusual and difficult to diagnose clinically. These melanomas have a poor prognosis and can have distant metastasis including cutaneous metastasis. We present this case to emphasize the need to be aware that melanoma can arise in the middle ear.

To the Editor:

An 82-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for a total-body skin examination due to a recently diagnosed primary melanoma of the left middle ear. He reported pain of the left ear and water behind the left eardrum of 1 year’s duration. An otorhinolaryngologist performed surgery due to the severe mastoiditis. A biopsy of the contents of the left middle ear revealed malignant melanoma. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography revealed the mass was mainly located in the anterior aspect of the left middle ear with suspicion of tumor extension into the bony portion of the eustachian tube. No other disease was present. Prior to presentation to dermatology, gross excision of the left middle ear with removal of additional melanoma was confirmed by biopsy, and further analysis revealed v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene (BRAF) was not detected while cellular proto-oncogene receptor kinase (KIT) mutation was detected on exon 13p (K642E).

The patient had no family history of melanoma. He never smoked and did not have contact with hazardous material. Initial examination at our clinic revealed no other suspicious pigmented lesions. After additional negative workup by the oncologist, the patient was presented to the tumor board, and postoperative radiotherapy was recommended to improve local control. Eight months after the patient’s initial diagnosis of the primary middle ear melanoma, a computed tomography–guided right lung biopsy showed metastatic melanoma. After various treatment modalities were discussed with the patient and his family, he was started on pembrolizumab. After 6 months on pembrolizumab, the patient developed autoimmune pneumonitis and pembrolizumab was discontinued. The patient elected to discontinue treatment and died 6 months later.

Malignant melanoma with primary involvement of the middle ear and mastoid mucosa rarely has been reported.^1-3 Primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear mucosa is difficult to diagnose clinically. Difficulty and delay in diagnosis occur because of the location and frequent lack of pathognomonic symptoms of the disease.² A comprehensive literature review by Maxwell et al³ in 2018 of the 10 reported primary middle ear mucosal melanomas found that patients most commonly presented with otorrhea, aural fullness, and hearing loss. Less common symptoms included otalgia, tinnitus, and facial weakness. Clinical examination revealed patients presented with serous otitis and/or a visible mass within the middle ear or external auditory canal. These melanomas demonstrated particularly poor outcomes, with 70% mortality, 20% local recurrence, and 50% distant metastasis. Distant metastases that occurred with primary middle ear mucosal melanoma include lung, liver, intraparotid, abdomen, and cutaneous metastasis.³

The specific pathophysiologic factors underlying the development of primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear mucosa are not known.² The middle ear and its components develop from the first and second pharyngeal arches.⁴ Melanocyte precursors from the neural crest migrate during the seventh or eighth week of embryogenesis. These precursors migrate to the epidermis, various mucosal epithelial, hair follicles, dermis, retina, uveal tract, leptomeninges, inner ear, and other tissues.⁵ The ossicles of the middle ear develop from the neural crest⁶ and remain in the mesenchyme until the eighth month, when the surrounding tissue dissolves.⁴ Cutaneous melanomas arise from the malignant transformation of melanocytes in the skin of neural crest lineage. Noncutaneous melanomas are hypothesized to arise from melanoblasts migrating to noncutaneous organs after neural crest cells undergo an epithelial-mesenchymal translation.⁷

Melanoma 5-year survival rates vary based on the melanoma disease stage: 98% for stage 1, 90% for stage 2, 70% for stage 3, and 10% for stage 4. Although early-stage disease mainly is treated with surgery, advanced and unresectable disease is managed with different therapeutic options, including BRAF inhibitors such as vemurafenib, dabrafenib mesylate, and encorafenib; immune checkpoint inhibitors such as ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab; and oncolytic virus such as talimogene laherparepvec.^8,9

Ninety percent of melanomas are of cutaneous origin. Extracutaneous melanomas may be derived from the uvea, leptomeninges, mucous membranes, and gastrointestinal tract.¹⁰ Mucosal melanomas are rare and represent only approximately 1% of all melanomas.¹¹ In order of frequency, primary mucosal melanomas include the head and neck, anorectal region, vulvovaginal region, and urinary tract. UV radiation exposure is an important risk factor for cutaneous melanoma but has not been associated with the development of mucosal melanoma.⁷ In 2019, Altieri et al¹¹ analyzed 1824 cases of mucosal melanoma and found that anatomic site influences survival because mucosal melanomas in the most occult anatomic sites—spinal/central nervous system, lung and pleura, liver, and pancreas—have the worst prognosis, likely because they have already metastasized by the time they are diagnosed. Due to their occult anatomic location and lack of early presenting signs and symptoms, mucosal melanomas are difficult to diagnose at an early stage, resulting in a poorer prognosis compared with cutaneous melanomas. The most important prognostic indicator for cutaneous melanomas of tumor thickness (ie, Breslow depth) provides less prognostic value for patients with mucosal melanoma. Limitations also include the lack of a standardized staging system for mucosal melanoma, but Altieri et al¹¹ found that poorer survival in patients with mucosal melanoma was observed in relation to stage based on the clinical and pathologic tumor-node-metastasis staging system of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. An aggregate 5-year survival estimate of patients diagnosed with mucosal melanoma is 28%, underscoring that mucosal melanoma is an aggressive melanoma that carries a poor prognosis and warrants a more aggressive treatment approach at the time of diagnosis.¹¹

Common treatment of primary middle ear mucosal melanoma involves a multimodality therapy including surgical oncological resection for most patients. Currently, radiation is in use for adjuvant treatment and definitive therapy in unresectable tumors or patients who are poor surgical candidates. Malignant melanoma traditionally was considered radioresistant, yet considerable variability in responsiveness has been observed both within and between tumors. Although there are no defined indications for adjuvant therapy, it is often administered in advanced or recurrent cases and those with positive or close margins. Chemotherapy generally is reserved for patients with systemic disease. The chemotherapeutic agents that have been used in the treatment of patients with melanoma of the middle ear include the alkylating agents dacarbazine, cisplatin, nimustine, paclitaxel, and temozolomide. Also, chemotherapeutic agents that have been reported in the treatment of melanoma of the middle ear include tamoxifen, the selective estrogen receptor inhibitor, and interferon. Most recently, programed cell death protein 1 inhibitors pembrolizumab and nivolumab have been used in the treatment of middle ear melanoma. Outcomes remain poor with a high rate of mortality. Novel immunotherapeutic agents combined with adjuvant radiotherapy have been proposed to improve disease control and survival rates.³

Data on systemic therapies for mucosal melanomas are limited due to the rarity of the disease. Even with the development of novel therapies, outcomes remain poor for mucosal melanomas, and additional treatment strategies are needed. Although proto-oncogene BRAF mutations occur in 50% to 70% of cutaneous melanomas, these mutations are rare in mucosal melanomas.³ In mucosal melanomas, activating mutations of the cell receptor KIT are identified more frequently.⁷ Alterations in proto-oncogene KIT have been found in acral, mucosal, and cutaneous melanoma. KIT mutations were found on exons 11 and 13.¹² Variability in the biology of KIT is suggested. Treatment of melanomas with the KIT mutations with tyrosine inhibitors imatinib and nilotinib have shown variable benefits.¹⁰ In a 2019 study of 44 patients with mucosal melanoma, Moya-Plana et al¹³ found that in cases of unresectable and/or metastatic disease, immunotherapy with pembrolizumab had a better benefit-risk ratio than immune treatment with ipilimumab, a cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor.

Primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear is unusual and difficult to diagnose clinically. These melanomas have a poor prognosis and can have distant metastasis including cutaneous metastasis. We present this case to emphasize the need to be aware that melanoma can arise in the middle ear.

To the Editor:

An 82-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for a total-body skin examination due to a recently diagnosed primary melanoma of the left middle ear. He reported pain of the left ear and water behind the left eardrum of 1 year’s duration. An otorhinolaryngologist performed surgery due to the severe mastoiditis. A biopsy of the contents of the left middle ear revealed malignant melanoma. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography revealed the mass was mainly located in the anterior aspect of the left middle ear with suspicion of tumor extension into the bony portion of the eustachian tube. No other disease was present. Prior to presentation to dermatology, gross excision of the left middle ear with removal of additional melanoma was confirmed by biopsy, and further analysis revealed v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene (BRAF) was not detected while cellular proto-oncogene receptor kinase (KIT) mutation was detected on exon 13p (K642E).

The patient had no family history of melanoma. He never smoked and did not have contact with hazardous material. Initial examination at our clinic revealed no other suspicious pigmented lesions. After additional negative workup by the oncologist, the patient was presented to the tumor board, and postoperative radiotherapy was recommended to improve local control. Eight months after the patient’s initial diagnosis of the primary middle ear melanoma, a computed tomography–guided right lung biopsy showed metastatic melanoma. After various treatment modalities were discussed with the patient and his family, he was started on pembrolizumab. After 6 months on pembrolizumab, the patient developed autoimmune pneumonitis and pembrolizumab was discontinued. The patient elected to discontinue treatment and died 6 months later.

Malignant melanoma with primary involvement of the middle ear and mastoid mucosa rarely has been reported.^1-3 Primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear mucosa is difficult to diagnose clinically. Difficulty and delay in diagnosis occur because of the location and frequent lack of pathognomonic symptoms of the disease.² A comprehensive literature review by Maxwell et al³ in 2018 of the 10 reported primary middle ear mucosal melanomas found that patients most commonly presented with otorrhea, aural fullness, and hearing loss. Less common symptoms included otalgia, tinnitus, and facial weakness. Clinical examination revealed patients presented with serous otitis and/or a visible mass within the middle ear or external auditory canal. These melanomas demonstrated particularly poor outcomes, with 70% mortality, 20% local recurrence, and 50% distant metastasis. Distant metastases that occurred with primary middle ear mucosal melanoma include lung, liver, intraparotid, abdomen, and cutaneous metastasis.³

The specific pathophysiologic factors underlying the development of primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear mucosa are not known.² The middle ear and its components develop from the first and second pharyngeal arches.⁴ Melanocyte precursors from the neural crest migrate during the seventh or eighth week of embryogenesis. These precursors migrate to the epidermis, various mucosal epithelial, hair follicles, dermis, retina, uveal tract, leptomeninges, inner ear, and other tissues.⁵ The ossicles of the middle ear develop from the neural crest⁶ and remain in the mesenchyme until the eighth month, when the surrounding tissue dissolves.⁴ Cutaneous melanomas arise from the malignant transformation of melanocytes in the skin of neural crest lineage. Noncutaneous melanomas are hypothesized to arise from melanoblasts migrating to noncutaneous organs after neural crest cells undergo an epithelial-mesenchymal translation.⁷

Melanoma 5-year survival rates vary based on the melanoma disease stage: 98% for stage 1, 90% for stage 2, 70% for stage 3, and 10% for stage 4. Although early-stage disease mainly is treated with surgery, advanced and unresectable disease is managed with different therapeutic options, including BRAF inhibitors such as vemurafenib, dabrafenib mesylate, and encorafenib; immune checkpoint inhibitors such as ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab; and oncolytic virus such as talimogene laherparepvec.^8,9

Ninety percent of melanomas are of cutaneous origin. Extracutaneous melanomas may be derived from the uvea, leptomeninges, mucous membranes, and gastrointestinal tract.¹⁰ Mucosal melanomas are rare and represent only approximately 1% of all melanomas.¹¹ In order of frequency, primary mucosal melanomas include the head and neck, anorectal region, vulvovaginal region, and urinary tract. UV radiation exposure is an important risk factor for cutaneous melanoma but has not been associated with the development of mucosal melanoma.⁷ In 2019, Altieri et al¹¹ analyzed 1824 cases of mucosal melanoma and found that anatomic site influences survival because mucosal melanomas in the most occult anatomic sites—spinal/central nervous system, lung and pleura, liver, and pancreas—have the worst prognosis, likely because they have already metastasized by the time they are diagnosed. Due to their occult anatomic location and lack of early presenting signs and symptoms, mucosal melanomas are difficult to diagnose at an early stage, resulting in a poorer prognosis compared with cutaneous melanomas. The most important prognostic indicator for cutaneous melanomas of tumor thickness (ie, Breslow depth) provides less prognostic value for patients with mucosal melanoma. Limitations also include the lack of a standardized staging system for mucosal melanoma, but Altieri et al¹¹ found that poorer survival in patients with mucosal melanoma was observed in relation to stage based on the clinical and pathologic tumor-node-metastasis staging system of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. An aggregate 5-year survival estimate of patients diagnosed with mucosal melanoma is 28%, underscoring that mucosal melanoma is an aggressive melanoma that carries a poor prognosis and warrants a more aggressive treatment approach at the time of diagnosis.¹¹

Common treatment of primary middle ear mucosal melanoma involves a multimodality therapy including surgical oncological resection for most patients. Currently, radiation is in use for adjuvant treatment and definitive therapy in unresectable tumors or patients who are poor surgical candidates. Malignant melanoma traditionally was considered radioresistant, yet considerable variability in responsiveness has been observed both within and between tumors. Although there are no defined indications for adjuvant therapy, it is often administered in advanced or recurrent cases and those with positive or close margins. Chemotherapy generally is reserved for patients with systemic disease. The chemotherapeutic agents that have been used in the treatment of patients with melanoma of the middle ear include the alkylating agents dacarbazine, cisplatin, nimustine, paclitaxel, and temozolomide. Also, chemotherapeutic agents that have been reported in the treatment of melanoma of the middle ear include tamoxifen, the selective estrogen receptor inhibitor, and interferon. Most recently, programed cell death protein 1 inhibitors pembrolizumab and nivolumab have been used in the treatment of middle ear melanoma. Outcomes remain poor with a high rate of mortality. Novel immunotherapeutic agents combined with adjuvant radiotherapy have been proposed to improve disease control and survival rates.³

Data on systemic therapies for mucosal melanomas are limited due to the rarity of the disease. Even with the development of novel therapies, outcomes remain poor for mucosal melanomas, and additional treatment strategies are needed. Although proto-oncogene BRAF mutations occur in 50% to 70% of cutaneous melanomas, these mutations are rare in mucosal melanomas.³ In mucosal melanomas, activating mutations of the cell receptor KIT are identified more frequently.⁷ Alterations in proto-oncogene KIT have been found in acral, mucosal, and cutaneous melanoma. KIT mutations were found on exons 11 and 13.¹² Variability in the biology of KIT is suggested. Treatment of melanomas with the KIT mutations with tyrosine inhibitors imatinib and nilotinib have shown variable benefits.¹⁰ In a 2019 study of 44 patients with mucosal melanoma, Moya-Plana et al¹³ found that in cases of unresectable and/or metastatic disease, immunotherapy with pembrolizumab had a better benefit-risk ratio than immune treatment with ipilimumab, a cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor.

Primary malignant melanoma of the middle ear is unusual and difficult to diagnose clinically. These melanomas have a poor prognosis and can have distant metastasis including cutaneous metastasis. We present this case to emphasize the need to be aware that melanoma can arise in the middle ear.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.

In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that AI provides a useful supplement but is no threat to replace the role of radiation oncologists.

In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.

Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.

He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.

He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.

Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
 

AI in pathology and treatment selection

In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.

The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.

That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.

Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.

No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.

Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.

This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”

Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”

Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.

* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.

In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that AI provides a useful supplement but is no threat to replace the role of radiation oncologists.

In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.

Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.

He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.

He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.

Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
 

AI in pathology and treatment selection

In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.

The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.

That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.

Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.

No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.

Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.

This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”

Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”

Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.

* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.

In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that AI provides a useful supplement but is no threat to replace the role of radiation oncologists.

In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.

Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.

He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.

He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.

Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
 

AI in pathology and treatment selection

In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.

The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.

That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.

Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.

No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.

Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.

This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”

Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”

Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.

* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.