Melanoma

Screening for melanoma at the primary care level is associated with significant increases in the detection of in situ and invasive thin melanomas but not thicker, more worrisome disease, new research shows.

Without a corresponding decrease in melanoma mortality, an increase in the detection of those thin melanomas “raises the concern that early detection efforts, such as visual skin screening, may result in overdiagnosis,” the study authors wrote. “The value of a cancer screening program should most rigorously be measured not by the number of new, early cancers detected, but by its impact on the development of late-stage disease and its associated morbidity, cost, and mortality.”

The research, published in JAMA Dermatology, has reignited the controversy over the benefits and harms of primary care skin cancer screening, garnering two editorials that reflect different sides of the debate.

In one, Robert A. Swerlick, MD, pointed out that, “despite public messaging to the contrary, to my knowledge there is no evidence that routine skin examinations have any effect on melanoma mortality.

“The stage shift to smaller tumors should not be viewed as success and is very strong evidence of overdiagnosis,” wrote Dr. Swerlick, of the department of dermatology, Emory University, Atlanta.

The other editorial, however, argued that routine screening saves lives. “Most melanoma deaths are because of stage I disease, with an estimated 3%-15% of thin melanomas (≤ 1 mm) being lethal,” wrote a trio of editorialists from Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

When considering the high mutation rate associated with melanoma and the current limits of treatment options, early diagnosis becomes “particularly important and counterbalances the risk of overdiagnosis,” the editorialists asserted.

Primary care screening study

The new findings come from an observational study of a quality improvement initiative conducted at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center system between 2014 and 2018, in which primary care clinicians were offered training in melanoma identification through skin examination and were encouraged to offer annual skin cancer screening to patients aged 35 years and older.

Of 595,799 eligible patients, 144,851 (24.3%) were screened at least once during the study period. Those who received screening were more likely than unscreened patients to be older (median age, 59 vs. 55 years), women, and non-Hispanic White persons.

During a follow-up of 5 years, the researchers found that patients who received screening were significantly more likely than unscreened patients to be diagnosed with in situ melanoma (incidence, 30.4 vs. 14.4; hazard ratio, 2.6; P < .001) or thin invasive melanoma (incidence, 24.5 vs. 16.1; HR, 1.8; P < .001), after adjusting for factors that included age, sex, and race.

The screened patients were also more likely than unscreened patients to be diagnosed with in situ interval melanomas, defined as melanomas occurring at least 60 days after initial screening (incidence, 26.7 vs. 12.9; HR, 2.1; P < .001), as well as thin invasive interval melanomas (incidence, 18.5 vs. 14.4; HR, 1.3; P = .03).

The 60-day interval was included to account for the possible time to referral to a specialist for definitive diagnosis, the authors explained.

The incidence of the detection of melanomas thicker than 4 mm was lower in screened versus unscreened patients, but the difference was not statistically significant for all melanomas (2.7 vs. 3.3; HR, 0.8; P = .38) or interval melanomas (1.5 vs. 2.7; HR, 0.6; P = .15).
 

Experts weigh in

Although the follow-up period was of 5 years, not all patients were followed that long after undergoing screening. For instance, for some patients, follow-up occurred only 1 year after they had been screened.

The study’s senior author, Laura K. Ferris, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, University of Pittsburgh, noted that a longer follow-up could shift the results.

“When you look at the curves in our figures, you do start to see them separate more and more over time for the thicker melanomas,” Dr. Ferris said in an interview. “I do suspect that, if we followed patients longer, we might start to see a more significant difference.”

The findings nevertheless add to evidence that although routine screening substantially increases the detection of melanomas overall, these melanomas are often not the ones doctors are most worried about or that increase a person’s risk of mortality, Dr. Ferris noted.

When it comes to melanoma screening, balancing the risks and benefits is key. One major downside, Dr. Ferris said, is in regard to the burden such screening could place on the health care system, with potentially unproductive screenings causing delays in care for patients with more urgent needs.

“We are undersupplied in the dermatology workforce, and there is often a long wait to see dermatologists, so we really want to make sure, as trained professionals, that patients have access to us,” she said. “If we’re doing something that doesn’t have proven benefit and is increasing the wait time, that will come at the expense of other patients’ access.”

Costs involved in skin biopsies and excisions of borderline lesions as well as the potential to increase patients’ anxiety represent other important considerations, Dr. Ferris noted.

However, Sancy A. Leachman, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the editorial in favor of screening, said in an interview that “at the individual level, there are an almost infinite number of individual circumstances that could lead a person to decide that the potential benefits outweigh the harms.”

According to Dr. Leachman, who is chair of the department of dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, these individual priorities may not align with those of the various decision-makers or with guidelines, such as those from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which gives visual skin cancer screening of asymptomatic patients an “I” rating, indicating “insufficient evidence.”

“Many federal agencies and payer groups focus on minimizing costs and optimizing outcomes,” Dr. Leachman and coauthors wrote. As the only professional advocates for individual patients, physicians “have a responsibility to assure that the best interests of patients are served.”

The study was funded by the University of Pittsburgh Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program. Dr. Ferris and Dr. Swerlick disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Leachman is the principal investigator for War on Melanoma, an early-detection program in Oregon.

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

Screening for melanoma at the primary care level is associated with significant increases in the detection of in situ and invasive thin melanomas but not thicker, more worrisome disease, new research shows.

Without a corresponding decrease in melanoma mortality, an increase in the detection of those thin melanomas “raises the concern that early detection efforts, such as visual skin screening, may result in overdiagnosis,” the study authors wrote. “The value of a cancer screening program should most rigorously be measured not by the number of new, early cancers detected, but by its impact on the development of late-stage disease and its associated morbidity, cost, and mortality.”

The research, published in JAMA Dermatology, has reignited the controversy over the benefits and harms of primary care skin cancer screening, garnering two editorials that reflect different sides of the debate.

In one, Robert A. Swerlick, MD, pointed out that, “despite public messaging to the contrary, to my knowledge there is no evidence that routine skin examinations have any effect on melanoma mortality.

“The stage shift to smaller tumors should not be viewed as success and is very strong evidence of overdiagnosis,” wrote Dr. Swerlick, of the department of dermatology, Emory University, Atlanta.

The other editorial, however, argued that routine screening saves lives. “Most melanoma deaths are because of stage I disease, with an estimated 3%-15% of thin melanomas (≤ 1 mm) being lethal,” wrote a trio of editorialists from Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

When considering the high mutation rate associated with melanoma and the current limits of treatment options, early diagnosis becomes “particularly important and counterbalances the risk of overdiagnosis,” the editorialists asserted.

Primary care screening study

The new findings come from an observational study of a quality improvement initiative conducted at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center system between 2014 and 2018, in which primary care clinicians were offered training in melanoma identification through skin examination and were encouraged to offer annual skin cancer screening to patients aged 35 years and older.

Of 595,799 eligible patients, 144,851 (24.3%) were screened at least once during the study period. Those who received screening were more likely than unscreened patients to be older (median age, 59 vs. 55 years), women, and non-Hispanic White persons.

During a follow-up of 5 years, the researchers found that patients who received screening were significantly more likely than unscreened patients to be diagnosed with in situ melanoma (incidence, 30.4 vs. 14.4; hazard ratio, 2.6; P < .001) or thin invasive melanoma (incidence, 24.5 vs. 16.1; HR, 1.8; P < .001), after adjusting for factors that included age, sex, and race.

The screened patients were also more likely than unscreened patients to be diagnosed with in situ interval melanomas, defined as melanomas occurring at least 60 days after initial screening (incidence, 26.7 vs. 12.9; HR, 2.1; P < .001), as well as thin invasive interval melanomas (incidence, 18.5 vs. 14.4; HR, 1.3; P = .03).

The 60-day interval was included to account for the possible time to referral to a specialist for definitive diagnosis, the authors explained.

The incidence of the detection of melanomas thicker than 4 mm was lower in screened versus unscreened patients, but the difference was not statistically significant for all melanomas (2.7 vs. 3.3; HR, 0.8; P = .38) or interval melanomas (1.5 vs. 2.7; HR, 0.6; P = .15).
 

Experts weigh in

Although the follow-up period was of 5 years, not all patients were followed that long after undergoing screening. For instance, for some patients, follow-up occurred only 1 year after they had been screened.

The study’s senior author, Laura K. Ferris, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, University of Pittsburgh, noted that a longer follow-up could shift the results.

“When you look at the curves in our figures, you do start to see them separate more and more over time for the thicker melanomas,” Dr. Ferris said in an interview. “I do suspect that, if we followed patients longer, we might start to see a more significant difference.”

The findings nevertheless add to evidence that although routine screening substantially increases the detection of melanomas overall, these melanomas are often not the ones doctors are most worried about or that increase a person’s risk of mortality, Dr. Ferris noted.

When it comes to melanoma screening, balancing the risks and benefits is key. One major downside, Dr. Ferris said, is in regard to the burden such screening could place on the health care system, with potentially unproductive screenings causing delays in care for patients with more urgent needs.

“We are undersupplied in the dermatology workforce, and there is often a long wait to see dermatologists, so we really want to make sure, as trained professionals, that patients have access to us,” she said. “If we’re doing something that doesn’t have proven benefit and is increasing the wait time, that will come at the expense of other patients’ access.”

Costs involved in skin biopsies and excisions of borderline lesions as well as the potential to increase patients’ anxiety represent other important considerations, Dr. Ferris noted.

However, Sancy A. Leachman, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the editorial in favor of screening, said in an interview that “at the individual level, there are an almost infinite number of individual circumstances that could lead a person to decide that the potential benefits outweigh the harms.”

According to Dr. Leachman, who is chair of the department of dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, these individual priorities may not align with those of the various decision-makers or with guidelines, such as those from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which gives visual skin cancer screening of asymptomatic patients an “I” rating, indicating “insufficient evidence.”

“Many federal agencies and payer groups focus on minimizing costs and optimizing outcomes,” Dr. Leachman and coauthors wrote. As the only professional advocates for individual patients, physicians “have a responsibility to assure that the best interests of patients are served.”

The study was funded by the University of Pittsburgh Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program. Dr. Ferris and Dr. Swerlick disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Leachman is the principal investigator for War on Melanoma, an early-detection program in Oregon.

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

Screening for melanoma at the primary care level is associated with significant increases in the detection of in situ and invasive thin melanomas but not thicker, more worrisome disease, new research shows.

Without a corresponding decrease in melanoma mortality, an increase in the detection of those thin melanomas “raises the concern that early detection efforts, such as visual skin screening, may result in overdiagnosis,” the study authors wrote. “The value of a cancer screening program should most rigorously be measured not by the number of new, early cancers detected, but by its impact on the development of late-stage disease and its associated morbidity, cost, and mortality.”

The research, published in JAMA Dermatology, has reignited the controversy over the benefits and harms of primary care skin cancer screening, garnering two editorials that reflect different sides of the debate.

In one, Robert A. Swerlick, MD, pointed out that, “despite public messaging to the contrary, to my knowledge there is no evidence that routine skin examinations have any effect on melanoma mortality.

“The stage shift to smaller tumors should not be viewed as success and is very strong evidence of overdiagnosis,” wrote Dr. Swerlick, of the department of dermatology, Emory University, Atlanta.

The other editorial, however, argued that routine screening saves lives. “Most melanoma deaths are because of stage I disease, with an estimated 3%-15% of thin melanomas (≤ 1 mm) being lethal,” wrote a trio of editorialists from Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

When considering the high mutation rate associated with melanoma and the current limits of treatment options, early diagnosis becomes “particularly important and counterbalances the risk of overdiagnosis,” the editorialists asserted.

Primary care screening study

The new findings come from an observational study of a quality improvement initiative conducted at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center system between 2014 and 2018, in which primary care clinicians were offered training in melanoma identification through skin examination and were encouraged to offer annual skin cancer screening to patients aged 35 years and older.

Of 595,799 eligible patients, 144,851 (24.3%) were screened at least once during the study period. Those who received screening were more likely than unscreened patients to be older (median age, 59 vs. 55 years), women, and non-Hispanic White persons.

During a follow-up of 5 years, the researchers found that patients who received screening were significantly more likely than unscreened patients to be diagnosed with in situ melanoma (incidence, 30.4 vs. 14.4; hazard ratio, 2.6; P < .001) or thin invasive melanoma (incidence, 24.5 vs. 16.1; HR, 1.8; P < .001), after adjusting for factors that included age, sex, and race.

The screened patients were also more likely than unscreened patients to be diagnosed with in situ interval melanomas, defined as melanomas occurring at least 60 days after initial screening (incidence, 26.7 vs. 12.9; HR, 2.1; P < .001), as well as thin invasive interval melanomas (incidence, 18.5 vs. 14.4; HR, 1.3; P = .03).

The 60-day interval was included to account for the possible time to referral to a specialist for definitive diagnosis, the authors explained.

The incidence of the detection of melanomas thicker than 4 mm was lower in screened versus unscreened patients, but the difference was not statistically significant for all melanomas (2.7 vs. 3.3; HR, 0.8; P = .38) or interval melanomas (1.5 vs. 2.7; HR, 0.6; P = .15).
 

Experts weigh in

Although the follow-up period was of 5 years, not all patients were followed that long after undergoing screening. For instance, for some patients, follow-up occurred only 1 year after they had been screened.

The study’s senior author, Laura K. Ferris, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, University of Pittsburgh, noted that a longer follow-up could shift the results.

“When you look at the curves in our figures, you do start to see them separate more and more over time for the thicker melanomas,” Dr. Ferris said in an interview. “I do suspect that, if we followed patients longer, we might start to see a more significant difference.”

The findings nevertheless add to evidence that although routine screening substantially increases the detection of melanomas overall, these melanomas are often not the ones doctors are most worried about or that increase a person’s risk of mortality, Dr. Ferris noted.

When it comes to melanoma screening, balancing the risks and benefits is key. One major downside, Dr. Ferris said, is in regard to the burden such screening could place on the health care system, with potentially unproductive screenings causing delays in care for patients with more urgent needs.

“We are undersupplied in the dermatology workforce, and there is often a long wait to see dermatologists, so we really want to make sure, as trained professionals, that patients have access to us,” she said. “If we’re doing something that doesn’t have proven benefit and is increasing the wait time, that will come at the expense of other patients’ access.”

Costs involved in skin biopsies and excisions of borderline lesions as well as the potential to increase patients’ anxiety represent other important considerations, Dr. Ferris noted.

However, Sancy A. Leachman, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the editorial in favor of screening, said in an interview that “at the individual level, there are an almost infinite number of individual circumstances that could lead a person to decide that the potential benefits outweigh the harms.”

According to Dr. Leachman, who is chair of the department of dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, these individual priorities may not align with those of the various decision-makers or with guidelines, such as those from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which gives visual skin cancer screening of asymptomatic patients an “I” rating, indicating “insufficient evidence.”

“Many federal agencies and payer groups focus on minimizing costs and optimizing outcomes,” Dr. Leachman and coauthors wrote. As the only professional advocates for individual patients, physicians “have a responsibility to assure that the best interests of patients are served.”

The study was funded by the University of Pittsburgh Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program. Dr. Ferris and Dr. Swerlick disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Leachman is the principal investigator for War on Melanoma, an early-detection program in Oregon.

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

BOSTON – Although skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing early-stage melanoma, advances in genetic expression profiling are helping dermatologists provide a nuanced approach to managing suspicious lesions.

One such test, the Pigmented Lesional Assay (PLA) uses adhesive patches applied to lesions of concern at the bedside to extract RNA from the stratum corneum to help determine the risk for melanoma.

At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of melanoma and pigmented lesion clinics at Newton Wellesley Dermatology, Wellesley Hills, Mass., and Tufts Medical Center, Boston, spoke about the PLA, which uses genetic expression profiling to measure the expression level of specific genes that are associated with melanoma: PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma) and LINC00518 (LINC). There are four possible results of the test: Aberrant expression of both LINC and PRAME (high risk); aberrant expression of a single gene (moderate risk); aberrant expression of neither gene (low risk); or inconclusive.

Validation data have shown a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 69% for the PLA, with a 99% negative predictive value; so a lesion that tested negative by PLA has a less than 1% chance of being melanoma. In addition, a study published in 2020 found that the addition of TERT (telomerase reverse transcriptase) mutation analyses increased the sensitivity of the PLA to 97%.

While the high negative predictive value is helpful to consider in clinical scenarios to rule-out melanoma for borderline lesions, one must consider the positive predictive value as well and how this may impact clinical care, Dr. Kim said. In a study examining outcomes of 381 lesions, 51 were PLA positive (single or double) and were biopsied, of which 19 (37%) revealed a melanoma diagnosis. In a large U.S. registry study of 3,418 lesions, 324 lesions that were PLA double positive were biopsied, with 18.7% revealing a melanoma diagnosis.

“No test is perfect, and this applies to PLA, even if you get a double-positive or double-negative test result,” Dr. Kim said. “You want to make sure that patients are aware of false positives and negatives. However, PLA could be an additional piece of data to inform your decision to proceed with biopsy on select borderline suspicious pigmented lesions. More studies are needed to better understand the approach to single- and double-positive PLA results.”

The PLA kit contains adhesive patches and supplies and a FedEx envelope for return to DermTech, the test’s manufacturer, for processing. The patches can be applied to lesions at least 4 mm in diameter; multiple kits are recommended for those greater than 16 mm in diameter. The test is not validated for lesions located on mucous membranes, palms, soles, nails, or on ulcerated or bleeding lesions, nor for those that have been previously biopsied. It is also not validated for use in pediatric patients or in those with skin types IV or higher. Results are returned in 2-3 days. If insurance does not cover the test, the cost to the patient is approximately $50 per lesion or a maximum of $150, according to Dr. Kim.
 

Use in clinical practice

In Dr. Kim’s clinical experience, the PLA can be considered for suspicious pigmented lesions on cosmetically sensitive areas and for suspicious lesions in areas difficult to biopsy or excise. For example, she discussed the case of a 72-year-old woman with a family history of melanoma, who presented to her clinic with a longstanding pigmented lesion on her right upper and lower eyelids that had previously been treated with laser. She had undergone multiple prior biopsies over 12 years, which caused mild to moderate atypical melanocytic proliferation. The PLA result was double negative for PRAME and LINC in her upper and lower eyelid, “which provided reassurance to the patient,” Dr. Kim said. The patient continues to be followed closely for any clinical changes.

Another patient, a 67-year-old woman, was referred to Dr. Kim from out of state for a teledermatology visit early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The patient had a lesion on her right calf that was hard, raised, and pink, did not resemble other lesions on her body, and had been present for a few weeks. “Her husband had recently passed away from brain cancer and she was very concerned about melanoma,” Dr. Kim recalled. “She lived alone, and the adult son was with her during the teledermatology call to assist. The patient asked about the PLA test, and given her difficulty going to a medical office at the time, we agreed to help her with this test.” The patient and her son arranged another teledermatology visit with Dr. Kim after receiving the kit in the mail from DermTech, and Dr. Kim coached them on how to properly administer the test. The results came back as PRAME negative and LINC positive. A biopsy with a local provider was recommended and the pathology results showed an inflamed seborrheic keratosis.

“This case exemplifies a false-positive result. We should be sure to make patients aware of this possibility,” Dr. Kim said.

Incorporating PLA into clinical practice requires certain workflow considerations, with paperwork to fill out in addition to performing the adhesive test, collection of insurance information, mailing the kit via FedEx, retrieving the results, and following up with the patient, said Dr. Kim. “For select borderline pigmented lesions, I discuss the rationale of the test with patients, the possibility of false-positive and false-negative results and the need to return for a biopsy when there is positive result. Clinical follow-up is recommended for negative results. There is also the possibility of charge to the patient if the test is not covered by their insurance.”
 

Skin biopsy still the gold standard

Despite the availability of the PLA as an assessment tool, Dr. Kim emphasized that skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing melanoma. “Future prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to examine the role of genetic expression profiling in staging and managing patients,” she said.

In 2019, she and her colleagues surveyed 42 pigmented lesion experts in the United States about why they ordered one of three molecular tests on the market or not and how results affected patient treatment. The proportion of clinicians who ordered the tests ranged from 21% to 29%. The top 2 reasons respondents chose for not ordering the PLA test specifically were: “Feel that further validation studies are necessary” (20%) and “do not feel it would be useful in my practice” (18%).

Results of a larger follow-up survey on usage patterns of PLA of both pigmented lesion experts and general clinicians on this topic are expected to be published shortly.

Dr. Kim reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.

BOSTON – Although skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing early-stage melanoma, advances in genetic expression profiling are helping dermatologists provide a nuanced approach to managing suspicious lesions.

One such test, the Pigmented Lesional Assay (PLA) uses adhesive patches applied to lesions of concern at the bedside to extract RNA from the stratum corneum to help determine the risk for melanoma.

At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of melanoma and pigmented lesion clinics at Newton Wellesley Dermatology, Wellesley Hills, Mass., and Tufts Medical Center, Boston, spoke about the PLA, which uses genetic expression profiling to measure the expression level of specific genes that are associated with melanoma: PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma) and LINC00518 (LINC). There are four possible results of the test: Aberrant expression of both LINC and PRAME (high risk); aberrant expression of a single gene (moderate risk); aberrant expression of neither gene (low risk); or inconclusive.

Validation data have shown a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 69% for the PLA, with a 99% negative predictive value; so a lesion that tested negative by PLA has a less than 1% chance of being melanoma. In addition, a study published in 2020 found that the addition of TERT (telomerase reverse transcriptase) mutation analyses increased the sensitivity of the PLA to 97%.

While the high negative predictive value is helpful to consider in clinical scenarios to rule-out melanoma for borderline lesions, one must consider the positive predictive value as well and how this may impact clinical care, Dr. Kim said. In a study examining outcomes of 381 lesions, 51 were PLA positive (single or double) and were biopsied, of which 19 (37%) revealed a melanoma diagnosis. In a large U.S. registry study of 3,418 lesions, 324 lesions that were PLA double positive were biopsied, with 18.7% revealing a melanoma diagnosis.

“No test is perfect, and this applies to PLA, even if you get a double-positive or double-negative test result,” Dr. Kim said. “You want to make sure that patients are aware of false positives and negatives. However, PLA could be an additional piece of data to inform your decision to proceed with biopsy on select borderline suspicious pigmented lesions. More studies are needed to better understand the approach to single- and double-positive PLA results.”

The PLA kit contains adhesive patches and supplies and a FedEx envelope for return to DermTech, the test’s manufacturer, for processing. The patches can be applied to lesions at least 4 mm in diameter; multiple kits are recommended for those greater than 16 mm in diameter. The test is not validated for lesions located on mucous membranes, palms, soles, nails, or on ulcerated or bleeding lesions, nor for those that have been previously biopsied. It is also not validated for use in pediatric patients or in those with skin types IV or higher. Results are returned in 2-3 days. If insurance does not cover the test, the cost to the patient is approximately $50 per lesion or a maximum of $150, according to Dr. Kim.
 

Use in clinical practice

In Dr. Kim’s clinical experience, the PLA can be considered for suspicious pigmented lesions on cosmetically sensitive areas and for suspicious lesions in areas difficult to biopsy or excise. For example, she discussed the case of a 72-year-old woman with a family history of melanoma, who presented to her clinic with a longstanding pigmented lesion on her right upper and lower eyelids that had previously been treated with laser. She had undergone multiple prior biopsies over 12 years, which caused mild to moderate atypical melanocytic proliferation. The PLA result was double negative for PRAME and LINC in her upper and lower eyelid, “which provided reassurance to the patient,” Dr. Kim said. The patient continues to be followed closely for any clinical changes.

Another patient, a 67-year-old woman, was referred to Dr. Kim from out of state for a teledermatology visit early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The patient had a lesion on her right calf that was hard, raised, and pink, did not resemble other lesions on her body, and had been present for a few weeks. “Her husband had recently passed away from brain cancer and she was very concerned about melanoma,” Dr. Kim recalled. “She lived alone, and the adult son was with her during the teledermatology call to assist. The patient asked about the PLA test, and given her difficulty going to a medical office at the time, we agreed to help her with this test.” The patient and her son arranged another teledermatology visit with Dr. Kim after receiving the kit in the mail from DermTech, and Dr. Kim coached them on how to properly administer the test. The results came back as PRAME negative and LINC positive. A biopsy with a local provider was recommended and the pathology results showed an inflamed seborrheic keratosis.

“This case exemplifies a false-positive result. We should be sure to make patients aware of this possibility,” Dr. Kim said.

Incorporating PLA into clinical practice requires certain workflow considerations, with paperwork to fill out in addition to performing the adhesive test, collection of insurance information, mailing the kit via FedEx, retrieving the results, and following up with the patient, said Dr. Kim. “For select borderline pigmented lesions, I discuss the rationale of the test with patients, the possibility of false-positive and false-negative results and the need to return for a biopsy when there is positive result. Clinical follow-up is recommended for negative results. There is also the possibility of charge to the patient if the test is not covered by their insurance.”
 

Skin biopsy still the gold standard

Despite the availability of the PLA as an assessment tool, Dr. Kim emphasized that skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing melanoma. “Future prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to examine the role of genetic expression profiling in staging and managing patients,” she said.

In 2019, she and her colleagues surveyed 42 pigmented lesion experts in the United States about why they ordered one of three molecular tests on the market or not and how results affected patient treatment. The proportion of clinicians who ordered the tests ranged from 21% to 29%. The top 2 reasons respondents chose for not ordering the PLA test specifically were: “Feel that further validation studies are necessary” (20%) and “do not feel it would be useful in my practice” (18%).

Results of a larger follow-up survey on usage patterns of PLA of both pigmented lesion experts and general clinicians on this topic are expected to be published shortly.

Dr. Kim reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.

BOSTON – Although skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing early-stage melanoma, advances in genetic expression profiling are helping dermatologists provide a nuanced approach to managing suspicious lesions.

One such test, the Pigmented Lesional Assay (PLA) uses adhesive patches applied to lesions of concern at the bedside to extract RNA from the stratum corneum to help determine the risk for melanoma.

At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of melanoma and pigmented lesion clinics at Newton Wellesley Dermatology, Wellesley Hills, Mass., and Tufts Medical Center, Boston, spoke about the PLA, which uses genetic expression profiling to measure the expression level of specific genes that are associated with melanoma: PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma) and LINC00518 (LINC). There are four possible results of the test: Aberrant expression of both LINC and PRAME (high risk); aberrant expression of a single gene (moderate risk); aberrant expression of neither gene (low risk); or inconclusive.

Validation data have shown a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 69% for the PLA, with a 99% negative predictive value; so a lesion that tested negative by PLA has a less than 1% chance of being melanoma. In addition, a study published in 2020 found that the addition of TERT (telomerase reverse transcriptase) mutation analyses increased the sensitivity of the PLA to 97%.

While the high negative predictive value is helpful to consider in clinical scenarios to rule-out melanoma for borderline lesions, one must consider the positive predictive value as well and how this may impact clinical care, Dr. Kim said. In a study examining outcomes of 381 lesions, 51 were PLA positive (single or double) and were biopsied, of which 19 (37%) revealed a melanoma diagnosis. In a large U.S. registry study of 3,418 lesions, 324 lesions that were PLA double positive were biopsied, with 18.7% revealing a melanoma diagnosis.

“No test is perfect, and this applies to PLA, even if you get a double-positive or double-negative test result,” Dr. Kim said. “You want to make sure that patients are aware of false positives and negatives. However, PLA could be an additional piece of data to inform your decision to proceed with biopsy on select borderline suspicious pigmented lesions. More studies are needed to better understand the approach to single- and double-positive PLA results.”

The PLA kit contains adhesive patches and supplies and a FedEx envelope for return to DermTech, the test’s manufacturer, for processing. The patches can be applied to lesions at least 4 mm in diameter; multiple kits are recommended for those greater than 16 mm in diameter. The test is not validated for lesions located on mucous membranes, palms, soles, nails, or on ulcerated or bleeding lesions, nor for those that have been previously biopsied. It is also not validated for use in pediatric patients or in those with skin types IV or higher. Results are returned in 2-3 days. If insurance does not cover the test, the cost to the patient is approximately $50 per lesion or a maximum of $150, according to Dr. Kim.
 

Use in clinical practice

In Dr. Kim’s clinical experience, the PLA can be considered for suspicious pigmented lesions on cosmetically sensitive areas and for suspicious lesions in areas difficult to biopsy or excise. For example, she discussed the case of a 72-year-old woman with a family history of melanoma, who presented to her clinic with a longstanding pigmented lesion on her right upper and lower eyelids that had previously been treated with laser. She had undergone multiple prior biopsies over 12 years, which caused mild to moderate atypical melanocytic proliferation. The PLA result was double negative for PRAME and LINC in her upper and lower eyelid, “which provided reassurance to the patient,” Dr. Kim said. The patient continues to be followed closely for any clinical changes.

Another patient, a 67-year-old woman, was referred to Dr. Kim from out of state for a teledermatology visit early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The patient had a lesion on her right calf that was hard, raised, and pink, did not resemble other lesions on her body, and had been present for a few weeks. “Her husband had recently passed away from brain cancer and she was very concerned about melanoma,” Dr. Kim recalled. “She lived alone, and the adult son was with her during the teledermatology call to assist. The patient asked about the PLA test, and given her difficulty going to a medical office at the time, we agreed to help her with this test.” The patient and her son arranged another teledermatology visit with Dr. Kim after receiving the kit in the mail from DermTech, and Dr. Kim coached them on how to properly administer the test. The results came back as PRAME negative and LINC positive. A biopsy with a local provider was recommended and the pathology results showed an inflamed seborrheic keratosis.

“This case exemplifies a false-positive result. We should be sure to make patients aware of this possibility,” Dr. Kim said.

Incorporating PLA into clinical practice requires certain workflow considerations, with paperwork to fill out in addition to performing the adhesive test, collection of insurance information, mailing the kit via FedEx, retrieving the results, and following up with the patient, said Dr. Kim. “For select borderline pigmented lesions, I discuss the rationale of the test with patients, the possibility of false-positive and false-negative results and the need to return for a biopsy when there is positive result. Clinical follow-up is recommended for negative results. There is also the possibility of charge to the patient if the test is not covered by their insurance.”
 

Skin biopsy still the gold standard

Despite the availability of the PLA as an assessment tool, Dr. Kim emphasized that skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing melanoma. “Future prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to examine the role of genetic expression profiling in staging and managing patients,” she said.

In 2019, she and her colleagues surveyed 42 pigmented lesion experts in the United States about why they ordered one of three molecular tests on the market or not and how results affected patient treatment. The proportion of clinicians who ordered the tests ranged from 21% to 29%. The top 2 reasons respondents chose for not ordering the PLA test specifically were: “Feel that further validation studies are necessary” (20%) and “do not feel it would be useful in my practice” (18%).

Results of a larger follow-up survey on usage patterns of PLA of both pigmented lesion experts and general clinicians on this topic are expected to be published shortly.

Dr. Kim reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.

BOSTON – Among dermatology residents and attending dermatologists, rates of diagnostic accuracy and appropriate biopsy recommendations were significantly lower for patients with skin of color, compared with White patients, new research shows.

“Our findings suggest diagnostic biases based on skin color exist in dermatology practice,” lead author Loren Krueger, MD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, said at the Annual Skin of Color Society Scientific Symposium. “A lower likelihood of biopsy of malignancy in darker skin types could contribute to disparities in cutaneous malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Loren Krueger

The findings underscore that “for skin of color patients, you’re more likely to have a benign neoplasm biopsied, you’re less likely to have a malignant neoplasm biopsied, and more often, your etiology may be missed,” Dr. Krueger said at the meeting.

Of note, while 45% of respondents were dermatology residents or fellows, 20.4% had 1-5 years of experience, and about 28% had 10 to more than 25 years of experience.

And while 75% of the dermatology residents, fellows, and attendings were White, there was no difference in the probability of correctly identifying the underlying etiology in dark or light skin types based on the provider’s self-identified race.

Importantly, the patterns in the study of diagnostic discrepancies are reflected in broader dermatologic outcomes. The 5-year melanoma survival rate is 74.1% among Black patients and 92.9% among White patients. Dr. Krueger referred to data showing that only 52.6% of Black patients have stage I melanoma at diagnosis, whereas among White patients, the rate is much higher, at 75.9%.

“We know skin malignancy can be more aggressive and late-stage in skin of color populations, leading to increased morbidity and later stage at initial diagnosis,” Dr. Krueger told this news organization. “We routinely attribute this to limited access to care and lack of awareness on skin malignancy. However, we have no evidence on how we, as dermatologists, may be playing a role.”

Furthermore, the decision to perform biopsy or not can affect the size and stage at diagnosis of a cutaneous malignancy, she noted.

Key changes needed to prevent the disparities – and their implications – should start at the training level, she emphasized. “I would love to see increased photo representation in training materials – this is a great place to start,” Dr. Krueger said.

In addition, “encouraging medical students, residents, and dermatologists to learn from skin of color experts is vital,” she said. “We should also provide hands-on experience and training with diverse patient populations.”

The first step to addressing biases “is to acknowledge they exist,” Dr. Krueger added. “I am hopeful this inspires others to continue to investigate these biases, as well as how we can eliminate them.”

The study was funded by the Rudin Resident Research Award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Among dermatology residents and attending dermatologists, rates of diagnostic accuracy and appropriate biopsy recommendations were significantly lower for patients with skin of color, compared with White patients, new research shows.

“Our findings suggest diagnostic biases based on skin color exist in dermatology practice,” lead author Loren Krueger, MD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, said at the Annual Skin of Color Society Scientific Symposium. “A lower likelihood of biopsy of malignancy in darker skin types could contribute to disparities in cutaneous malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Loren Krueger

The findings underscore that “for skin of color patients, you’re more likely to have a benign neoplasm biopsied, you’re less likely to have a malignant neoplasm biopsied, and more often, your etiology may be missed,” Dr. Krueger said at the meeting.

Of note, while 45% of respondents were dermatology residents or fellows, 20.4% had 1-5 years of experience, and about 28% had 10 to more than 25 years of experience.

And while 75% of the dermatology residents, fellows, and attendings were White, there was no difference in the probability of correctly identifying the underlying etiology in dark or light skin types based on the provider’s self-identified race.

Importantly, the patterns in the study of diagnostic discrepancies are reflected in broader dermatologic outcomes. The 5-year melanoma survival rate is 74.1% among Black patients and 92.9% among White patients. Dr. Krueger referred to data showing that only 52.6% of Black patients have stage I melanoma at diagnosis, whereas among White patients, the rate is much higher, at 75.9%.

“We know skin malignancy can be more aggressive and late-stage in skin of color populations, leading to increased morbidity and later stage at initial diagnosis,” Dr. Krueger told this news organization. “We routinely attribute this to limited access to care and lack of awareness on skin malignancy. However, we have no evidence on how we, as dermatologists, may be playing a role.”

Furthermore, the decision to perform biopsy or not can affect the size and stage at diagnosis of a cutaneous malignancy, she noted.

Key changes needed to prevent the disparities – and their implications – should start at the training level, she emphasized. “I would love to see increased photo representation in training materials – this is a great place to start,” Dr. Krueger said.

In addition, “encouraging medical students, residents, and dermatologists to learn from skin of color experts is vital,” she said. “We should also provide hands-on experience and training with diverse patient populations.”

The first step to addressing biases “is to acknowledge they exist,” Dr. Krueger added. “I am hopeful this inspires others to continue to investigate these biases, as well as how we can eliminate them.”

The study was funded by the Rudin Resident Research Award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Among dermatology residents and attending dermatologists, rates of diagnostic accuracy and appropriate biopsy recommendations were significantly lower for patients with skin of color, compared with White patients, new research shows.

“Our findings suggest diagnostic biases based on skin color exist in dermatology practice,” lead author Loren Krueger, MD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, said at the Annual Skin of Color Society Scientific Symposium. “A lower likelihood of biopsy of malignancy in darker skin types could contribute to disparities in cutaneous malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Loren Krueger

The findings underscore that “for skin of color patients, you’re more likely to have a benign neoplasm biopsied, you’re less likely to have a malignant neoplasm biopsied, and more often, your etiology may be missed,” Dr. Krueger said at the meeting.

Of note, while 45% of respondents were dermatology residents or fellows, 20.4% had 1-5 years of experience, and about 28% had 10 to more than 25 years of experience.

And while 75% of the dermatology residents, fellows, and attendings were White, there was no difference in the probability of correctly identifying the underlying etiology in dark or light skin types based on the provider’s self-identified race.

Importantly, the patterns in the study of diagnostic discrepancies are reflected in broader dermatologic outcomes. The 5-year melanoma survival rate is 74.1% among Black patients and 92.9% among White patients. Dr. Krueger referred to data showing that only 52.6% of Black patients have stage I melanoma at diagnosis, whereas among White patients, the rate is much higher, at 75.9%.

“We know skin malignancy can be more aggressive and late-stage in skin of color populations, leading to increased morbidity and later stage at initial diagnosis,” Dr. Krueger told this news organization. “We routinely attribute this to limited access to care and lack of awareness on skin malignancy. However, we have no evidence on how we, as dermatologists, may be playing a role.”

Furthermore, the decision to perform biopsy or not can affect the size and stage at diagnosis of a cutaneous malignancy, she noted.

Key changes needed to prevent the disparities – and their implications – should start at the training level, she emphasized. “I would love to see increased photo representation in training materials – this is a great place to start,” Dr. Krueger said.

In addition, “encouraging medical students, residents, and dermatologists to learn from skin of color experts is vital,” she said. “We should also provide hands-on experience and training with diverse patient populations.”

The first step to addressing biases “is to acknowledge they exist,” Dr. Krueger added. “I am hopeful this inspires others to continue to investigate these biases, as well as how we can eliminate them.”

The study was funded by the Rudin Resident Research Award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Even by cautious calculations, the worldwide incidence of cutaneous melanoma is high and predicted to rise sharply over the next 2 decades, cancer epidemiologists warn.

An estimated 325,000 people worldwide received a new diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma in 2020, and if present trends continue, the incidence of new cases is predicted to increase by about 50% in 2040, with melanoma deaths expected to rise by almost 70%, Melina Arnold, PhD, from the Cancer Surveillance Branch of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, and colleagues reported.

“Melanoma is the most lethal form of skin cancer; this epidemiological assessment found a heavy public health and economic burden, and our projections suggest that it will remain so in the coming decades,” they wrote in a study published online in JAMA Dermatology.

In an accompanying editorial, Mavis Obeng-Kusi, MPharm and Ivo Abraham, PhD from the Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research at the University of Arizona, Tucson, commented that the findings are “sobering,” but may substantially underestimate the gravity of the problem in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

“The study by Arnold et al. brings to the fore a public health concern that requires global attention and initiates conversations particularly related to LMIC settings, where the incidence and mortality of melanoma is thought to be minimal and for which preventive measures may be insufficient,” they wrote.

Down Under nations lead

Dr. Arnold and colleagues looked at data on age-standardized melanoma incidence and mortality rates per 100,000 person-years (PY) by country, each of 20 world regions as defined by the United Nations, and according to the UN’s four-tier Human Development Index, which stratifies countries into low-, medium-, high-, and very high–income categories.

As noted previously, the researchers estimated that there were 325,000 new melanoma cases worldwide in 2020 (174,000 cases in males and 151,000 in females). There were 57,000 estimated melanoma deaths the same year (32,000 in males and 25,000 in females.

The highest incidence rates were seen in Australia and New Zealand, at 42 per 100,000 PY among males and 31 per 100,000 PY in females, followed by Western Europe with 19 per 100,000 PY in both males and females, North America with 18 and 14 cases per 100,000 PY in males and females respectively, and Northern Europe, with 17 per 100,000 PY in males, and 18 per 100,000 PY in females.

In contrast, in most African and Asian countries melanoma was rare, with rates commonly less than 1 per 100,000 PY, the investigators noted.

The melanoma mortality rate was highest in New Zealand, at 5 per 100,000 PY. Mortality rates worldwide varied less widely than incidence rates. In most other regions of the world, mortality rates were “much lower,” ranging between 0.2-1.0 per 100,000 PY, they wrote.

The authors estimated that, if 2020 rates remain stable, the global burden from melanoma in 2040 will increase to approximately 510,000 new cases and 96,000 deaths.

Public health efforts needed

In their editorial, Ms. Obeng-Kusi and Dr. Abraham pointed out that the study was hampered by the limited availability of cancer data from LMICs, leading the authors to estimate incidence and mortality rates based on proxy data, such as statistical modeling or averaged rates from neighboring countries.

They emphasized the need for going beyond the statistics: “Specific to cutaneous melanoma data, what is most important globally, knowing the exact numbers of cases and deaths or understanding the order of magnitude of the present and future epidemiology? No doubt the latter. Melanoma can be treated more easily if caught at earlier stages.”

Projections such as those provided by Dr. Arnold and colleagues could help to raise awareness of the importance of decreasing exposure to UV radiation, which accounts for three-fourths of all incident melanomas, the editorialists said.

The study was funded in part by a grant to coauthor Anna E. Cust, PhD, MPH. Dr. Cust reported receiving a fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council outside the submitted work. Dr. Arnold had no conflicts of interested to disclose. Dr. Abraham reported financial relationships with various entities. Ms. Obeng-Kusi had no disclosures.

Even by cautious calculations, the worldwide incidence of cutaneous melanoma is high and predicted to rise sharply over the next 2 decades, cancer epidemiologists warn.

An estimated 325,000 people worldwide received a new diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma in 2020, and if present trends continue, the incidence of new cases is predicted to increase by about 50% in 2040, with melanoma deaths expected to rise by almost 70%, Melina Arnold, PhD, from the Cancer Surveillance Branch of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, and colleagues reported.

“Melanoma is the most lethal form of skin cancer; this epidemiological assessment found a heavy public health and economic burden, and our projections suggest that it will remain so in the coming decades,” they wrote in a study published online in JAMA Dermatology.

In an accompanying editorial, Mavis Obeng-Kusi, MPharm and Ivo Abraham, PhD from the Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research at the University of Arizona, Tucson, commented that the findings are “sobering,” but may substantially underestimate the gravity of the problem in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

“The study by Arnold et al. brings to the fore a public health concern that requires global attention and initiates conversations particularly related to LMIC settings, where the incidence and mortality of melanoma is thought to be minimal and for which preventive measures may be insufficient,” they wrote.

Down Under nations lead

Dr. Arnold and colleagues looked at data on age-standardized melanoma incidence and mortality rates per 100,000 person-years (PY) by country, each of 20 world regions as defined by the United Nations, and according to the UN’s four-tier Human Development Index, which stratifies countries into low-, medium-, high-, and very high–income categories.

As noted previously, the researchers estimated that there were 325,000 new melanoma cases worldwide in 2020 (174,000 cases in males and 151,000 in females). There were 57,000 estimated melanoma deaths the same year (32,000 in males and 25,000 in females.

The highest incidence rates were seen in Australia and New Zealand, at 42 per 100,000 PY among males and 31 per 100,000 PY in females, followed by Western Europe with 19 per 100,000 PY in both males and females, North America with 18 and 14 cases per 100,000 PY in males and females respectively, and Northern Europe, with 17 per 100,000 PY in males, and 18 per 100,000 PY in females.

In contrast, in most African and Asian countries melanoma was rare, with rates commonly less than 1 per 100,000 PY, the investigators noted.

The melanoma mortality rate was highest in New Zealand, at 5 per 100,000 PY. Mortality rates worldwide varied less widely than incidence rates. In most other regions of the world, mortality rates were “much lower,” ranging between 0.2-1.0 per 100,000 PY, they wrote.

The authors estimated that, if 2020 rates remain stable, the global burden from melanoma in 2040 will increase to approximately 510,000 new cases and 96,000 deaths.

Public health efforts needed

In their editorial, Ms. Obeng-Kusi and Dr. Abraham pointed out that the study was hampered by the limited availability of cancer data from LMICs, leading the authors to estimate incidence and mortality rates based on proxy data, such as statistical modeling or averaged rates from neighboring countries.

They emphasized the need for going beyond the statistics: “Specific to cutaneous melanoma data, what is most important globally, knowing the exact numbers of cases and deaths or understanding the order of magnitude of the present and future epidemiology? No doubt the latter. Melanoma can be treated more easily if caught at earlier stages.”

Projections such as those provided by Dr. Arnold and colleagues could help to raise awareness of the importance of decreasing exposure to UV radiation, which accounts for three-fourths of all incident melanomas, the editorialists said.

The study was funded in part by a grant to coauthor Anna E. Cust, PhD, MPH. Dr. Cust reported receiving a fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council outside the submitted work. Dr. Arnold had no conflicts of interested to disclose. Dr. Abraham reported financial relationships with various entities. Ms. Obeng-Kusi had no disclosures.

Even by cautious calculations, the worldwide incidence of cutaneous melanoma is high and predicted to rise sharply over the next 2 decades, cancer epidemiologists warn.

An estimated 325,000 people worldwide received a new diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma in 2020, and if present trends continue, the incidence of new cases is predicted to increase by about 50% in 2040, with melanoma deaths expected to rise by almost 70%, Melina Arnold, PhD, from the Cancer Surveillance Branch of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, and colleagues reported.

“Melanoma is the most lethal form of skin cancer; this epidemiological assessment found a heavy public health and economic burden, and our projections suggest that it will remain so in the coming decades,” they wrote in a study published online in JAMA Dermatology.

In an accompanying editorial, Mavis Obeng-Kusi, MPharm and Ivo Abraham, PhD from the Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research at the University of Arizona, Tucson, commented that the findings are “sobering,” but may substantially underestimate the gravity of the problem in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

“The study by Arnold et al. brings to the fore a public health concern that requires global attention and initiates conversations particularly related to LMIC settings, where the incidence and mortality of melanoma is thought to be minimal and for which preventive measures may be insufficient,” they wrote.

Down Under nations lead

Dr. Arnold and colleagues looked at data on age-standardized melanoma incidence and mortality rates per 100,000 person-years (PY) by country, each of 20 world regions as defined by the United Nations, and according to the UN’s four-tier Human Development Index, which stratifies countries into low-, medium-, high-, and very high–income categories.

As noted previously, the researchers estimated that there were 325,000 new melanoma cases worldwide in 2020 (174,000 cases in males and 151,000 in females). There were 57,000 estimated melanoma deaths the same year (32,000 in males and 25,000 in females.

The highest incidence rates were seen in Australia and New Zealand, at 42 per 100,000 PY among males and 31 per 100,000 PY in females, followed by Western Europe with 19 per 100,000 PY in both males and females, North America with 18 and 14 cases per 100,000 PY in males and females respectively, and Northern Europe, with 17 per 100,000 PY in males, and 18 per 100,000 PY in females.

In contrast, in most African and Asian countries melanoma was rare, with rates commonly less than 1 per 100,000 PY, the investigators noted.

The melanoma mortality rate was highest in New Zealand, at 5 per 100,000 PY. Mortality rates worldwide varied less widely than incidence rates. In most other regions of the world, mortality rates were “much lower,” ranging between 0.2-1.0 per 100,000 PY, they wrote.

The authors estimated that, if 2020 rates remain stable, the global burden from melanoma in 2040 will increase to approximately 510,000 new cases and 96,000 deaths.

Public health efforts needed

In their editorial, Ms. Obeng-Kusi and Dr. Abraham pointed out that the study was hampered by the limited availability of cancer data from LMICs, leading the authors to estimate incidence and mortality rates based on proxy data, such as statistical modeling or averaged rates from neighboring countries.

They emphasized the need for going beyond the statistics: “Specific to cutaneous melanoma data, what is most important globally, knowing the exact numbers of cases and deaths or understanding the order of magnitude of the present and future epidemiology? No doubt the latter. Melanoma can be treated more easily if caught at earlier stages.”

Projections such as those provided by Dr. Arnold and colleagues could help to raise awareness of the importance of decreasing exposure to UV radiation, which accounts for three-fourths of all incident melanomas, the editorialists said.

The study was funded in part by a grant to coauthor Anna E. Cust, PhD, MPH. Dr. Cust reported receiving a fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council outside the submitted work. Dr. Arnold had no conflicts of interested to disclose. Dr. Abraham reported financial relationships with various entities. Ms. Obeng-Kusi had no disclosures.

Melanoma has been increasing in incidence in the United States over the last few decades, but is this a true increase? Or is this a case of overdiagnosis, fueled by screening?

A new study argues the case for overdiagnosis.

“The incidence of melanoma has risen sixfold in the past 40 years in the U.S., while mortality has remained largely flat, an epidemiological signature consistent with overdiagnosis,” commented lead author lead author Adewole Adamson, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine, division of dermatology, at the University of Texas at Austin.

He posted this conclusion on Twitter after the study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

“The discrepancies in incidence and mortality trends found in this cohort study suggest considerable overdiagnosis of melanoma occurring among White patients in the U.S.,” the authors concluded.

They estimated that an estimated 59% of White women and 60% of White men with melanoma were overdiagnosed in 2014.

These results are similar to those from a recent study from Australia, which used a different method of assessing overdiagnosis. Those findings estimated that 54%-58% of melanoma cases represented overdiagnosis in Australia, Dr. Adamson noted.

“Our estimates shed light on the HUGE scope of this problem in the United States that we need to address,” Dr. Adamson commented on Twitter. “Calls for screening for melanoma in the general public will only push these numbers higher, and make patients out of healthy people.”

“Screening the general population for melanoma has never been shown to save lives and likely is responsible for the increase in melanoma overdiagnosis,” Dr. Adamson said in an interview. “Screening average- and/or low-risk patients is of low value and the harms may outweigh the theoretical benefits.”

Screening programs should be directed to those who may derive the most benefit. “Screening should be limited to high-risk patients such as older White men, patients with a lot of atypical nevi, heavy sun exposure, fair skin, and red hair,” he said. “Just like for other cancers, such as breast, prostate, and colorectal, there should be clear guidelines as to which populations to screen, as well as when to start and when to stop screening.”

Overdiagnosis is defined as the diagnosis of cancer that would never have caused any symptoms or problems in a patient’s lifetime. But therein lies the problem, explained Dr. Adamson. “Because we do not know which early, screen-detected skin cancers would be destined to progress, we are obligated to treat all of them.” There is evidence to suggest that melanoma in situ is not an obligate precursor lesion to invasive melanoma, similar to the situation in which not all ductal carcinoma in situ leads to invasive breast cancer. “It is possible that less aggressive management strategies could be the subject of future studies,” he said.
 

Patients out of healthy people

For their study, Dr. Adamson and colleagues compared rates of melanoma among White and Black patients. Melanoma is much less common among Black individuals, and they are also less likely to be screened. Additionally, screening rates among Black patients have remained more or less the same over the last decades, whereas screening has increased in White patients. 

The team used trends in mortality as a result of melanoma in Black patients as a marker for improvements in medical care. From this, they estimated the expected mortality trends in White patients if medical care had not improved. This served as a marker for the change in true cancer occurrence. Overdiagnosis was calculated as the difference between observed incidence and estimated true cancer occurrence.

The incidence of melanoma rose dramatically among White patients from 1975 to 2014, increasing about fourfold in White women (incidence rate ratio, 4.01) and sixfold in White men (IRR, 5.97).

At the same time, there was much smaller increase (of less than 25%) in the incidence of melanoma in both Black women and Black men.

In that time period, melanoma-related mortality decreased approximately 25% in Black women and men; it remained stable in White women, but increased almost 50% in White men.

Had medical care not improved, estimated mortality would have increased 60% in White women and more than doubled in White men, the authors assert.
 

Guidelines needed

“Recognizing and addressing overdiagnosis is important,” said Anthony J. Olszanski, MD, RPh, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, who was approached for comment on the paper.

That said, Dr. Olszanski noted that this particular study has important limitations. “It is, by nature, a retrospective study using data from the [Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results] database registry, limited to patients only in the U.S., and uses a control group of Black patients to estimate overdiagnosis in White patients. These important factors can certainly influence their findings. However, the paper also notes that White men have realized a true increase in diagnosis, backed by a notable increase in mortality.”

The findings should and do raise a number of provocative questions, Dr. Olszanski emphasized. “Should we curtail public screening? Should we mandate revised guidelines for biopsies or pathologic diagnosis?

“As a medical oncologist,” he continued, “I treat patients who clearly do not have benign disease and so it is easy for me to be biased toward aggressive screening. However, it is my opinion that we should develop guidelines aimed at lessening this apparent overdiagnosis.”

These guidelines should be based on prospective studies and would better define which lesions are most suspect and should be biopsied, which are rational for ongoing surveillance, and what pathologic features are most consistent with melanoma, he noted. “We also need to continue to educate the public, as all too often I see the patient who ignored a lesion that was changing over time. A changing lesion requires medical attention. Importantly, we likewise need to improve our commitment in educating the public about the risks of excessive ultraviolet radiation exposure and how to avoid it, as prevention continues to be a most prudent course.”
 

Screening catches disease early

Another expert approached for comment emphasized that identifying melanomas early on may prevent the need for aggressive therapy. “Many primary melanomas in the U.S. are diagnosed now at an early stage and are cured with surgery, and that hardly constitutes overdiagnosis,” said Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Perlmutter Cancer Center and codirector of the melanoma research program, New York University Langone Health.

“In addition, the death rate from melanoma is likely decreased due to the advent of more effective therapies for metastatic disease, and the increasing use of adjuvant immune and targeted therapies that are highly effective at preventing relapse and undoubtedly at prolonging survival, but they have been approved only since 2017-2018,” he added.

This study was supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Adamson and Dr. Olszanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies and holds equity in CytoMx, Biond, Neximmune, and Immunimax.

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

Melanoma has been increasing in incidence in the United States over the last few decades, but is this a true increase? Or is this a case of overdiagnosis, fueled by screening?

A new study argues the case for overdiagnosis.

“The incidence of melanoma has risen sixfold in the past 40 years in the U.S., while mortality has remained largely flat, an epidemiological signature consistent with overdiagnosis,” commented lead author lead author Adewole Adamson, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine, division of dermatology, at the University of Texas at Austin.

He posted this conclusion on Twitter after the study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

“The discrepancies in incidence and mortality trends found in this cohort study suggest considerable overdiagnosis of melanoma occurring among White patients in the U.S.,” the authors concluded.

They estimated that an estimated 59% of White women and 60% of White men with melanoma were overdiagnosed in 2014.

These results are similar to those from a recent study from Australia, which used a different method of assessing overdiagnosis. Those findings estimated that 54%-58% of melanoma cases represented overdiagnosis in Australia, Dr. Adamson noted.

“Our estimates shed light on the HUGE scope of this problem in the United States that we need to address,” Dr. Adamson commented on Twitter. “Calls for screening for melanoma in the general public will only push these numbers higher, and make patients out of healthy people.”

“Screening the general population for melanoma has never been shown to save lives and likely is responsible for the increase in melanoma overdiagnosis,” Dr. Adamson said in an interview. “Screening average- and/or low-risk patients is of low value and the harms may outweigh the theoretical benefits.”

Screening programs should be directed to those who may derive the most benefit. “Screening should be limited to high-risk patients such as older White men, patients with a lot of atypical nevi, heavy sun exposure, fair skin, and red hair,” he said. “Just like for other cancers, such as breast, prostate, and colorectal, there should be clear guidelines as to which populations to screen, as well as when to start and when to stop screening.”

Overdiagnosis is defined as the diagnosis of cancer that would never have caused any symptoms or problems in a patient’s lifetime. But therein lies the problem, explained Dr. Adamson. “Because we do not know which early, screen-detected skin cancers would be destined to progress, we are obligated to treat all of them.” There is evidence to suggest that melanoma in situ is not an obligate precursor lesion to invasive melanoma, similar to the situation in which not all ductal carcinoma in situ leads to invasive breast cancer. “It is possible that less aggressive management strategies could be the subject of future studies,” he said.
 

Patients out of healthy people

For their study, Dr. Adamson and colleagues compared rates of melanoma among White and Black patients. Melanoma is much less common among Black individuals, and they are also less likely to be screened. Additionally, screening rates among Black patients have remained more or less the same over the last decades, whereas screening has increased in White patients. 

The team used trends in mortality as a result of melanoma in Black patients as a marker for improvements in medical care. From this, they estimated the expected mortality trends in White patients if medical care had not improved. This served as a marker for the change in true cancer occurrence. Overdiagnosis was calculated as the difference between observed incidence and estimated true cancer occurrence.

The incidence of melanoma rose dramatically among White patients from 1975 to 2014, increasing about fourfold in White women (incidence rate ratio, 4.01) and sixfold in White men (IRR, 5.97).

At the same time, there was much smaller increase (of less than 25%) in the incidence of melanoma in both Black women and Black men.

In that time period, melanoma-related mortality decreased approximately 25% in Black women and men; it remained stable in White women, but increased almost 50% in White men.

Had medical care not improved, estimated mortality would have increased 60% in White women and more than doubled in White men, the authors assert.
 

Guidelines needed

“Recognizing and addressing overdiagnosis is important,” said Anthony J. Olszanski, MD, RPh, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, who was approached for comment on the paper.

That said, Dr. Olszanski noted that this particular study has important limitations. “It is, by nature, a retrospective study using data from the [Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results] database registry, limited to patients only in the U.S., and uses a control group of Black patients to estimate overdiagnosis in White patients. These important factors can certainly influence their findings. However, the paper also notes that White men have realized a true increase in diagnosis, backed by a notable increase in mortality.”

The findings should and do raise a number of provocative questions, Dr. Olszanski emphasized. “Should we curtail public screening? Should we mandate revised guidelines for biopsies or pathologic diagnosis?

“As a medical oncologist,” he continued, “I treat patients who clearly do not have benign disease and so it is easy for me to be biased toward aggressive screening. However, it is my opinion that we should develop guidelines aimed at lessening this apparent overdiagnosis.”

These guidelines should be based on prospective studies and would better define which lesions are most suspect and should be biopsied, which are rational for ongoing surveillance, and what pathologic features are most consistent with melanoma, he noted. “We also need to continue to educate the public, as all too often I see the patient who ignored a lesion that was changing over time. A changing lesion requires medical attention. Importantly, we likewise need to improve our commitment in educating the public about the risks of excessive ultraviolet radiation exposure and how to avoid it, as prevention continues to be a most prudent course.”
 

Screening catches disease early

Another expert approached for comment emphasized that identifying melanomas early on may prevent the need for aggressive therapy. “Many primary melanomas in the U.S. are diagnosed now at an early stage and are cured with surgery, and that hardly constitutes overdiagnosis,” said Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Perlmutter Cancer Center and codirector of the melanoma research program, New York University Langone Health.

“In addition, the death rate from melanoma is likely decreased due to the advent of more effective therapies for metastatic disease, and the increasing use of adjuvant immune and targeted therapies that are highly effective at preventing relapse and undoubtedly at prolonging survival, but they have been approved only since 2017-2018,” he added.

This study was supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Adamson and Dr. Olszanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies and holds equity in CytoMx, Biond, Neximmune, and Immunimax.

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

Melanoma has been increasing in incidence in the United States over the last few decades, but is this a true increase? Or is this a case of overdiagnosis, fueled by screening?

A new study argues the case for overdiagnosis.

“The incidence of melanoma has risen sixfold in the past 40 years in the U.S., while mortality has remained largely flat, an epidemiological signature consistent with overdiagnosis,” commented lead author lead author Adewole Adamson, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine, division of dermatology, at the University of Texas at Austin.

He posted this conclusion on Twitter after the study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

“The discrepancies in incidence and mortality trends found in this cohort study suggest considerable overdiagnosis of melanoma occurring among White patients in the U.S.,” the authors concluded.

They estimated that an estimated 59% of White women and 60% of White men with melanoma were overdiagnosed in 2014.

These results are similar to those from a recent study from Australia, which used a different method of assessing overdiagnosis. Those findings estimated that 54%-58% of melanoma cases represented overdiagnosis in Australia, Dr. Adamson noted.

“Our estimates shed light on the HUGE scope of this problem in the United States that we need to address,” Dr. Adamson commented on Twitter. “Calls for screening for melanoma in the general public will only push these numbers higher, and make patients out of healthy people.”

“Screening the general population for melanoma has never been shown to save lives and likely is responsible for the increase in melanoma overdiagnosis,” Dr. Adamson said in an interview. “Screening average- and/or low-risk patients is of low value and the harms may outweigh the theoretical benefits.”

Screening programs should be directed to those who may derive the most benefit. “Screening should be limited to high-risk patients such as older White men, patients with a lot of atypical nevi, heavy sun exposure, fair skin, and red hair,” he said. “Just like for other cancers, such as breast, prostate, and colorectal, there should be clear guidelines as to which populations to screen, as well as when to start and when to stop screening.”

Overdiagnosis is defined as the diagnosis of cancer that would never have caused any symptoms or problems in a patient’s lifetime. But therein lies the problem, explained Dr. Adamson. “Because we do not know which early, screen-detected skin cancers would be destined to progress, we are obligated to treat all of them.” There is evidence to suggest that melanoma in situ is not an obligate precursor lesion to invasive melanoma, similar to the situation in which not all ductal carcinoma in situ leads to invasive breast cancer. “It is possible that less aggressive management strategies could be the subject of future studies,” he said.
 

Patients out of healthy people

For their study, Dr. Adamson and colleagues compared rates of melanoma among White and Black patients. Melanoma is much less common among Black individuals, and they are also less likely to be screened. Additionally, screening rates among Black patients have remained more or less the same over the last decades, whereas screening has increased in White patients. 

The team used trends in mortality as a result of melanoma in Black patients as a marker for improvements in medical care. From this, they estimated the expected mortality trends in White patients if medical care had not improved. This served as a marker for the change in true cancer occurrence. Overdiagnosis was calculated as the difference between observed incidence and estimated true cancer occurrence.

The incidence of melanoma rose dramatically among White patients from 1975 to 2014, increasing about fourfold in White women (incidence rate ratio, 4.01) and sixfold in White men (IRR, 5.97).

At the same time, there was much smaller increase (of less than 25%) in the incidence of melanoma in both Black women and Black men.

In that time period, melanoma-related mortality decreased approximately 25% in Black women and men; it remained stable in White women, but increased almost 50% in White men.

Had medical care not improved, estimated mortality would have increased 60% in White women and more than doubled in White men, the authors assert.
 

Guidelines needed

“Recognizing and addressing overdiagnosis is important,” said Anthony J. Olszanski, MD, RPh, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, who was approached for comment on the paper.

That said, Dr. Olszanski noted that this particular study has important limitations. “It is, by nature, a retrospective study using data from the [Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results] database registry, limited to patients only in the U.S., and uses a control group of Black patients to estimate overdiagnosis in White patients. These important factors can certainly influence their findings. However, the paper also notes that White men have realized a true increase in diagnosis, backed by a notable increase in mortality.”

The findings should and do raise a number of provocative questions, Dr. Olszanski emphasized. “Should we curtail public screening? Should we mandate revised guidelines for biopsies or pathologic diagnosis?

“As a medical oncologist,” he continued, “I treat patients who clearly do not have benign disease and so it is easy for me to be biased toward aggressive screening. However, it is my opinion that we should develop guidelines aimed at lessening this apparent overdiagnosis.”

These guidelines should be based on prospective studies and would better define which lesions are most suspect and should be biopsied, which are rational for ongoing surveillance, and what pathologic features are most consistent with melanoma, he noted. “We also need to continue to educate the public, as all too often I see the patient who ignored a lesion that was changing over time. A changing lesion requires medical attention. Importantly, we likewise need to improve our commitment in educating the public about the risks of excessive ultraviolet radiation exposure and how to avoid it, as prevention continues to be a most prudent course.”
 

Screening catches disease early

Another expert approached for comment emphasized that identifying melanomas early on may prevent the need for aggressive therapy. “Many primary melanomas in the U.S. are diagnosed now at an early stage and are cured with surgery, and that hardly constitutes overdiagnosis,” said Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Perlmutter Cancer Center and codirector of the melanoma research program, New York University Langone Health.

“In addition, the death rate from melanoma is likely decreased due to the advent of more effective therapies for metastatic disease, and the increasing use of adjuvant immune and targeted therapies that are highly effective at preventing relapse and undoubtedly at prolonging survival, but they have been approved only since 2017-2018,” he added.

This study was supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Adamson and Dr. Olszanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies and holds equity in CytoMx, Biond, Neximmune, and Immunimax.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a combination nivolumab/relatlimab-rmbw immune checkpoint inhibitor (Opdualag) for unresectable or metastatic melanoma in adults and children 12 years or older, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Approval was based on the company’s RELATIVITY-047 trial, which found a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 10.1 months among 355 patients randomly assigned to the combination therapy compared with 4.6 months among 359 patients who received nivolumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .0055).

In the combination therapy group, 18.9% of patients reported a grade 3/4 drug-related adverse event, compared with 9.7% in the nivolumab group; 14.6% of patients in the combination group had drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation versus 6.7% of those receiving monotherapy, the company noted in a press release.

Relatlimab is the company’s third immune checkpoint inhibitor to reach the U.S. market, joining the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and the CTLA-4 blocker ipilimumab. Relatlimab targets LAG-3, a cell-surface receptor found on activated CD4+ T cells.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is currently the standard of care for previously untreated metastatic or inoperable melanoma. Both combinations produce similar PFS, but the incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events is higher with ipilimumab, according to a Jan. 6, 2022, editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, rash, pruritus, and diarrhea were the most common adverse reactions with combination nivolumab/relatlimab, occurring in 20% or more of RELATIVITY-047 trial participants.

Adrenal insufficiency, anemia, colitis, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction were the most frequent serious adverse reactions, but each occurred in less than 2% of patients. There were three fatal adverse events in the trial caused by hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, acute lung edema, and pneumonitis.

The approved dosage is 480 mg nivolumab and 160 mg relatlimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a combination nivolumab/relatlimab-rmbw immune checkpoint inhibitor (Opdualag) for unresectable or metastatic melanoma in adults and children 12 years or older, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Approval was based on the company’s RELATIVITY-047 trial, which found a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 10.1 months among 355 patients randomly assigned to the combination therapy compared with 4.6 months among 359 patients who received nivolumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .0055).

In the combination therapy group, 18.9% of patients reported a grade 3/4 drug-related adverse event, compared with 9.7% in the nivolumab group; 14.6% of patients in the combination group had drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation versus 6.7% of those receiving monotherapy, the company noted in a press release.

Relatlimab is the company’s third immune checkpoint inhibitor to reach the U.S. market, joining the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and the CTLA-4 blocker ipilimumab. Relatlimab targets LAG-3, a cell-surface receptor found on activated CD4+ T cells.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is currently the standard of care for previously untreated metastatic or inoperable melanoma. Both combinations produce similar PFS, but the incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events is higher with ipilimumab, according to a Jan. 6, 2022, editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, rash, pruritus, and diarrhea were the most common adverse reactions with combination nivolumab/relatlimab, occurring in 20% or more of RELATIVITY-047 trial participants.

Adrenal insufficiency, anemia, colitis, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction were the most frequent serious adverse reactions, but each occurred in less than 2% of patients. There were three fatal adverse events in the trial caused by hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, acute lung edema, and pneumonitis.

The approved dosage is 480 mg nivolumab and 160 mg relatlimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a combination nivolumab/relatlimab-rmbw immune checkpoint inhibitor (Opdualag) for unresectable or metastatic melanoma in adults and children 12 years or older, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Approval was based on the company’s RELATIVITY-047 trial, which found a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 10.1 months among 355 patients randomly assigned to the combination therapy compared with 4.6 months among 359 patients who received nivolumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .0055).

In the combination therapy group, 18.9% of patients reported a grade 3/4 drug-related adverse event, compared with 9.7% in the nivolumab group; 14.6% of patients in the combination group had drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation versus 6.7% of those receiving monotherapy, the company noted in a press release.

Relatlimab is the company’s third immune checkpoint inhibitor to reach the U.S. market, joining the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and the CTLA-4 blocker ipilimumab. Relatlimab targets LAG-3, a cell-surface receptor found on activated CD4+ T cells.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is currently the standard of care for previously untreated metastatic or inoperable melanoma. Both combinations produce similar PFS, but the incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events is higher with ipilimumab, according to a Jan. 6, 2022, editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, rash, pruritus, and diarrhea were the most common adverse reactions with combination nivolumab/relatlimab, occurring in 20% or more of RELATIVITY-047 trial participants.

Adrenal insufficiency, anemia, colitis, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction were the most frequent serious adverse reactions, but each occurred in less than 2% of patients. There were three fatal adverse events in the trial caused by hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, acute lung edema, and pneumonitis.

The approved dosage is 480 mg nivolumab and 160 mg relatlimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have unquestionably revolutionized the care of patients with malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and other types of cancer.

But about 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs will experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they write in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Recommendations from the EADV “Dermatology for Cancer Patients” task force have been published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Task force members developed the recommendations based on clinical experience from published data and came up with specific recommendations for treating cutaneous toxicities associated with dermatologic immune-related adverse events (dirAEs) that occur in patients receiving immunotherapy with an ICI.

ICIs include the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb), and inhibitors of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1), including nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck), and other agents.

“The basic principle of management is that the interventions should be tailored to serve the equilibrium between patients’ relief from the symptoms and signs of skin toxicity and the preservation of an unimpeded oncologic treatment,” they write.

The recommendations are in line with those included in a 2021 update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on the management of irAEs in patients treated with ICIs across the whole range of organ systems, said Milan J. Anadkat, MD, professor of dermatology and director of dermatology clinical trials at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Anadkat was a coauthor of the ASCO guideline update.

Although the European recommendations focus only on dermatologic side effects of ICIs in patients with cancer, “that doesn’t diminish their importance. They do a good job of summarizing how to approach and how to manage it depending on the severity of the toxicities and the various types of toxicities,” he told this news organization.

Having a paper focused exclusively on the dermatologic side effects of ICIs allows the inclusion of photographs that can help clinicians identify specific conditions that may require referral to a dermatologist, he said.

Both Dr. Anadkat and the authors of the European recommendations noted that dermatologic irAEs are more common with CTLA-4 inhibition than with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition.

“It has to do with where the target is,” Dr. Anadkat said. “CTLA-4 inhibition works on a central aspect of the immune system, so it’s a much less specific site, whereas PD-1 affects an interaction at the site of the tumor cell itself, so it’s a little more specific.”

Pruritus

ICI-induced pruritus can occur without apparent skin changes, they write, noting that in a recent study of patients with dirAEs, about one-third had isolated pruritus. 

The task force members cite a meta-analysis indicating a pruritus incidence of 13.2% for patients treated with nivolumab and 20.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab but respective grade 3 pruritus rates of only 0.5% and 2.3%. The reported incidence of pruritus with ipilimumab was 47% in a different study.

Recommended treatments include topical moisturizers with or without medium-to-high potency corticosteroids for grade 1 reactions, non-sedating histamines and/or GABA agonists such as pregabalin, or gabapentin for grade 2 pruritus, and suspension of ICIs until pruritus improves in patients with grade 3 pruritus.
 

Maculopapular rash

Maculopapular or eczema-like rashes may occur in up to 68% of patients who receive a CTLA-4 inhibitor and up to 20% of those who receive a PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor, the authors note. Rashes commonly appear within 3-6 weeks of initiating therapy.

“The clinical presentation is nonspecific and consists of a rapid onset of multiple minimally scaly, erythematous macules and papules, congregating into plaques. Lesions are mostly located on trunk and extensor surfaces of the extremities and the face is generally spared,” they write.

Maculopapular rashes are typically accompanied by itching but could be asymptomatic, they noted.

Mild (grade 1) rashes may respond to moisturizers and topical potent or super-potent corticosteroids. Patients with grade 2 rash should also receive oral antihistamines. Systemic corticosteroids may be considered for patients with grade 3 rashes but only after other dirAEs that may require specific management, such as psoriasis, are ruled out.
 

Psoriasis-like rash

The most common form of psoriasis seen in patients treated with ICIs is psoriasis vulgaris with plaques, but other clinical variants are also seen, the authors note.

“Topical agents (corticosteroids, Vitamin D analogues) are prescribed in Grades 1/2 and supplementary” to systemic treatment for patients with grade 3 or recalcitrant lesions, they write. “If skin-directed therapies fail to provide symptomatic control,” systemic treatment and narrow band UVB phototherapy “should be considered,” they add. 

Evidence regarding the use of systemic therapies to treat psoriasis-like rash associated with ICIs is sparse. Acitretin can be safely used in patients with cancer. Low-dose methotrexate is also safe to use except in patients with non-melanoma skin cancers. Cyclosporine, however, should be avoided because of the potential for tumor-promoting effects, they emphasized.

The recommendations also cover treatment of lichen planus-like and vitiligo-like rashes, as well as hair and nail changes, autoimmune bullous disorders, and oral mucosal dirAEs.

In addition, the recommendations cover severe cutaneous adverse reactions as well as serious, potentially life-threatening dirAEs, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DRESS/DIHS).

“The dose of corticosteroids may be adapted to the severity of DRESS. The therapeutic benefit of systemic corticosteroids in the management of SJS/TEN remains controversial, and some authors favor treatment with cyclosporine. However, the use of corticosteroids in this context of ICI treatment appears reasonable and should be proposed. Short courses of steroids seem also effective in AGEP,” the task force members write.

The recommendations did not have outside funding. Of the 19 authors, 6 disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Leo Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and/or Janssen. Dr. Anadkat disclosed previous relationships with Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and current relationships with others.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have unquestionably revolutionized the care of patients with malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and other types of cancer.

But about 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs will experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they write in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Recommendations from the EADV “Dermatology for Cancer Patients” task force have been published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Task force members developed the recommendations based on clinical experience from published data and came up with specific recommendations for treating cutaneous toxicities associated with dermatologic immune-related adverse events (dirAEs) that occur in patients receiving immunotherapy with an ICI.

ICIs include the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb), and inhibitors of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1), including nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck), and other agents.

“The basic principle of management is that the interventions should be tailored to serve the equilibrium between patients’ relief from the symptoms and signs of skin toxicity and the preservation of an unimpeded oncologic treatment,” they write.

The recommendations are in line with those included in a 2021 update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on the management of irAEs in patients treated with ICIs across the whole range of organ systems, said Milan J. Anadkat, MD, professor of dermatology and director of dermatology clinical trials at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Anadkat was a coauthor of the ASCO guideline update.

Although the European recommendations focus only on dermatologic side effects of ICIs in patients with cancer, “that doesn’t diminish their importance. They do a good job of summarizing how to approach and how to manage it depending on the severity of the toxicities and the various types of toxicities,” he told this news organization.

Having a paper focused exclusively on the dermatologic side effects of ICIs allows the inclusion of photographs that can help clinicians identify specific conditions that may require referral to a dermatologist, he said.

Both Dr. Anadkat and the authors of the European recommendations noted that dermatologic irAEs are more common with CTLA-4 inhibition than with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition.

“It has to do with where the target is,” Dr. Anadkat said. “CTLA-4 inhibition works on a central aspect of the immune system, so it’s a much less specific site, whereas PD-1 affects an interaction at the site of the tumor cell itself, so it’s a little more specific.”

Pruritus

ICI-induced pruritus can occur without apparent skin changes, they write, noting that in a recent study of patients with dirAEs, about one-third had isolated pruritus. 

The task force members cite a meta-analysis indicating a pruritus incidence of 13.2% for patients treated with nivolumab and 20.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab but respective grade 3 pruritus rates of only 0.5% and 2.3%. The reported incidence of pruritus with ipilimumab was 47% in a different study.

Recommended treatments include topical moisturizers with or without medium-to-high potency corticosteroids for grade 1 reactions, non-sedating histamines and/or GABA agonists such as pregabalin, or gabapentin for grade 2 pruritus, and suspension of ICIs until pruritus improves in patients with grade 3 pruritus.
 

Maculopapular rash

Maculopapular or eczema-like rashes may occur in up to 68% of patients who receive a CTLA-4 inhibitor and up to 20% of those who receive a PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor, the authors note. Rashes commonly appear within 3-6 weeks of initiating therapy.

“The clinical presentation is nonspecific and consists of a rapid onset of multiple minimally scaly, erythematous macules and papules, congregating into plaques. Lesions are mostly located on trunk and extensor surfaces of the extremities and the face is generally spared,” they write.

Maculopapular rashes are typically accompanied by itching but could be asymptomatic, they noted.

Mild (grade 1) rashes may respond to moisturizers and topical potent or super-potent corticosteroids. Patients with grade 2 rash should also receive oral antihistamines. Systemic corticosteroids may be considered for patients with grade 3 rashes but only after other dirAEs that may require specific management, such as psoriasis, are ruled out.
 

Psoriasis-like rash

The most common form of psoriasis seen in patients treated with ICIs is psoriasis vulgaris with plaques, but other clinical variants are also seen, the authors note.

“Topical agents (corticosteroids, Vitamin D analogues) are prescribed in Grades 1/2 and supplementary” to systemic treatment for patients with grade 3 or recalcitrant lesions, they write. “If skin-directed therapies fail to provide symptomatic control,” systemic treatment and narrow band UVB phototherapy “should be considered,” they add. 

Evidence regarding the use of systemic therapies to treat psoriasis-like rash associated with ICIs is sparse. Acitretin can be safely used in patients with cancer. Low-dose methotrexate is also safe to use except in patients with non-melanoma skin cancers. Cyclosporine, however, should be avoided because of the potential for tumor-promoting effects, they emphasized.

The recommendations also cover treatment of lichen planus-like and vitiligo-like rashes, as well as hair and nail changes, autoimmune bullous disorders, and oral mucosal dirAEs.

In addition, the recommendations cover severe cutaneous adverse reactions as well as serious, potentially life-threatening dirAEs, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DRESS/DIHS).

“The dose of corticosteroids may be adapted to the severity of DRESS. The therapeutic benefit of systemic corticosteroids in the management of SJS/TEN remains controversial, and some authors favor treatment with cyclosporine. However, the use of corticosteroids in this context of ICI treatment appears reasonable and should be proposed. Short courses of steroids seem also effective in AGEP,” the task force members write.

The recommendations did not have outside funding. Of the 19 authors, 6 disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Leo Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and/or Janssen. Dr. Anadkat disclosed previous relationships with Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and current relationships with others.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have unquestionably revolutionized the care of patients with malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and other types of cancer.

But about 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs will experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they write in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Recommendations from the EADV “Dermatology for Cancer Patients” task force have been published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Task force members developed the recommendations based on clinical experience from published data and came up with specific recommendations for treating cutaneous toxicities associated with dermatologic immune-related adverse events (dirAEs) that occur in patients receiving immunotherapy with an ICI.

ICIs include the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb), and inhibitors of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1), including nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck), and other agents.

“The basic principle of management is that the interventions should be tailored to serve the equilibrium between patients’ relief from the symptoms and signs of skin toxicity and the preservation of an unimpeded oncologic treatment,” they write.

The recommendations are in line with those included in a 2021 update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on the management of irAEs in patients treated with ICIs across the whole range of organ systems, said Milan J. Anadkat, MD, professor of dermatology and director of dermatology clinical trials at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Anadkat was a coauthor of the ASCO guideline update.

Although the European recommendations focus only on dermatologic side effects of ICIs in patients with cancer, “that doesn’t diminish their importance. They do a good job of summarizing how to approach and how to manage it depending on the severity of the toxicities and the various types of toxicities,” he told this news organization.

Having a paper focused exclusively on the dermatologic side effects of ICIs allows the inclusion of photographs that can help clinicians identify specific conditions that may require referral to a dermatologist, he said.

Both Dr. Anadkat and the authors of the European recommendations noted that dermatologic irAEs are more common with CTLA-4 inhibition than with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition.

“It has to do with where the target is,” Dr. Anadkat said. “CTLA-4 inhibition works on a central aspect of the immune system, so it’s a much less specific site, whereas PD-1 affects an interaction at the site of the tumor cell itself, so it’s a little more specific.”

Pruritus

ICI-induced pruritus can occur without apparent skin changes, they write, noting that in a recent study of patients with dirAEs, about one-third had isolated pruritus. 

The task force members cite a meta-analysis indicating a pruritus incidence of 13.2% for patients treated with nivolumab and 20.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab but respective grade 3 pruritus rates of only 0.5% and 2.3%. The reported incidence of pruritus with ipilimumab was 47% in a different study.

Recommended treatments include topical moisturizers with or without medium-to-high potency corticosteroids for grade 1 reactions, non-sedating histamines and/or GABA agonists such as pregabalin, or gabapentin for grade 2 pruritus, and suspension of ICIs until pruritus improves in patients with grade 3 pruritus.
 

Maculopapular rash

Maculopapular or eczema-like rashes may occur in up to 68% of patients who receive a CTLA-4 inhibitor and up to 20% of those who receive a PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor, the authors note. Rashes commonly appear within 3-6 weeks of initiating therapy.

“The clinical presentation is nonspecific and consists of a rapid onset of multiple minimally scaly, erythematous macules and papules, congregating into plaques. Lesions are mostly located on trunk and extensor surfaces of the extremities and the face is generally spared,” they write.

Maculopapular rashes are typically accompanied by itching but could be asymptomatic, they noted.

Mild (grade 1) rashes may respond to moisturizers and topical potent or super-potent corticosteroids. Patients with grade 2 rash should also receive oral antihistamines. Systemic corticosteroids may be considered for patients with grade 3 rashes but only after other dirAEs that may require specific management, such as psoriasis, are ruled out.
 

Psoriasis-like rash

The most common form of psoriasis seen in patients treated with ICIs is psoriasis vulgaris with plaques, but other clinical variants are also seen, the authors note.

“Topical agents (corticosteroids, Vitamin D analogues) are prescribed in Grades 1/2 and supplementary” to systemic treatment for patients with grade 3 or recalcitrant lesions, they write. “If skin-directed therapies fail to provide symptomatic control,” systemic treatment and narrow band UVB phototherapy “should be considered,” they add. 

Evidence regarding the use of systemic therapies to treat psoriasis-like rash associated with ICIs is sparse. Acitretin can be safely used in patients with cancer. Low-dose methotrexate is also safe to use except in patients with non-melanoma skin cancers. Cyclosporine, however, should be avoided because of the potential for tumor-promoting effects, they emphasized.

The recommendations also cover treatment of lichen planus-like and vitiligo-like rashes, as well as hair and nail changes, autoimmune bullous disorders, and oral mucosal dirAEs.

In addition, the recommendations cover severe cutaneous adverse reactions as well as serious, potentially life-threatening dirAEs, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DRESS/DIHS).

“The dose of corticosteroids may be adapted to the severity of DRESS. The therapeutic benefit of systemic corticosteroids in the management of SJS/TEN remains controversial, and some authors favor treatment with cyclosporine. However, the use of corticosteroids in this context of ICI treatment appears reasonable and should be proposed. Short courses of steroids seem also effective in AGEP,” the task force members write.

The recommendations did not have outside funding. Of the 19 authors, 6 disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Leo Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and/or Janssen. Dr. Anadkat disclosed previous relationships with Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and current relationships with others.

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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

A large-scale meta-analysis has verified that the gut microbiome does influence patients’s response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in advanced melanoma, but the relationship appears to be more complex than previously thought.

Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.

This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”

The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.

Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.

Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.

To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.

First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).

The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.

However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.

Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.

“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”

Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”

In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”

This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large-scale meta-analysis has verified that the gut microbiome does influence patients’s response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in advanced melanoma, but the relationship appears to be more complex than previously thought.

Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.

This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”

The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.

Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.

Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.

To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.

First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).

The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.

However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.

Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.

“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”

Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”

In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”

This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large-scale meta-analysis has verified that the gut microbiome does influence patients’s response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in advanced melanoma, but the relationship appears to be more complex than previously thought.

Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.

This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”

The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.

Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.

Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.

To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.

First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).

The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.

However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.

Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.

“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”

Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”

In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”

This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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