Melanoma

In Australia, where they know a thing or two about skin cancer, authors of a large prospective population-based cohort study found that melanomas detected through routine skin checks were associated with lower all-cause mortality, but not melanoma-specific mortality.

Among patients in New South Wales diagnosed with melanoma in 2006 or 2007 and followed for nearly 12 years, there was no significant difference in the rate of melanoma-specific death associated with either patient-detected or clinician-detected melanomas in an analysis adjusted for prognostic factors.

Although melanomas found through routine clinician-performed skin checks were associated with a 25% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with patient-detected lesions (P = .006), this difference may have been due to the tendency of health-oriented patients to participate in screening programs.

The study – one of the largest to date and performed in an area of the world where there is a high incidence of skin cancer and high degree of public awareness of the risks of too much sun exposure – could not fully answer its central question: Can routine skin checks, a proxy for skin cancer screening, significantly decrease the incidence of melanoma-related deaths?

“A large randomized clinical trial is needed to provide definitive evidence that screening for skin cancer reduces melanoma-specific and all-cause mortality among people invited (vs. not invited) to screen, but there are concerns about feasibility. Our findings could be used to estimate the sample size for a future trial,” wrote Caroline G. Watts, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, and colleagues. Their study was published online Nov. 3 in JAMA Dermatology.

In an editorial accompanying the study, dermatologists Allan C. Halpern, MD, and Michael A. Marchetti, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, point out that “there has never been a randomized clinical trial of melanoma screening, nor is there one currently ongoing or planned. Even if one were to be initiated immediately, such a trial would take well over a decade to conduct.

“Thus, for the foreseeable future, our approaches to melanoma secondary prevention need to be based on indirect evidence and our understanding of biology and epidemiology,” they wrote.

A dermatology researcher who was not involved in the study said that while it doesn’t solve the screening conundrum, it does highlight the value of public health campaigns.

“The way that I interpret the data, especially the fact that it’s coming out of Australia, is that if education about self-examination is done properly, that can also be effective in terms of detecting these skin cancers,” said Shawn Demehri, MD, PhD, principal investigator at the Cutaneous Biology Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Dr. Demehri was asked to comment on the study.

“I would argue that the results would probably have been different if the study had been conducted in the U.S. rather than Australia, because the education in terms of self-examination is much more advanced and organized in Australia,” he said in an interview.

Study details

To assess melanoma-specific and all-cause mortality associated with melanoma identified through routine skin checks, Dr. Watts and colleagues followed patients diagnosed with melanoma from October 2006 through October 2007 who were enrolled in the Melanoma Patterns of Care Study. The patients were followed until 2018 (mean follow-up 11.9 years).

Of the 2,452 patients for whom data were available, 291 had an initial diagnosis of primary melanoma in situ (MIS), and 2,161 were diagnosed with invasive cutaneous melanoma.

The median age at diagnosis was 65 years, ranging from 16 to 98 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients (61%) were men.

Among all patients, 858 (35%) had melanoma detected during a routine skin check, 1,148 (47%) detected the lesions themselves, 293 (12%) had incidentally-detected melanomas, and 153 (6%) had lesions detected by other, unspecified means.

In analyses adjusted for age and sex, the investigators found that compared with patient-detected lesions, melanomas detected during routine skin checks were associated with a 59% lower risk for melanoma-specific mortality (subhazard ratio, 0.41, P < .001) and 36% lower risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.64, P < .001).

But after adjustment for melanoma prognostic factors such as ulceration and mitotic rate, the association of skin check–detected lesions with melanoma-specific mortality was no longer statistically significant. The association with lower all-cause mortality was somewhat attenuated, but remained significant (HR, 0.75, P = .006).

Factors associated with a higher likelihood of melanoma detection during routine skin checks included males vs. females, a history of melanoma, having multiple moles, age 50 or older, and residence in a urban vs. rural areas.
 

Screen with care

In their editorial, Dr. Halpern and Dr. Marchetti propose methods for screening that find a balance between detection of significant disease and potential harm to patients from unnecessary biopsy or invasive procedures.

“For many lesions, we could use serial photography and dermoscopy in lieu of tissue biopsy to identify those that are truly dynamic outliers and likely to be of greater risk to the patient. An analogous approach is already used for the management of small lung nodules detected incidentally and through screening,” they wrote.

They also raise the issue of potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of MIS, and recommend an approach similar to that used for some older patients with prostate cancer, for example.

“The consequences of MIS treatment differ greatly based on the type, anatomic location, and size of the tumor; these factors should be considered in shared decision-making with patients. Options such as active surveillance and topical therapy should be discussed, particularly in those with significant comorbidities or advanced age,” they wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Institute New South Wales, and the New South Wales State Government. Dr. Watts, Dr. Halpern, Dr. Marchetti, and Dr. Demehri reported having no conflicts of interest.

In Australia, where they know a thing or two about skin cancer, authors of a large prospective population-based cohort study found that melanomas detected through routine skin checks were associated with lower all-cause mortality, but not melanoma-specific mortality.

Among patients in New South Wales diagnosed with melanoma in 2006 or 2007 and followed for nearly 12 years, there was no significant difference in the rate of melanoma-specific death associated with either patient-detected or clinician-detected melanomas in an analysis adjusted for prognostic factors.

Although melanomas found through routine clinician-performed skin checks were associated with a 25% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with patient-detected lesions (P = .006), this difference may have been due to the tendency of health-oriented patients to participate in screening programs.

The study – one of the largest to date and performed in an area of the world where there is a high incidence of skin cancer and high degree of public awareness of the risks of too much sun exposure – could not fully answer its central question: Can routine skin checks, a proxy for skin cancer screening, significantly decrease the incidence of melanoma-related deaths?

“A large randomized clinical trial is needed to provide definitive evidence that screening for skin cancer reduces melanoma-specific and all-cause mortality among people invited (vs. not invited) to screen, but there are concerns about feasibility. Our findings could be used to estimate the sample size for a future trial,” wrote Caroline G. Watts, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, and colleagues. Their study was published online Nov. 3 in JAMA Dermatology.

In an editorial accompanying the study, dermatologists Allan C. Halpern, MD, and Michael A. Marchetti, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, point out that “there has never been a randomized clinical trial of melanoma screening, nor is there one currently ongoing or planned. Even if one were to be initiated immediately, such a trial would take well over a decade to conduct.

“Thus, for the foreseeable future, our approaches to melanoma secondary prevention need to be based on indirect evidence and our understanding of biology and epidemiology,” they wrote.

A dermatology researcher who was not involved in the study said that while it doesn’t solve the screening conundrum, it does highlight the value of public health campaigns.

“The way that I interpret the data, especially the fact that it’s coming out of Australia, is that if education about self-examination is done properly, that can also be effective in terms of detecting these skin cancers,” said Shawn Demehri, MD, PhD, principal investigator at the Cutaneous Biology Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Dr. Demehri was asked to comment on the study.

“I would argue that the results would probably have been different if the study had been conducted in the U.S. rather than Australia, because the education in terms of self-examination is much more advanced and organized in Australia,” he said in an interview.

Study details

To assess melanoma-specific and all-cause mortality associated with melanoma identified through routine skin checks, Dr. Watts and colleagues followed patients diagnosed with melanoma from October 2006 through October 2007 who were enrolled in the Melanoma Patterns of Care Study. The patients were followed until 2018 (mean follow-up 11.9 years).

Of the 2,452 patients for whom data were available, 291 had an initial diagnosis of primary melanoma in situ (MIS), and 2,161 were diagnosed with invasive cutaneous melanoma.

The median age at diagnosis was 65 years, ranging from 16 to 98 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients (61%) were men.

Among all patients, 858 (35%) had melanoma detected during a routine skin check, 1,148 (47%) detected the lesions themselves, 293 (12%) had incidentally-detected melanomas, and 153 (6%) had lesions detected by other, unspecified means.

In analyses adjusted for age and sex, the investigators found that compared with patient-detected lesions, melanomas detected during routine skin checks were associated with a 59% lower risk for melanoma-specific mortality (subhazard ratio, 0.41, P < .001) and 36% lower risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.64, P < .001).

But after adjustment for melanoma prognostic factors such as ulceration and mitotic rate, the association of skin check–detected lesions with melanoma-specific mortality was no longer statistically significant. The association with lower all-cause mortality was somewhat attenuated, but remained significant (HR, 0.75, P = .006).

Factors associated with a higher likelihood of melanoma detection during routine skin checks included males vs. females, a history of melanoma, having multiple moles, age 50 or older, and residence in a urban vs. rural areas.
 

Screen with care

In their editorial, Dr. Halpern and Dr. Marchetti propose methods for screening that find a balance between detection of significant disease and potential harm to patients from unnecessary biopsy or invasive procedures.

“For many lesions, we could use serial photography and dermoscopy in lieu of tissue biopsy to identify those that are truly dynamic outliers and likely to be of greater risk to the patient. An analogous approach is already used for the management of small lung nodules detected incidentally and through screening,” they wrote.

They also raise the issue of potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of MIS, and recommend an approach similar to that used for some older patients with prostate cancer, for example.

“The consequences of MIS treatment differ greatly based on the type, anatomic location, and size of the tumor; these factors should be considered in shared decision-making with patients. Options such as active surveillance and topical therapy should be discussed, particularly in those with significant comorbidities or advanced age,” they wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Institute New South Wales, and the New South Wales State Government. Dr. Watts, Dr. Halpern, Dr. Marchetti, and Dr. Demehri reported having no conflicts of interest.

In Australia, where they know a thing or two about skin cancer, authors of a large prospective population-based cohort study found that melanomas detected through routine skin checks were associated with lower all-cause mortality, but not melanoma-specific mortality.

Among patients in New South Wales diagnosed with melanoma in 2006 or 2007 and followed for nearly 12 years, there was no significant difference in the rate of melanoma-specific death associated with either patient-detected or clinician-detected melanomas in an analysis adjusted for prognostic factors.

Although melanomas found through routine clinician-performed skin checks were associated with a 25% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with patient-detected lesions (P = .006), this difference may have been due to the tendency of health-oriented patients to participate in screening programs.

The study – one of the largest to date and performed in an area of the world where there is a high incidence of skin cancer and high degree of public awareness of the risks of too much sun exposure – could not fully answer its central question: Can routine skin checks, a proxy for skin cancer screening, significantly decrease the incidence of melanoma-related deaths?

“A large randomized clinical trial is needed to provide definitive evidence that screening for skin cancer reduces melanoma-specific and all-cause mortality among people invited (vs. not invited) to screen, but there are concerns about feasibility. Our findings could be used to estimate the sample size for a future trial,” wrote Caroline G. Watts, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, and colleagues. Their study was published online Nov. 3 in JAMA Dermatology.

In an editorial accompanying the study, dermatologists Allan C. Halpern, MD, and Michael A. Marchetti, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, point out that “there has never been a randomized clinical trial of melanoma screening, nor is there one currently ongoing or planned. Even if one were to be initiated immediately, such a trial would take well over a decade to conduct.

“Thus, for the foreseeable future, our approaches to melanoma secondary prevention need to be based on indirect evidence and our understanding of biology and epidemiology,” they wrote.

A dermatology researcher who was not involved in the study said that while it doesn’t solve the screening conundrum, it does highlight the value of public health campaigns.

“The way that I interpret the data, especially the fact that it’s coming out of Australia, is that if education about self-examination is done properly, that can also be effective in terms of detecting these skin cancers,” said Shawn Demehri, MD, PhD, principal investigator at the Cutaneous Biology Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Dr. Demehri was asked to comment on the study.

“I would argue that the results would probably have been different if the study had been conducted in the U.S. rather than Australia, because the education in terms of self-examination is much more advanced and organized in Australia,” he said in an interview.

Study details

To assess melanoma-specific and all-cause mortality associated with melanoma identified through routine skin checks, Dr. Watts and colleagues followed patients diagnosed with melanoma from October 2006 through October 2007 who were enrolled in the Melanoma Patterns of Care Study. The patients were followed until 2018 (mean follow-up 11.9 years).

Of the 2,452 patients for whom data were available, 291 had an initial diagnosis of primary melanoma in situ (MIS), and 2,161 were diagnosed with invasive cutaneous melanoma.

The median age at diagnosis was 65 years, ranging from 16 to 98 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients (61%) were men.

Among all patients, 858 (35%) had melanoma detected during a routine skin check, 1,148 (47%) detected the lesions themselves, 293 (12%) had incidentally-detected melanomas, and 153 (6%) had lesions detected by other, unspecified means.

In analyses adjusted for age and sex, the investigators found that compared with patient-detected lesions, melanomas detected during routine skin checks were associated with a 59% lower risk for melanoma-specific mortality (subhazard ratio, 0.41, P < .001) and 36% lower risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.64, P < .001).

But after adjustment for melanoma prognostic factors such as ulceration and mitotic rate, the association of skin check–detected lesions with melanoma-specific mortality was no longer statistically significant. The association with lower all-cause mortality was somewhat attenuated, but remained significant (HR, 0.75, P = .006).

Factors associated with a higher likelihood of melanoma detection during routine skin checks included males vs. females, a history of melanoma, having multiple moles, age 50 or older, and residence in a urban vs. rural areas.
 

Screen with care

In their editorial, Dr. Halpern and Dr. Marchetti propose methods for screening that find a balance between detection of significant disease and potential harm to patients from unnecessary biopsy or invasive procedures.

“For many lesions, we could use serial photography and dermoscopy in lieu of tissue biopsy to identify those that are truly dynamic outliers and likely to be of greater risk to the patient. An analogous approach is already used for the management of small lung nodules detected incidentally and through screening,” they wrote.

They also raise the issue of potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of MIS, and recommend an approach similar to that used for some older patients with prostate cancer, for example.

“The consequences of MIS treatment differ greatly based on the type, anatomic location, and size of the tumor; these factors should be considered in shared decision-making with patients. Options such as active surveillance and topical therapy should be discussed, particularly in those with significant comorbidities or advanced age,” they wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Institute New South Wales, and the New South Wales State Government. Dr. Watts, Dr. Halpern, Dr. Marchetti, and Dr. Demehri reported having no conflicts of interest.

The number of same-day discharges has grown with the increase in robotic-assisted surgeries and advances in imaging and pressures to reduce hospital costs. COVID-19 has, perhaps temporarily, increased the same-day surgery numbers as surgeries have been restricted and hospital beds are needed for COVID-19 patients.

Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.

Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.

Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.

“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
 

The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery

Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.

“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.

Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.

The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.

A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.

But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.

A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”

Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.

In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”

Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
 

Case studies in nephrectomy

While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.

Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.

Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.

They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).

The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).

Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).

Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.

The number of same-day discharges has grown with the increase in robotic-assisted surgeries and advances in imaging and pressures to reduce hospital costs. COVID-19 has, perhaps temporarily, increased the same-day surgery numbers as surgeries have been restricted and hospital beds are needed for COVID-19 patients.

Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.

Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.

Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.

“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
 

The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery

Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.

“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.

Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.

The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.

A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.

But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.

A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”

Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.

In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”

Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
 

Case studies in nephrectomy

While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.

Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.

Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.

They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).

The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).

Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).

Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.

The number of same-day discharges has grown with the increase in robotic-assisted surgeries and advances in imaging and pressures to reduce hospital costs. COVID-19 has, perhaps temporarily, increased the same-day surgery numbers as surgeries have been restricted and hospital beds are needed for COVID-19 patients.

Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.

Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.

Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.

“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
 

The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery

Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.

“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.

Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.

The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.

A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.

But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.

A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”

Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.

In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”

Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
 

Case studies in nephrectomy

While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.

Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.

Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.

They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).

The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).

Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).

Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In the fall of 2020, Hassane M. Zarour, MD, and colleagues began to pore over raw data from their phase 1 clinical trial designed to determine if fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) could reprogram the gut microbiome in advanced melanoma patients who failed to respond to anti–programmed death 1immunotherapy.

Preclinical mouse studies have demonstrated that the gut microbiota could influence the response of tumors to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, but FMT had not been previously evaluated in human patients with malignant melanoma whose disease persisted or progressed after medical therapy. Only 30%-40% of melanoma patients respond to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, so the researchers’ sense of anticipation was palpable. “It’s a high-risk, high-reward study, so you never know,” Dr. Zarour, a dermatologist and immunologist who is coleader of the melanoma program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center, said in an interview.

For the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in Science, Dr. Zarour and a team of colleagues, including Diwakar Davar, MD, a medical oncologist/hematologist at UPMC and Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, head of the cancer immunology section at the National Cancer Institute, enrolled 16 patients with advanced melanoma whose disease had persisted or progressed with anti-PD-1 drugs; donors were 7 patients with advanced melanoma who had responded to pembrolizumab, 4 with a complete response and 3 with a partial response, with a median progression-free survival of 56 months.

After donors and patients underwent serial stool sampling and studies to stamp out the potential for transmitting infectious agents, the researchers administered the donor-derived FMT to patients via colonoscopy every 14 days for 3 weeks, followed by pembrolizumab. To their delight, 6 of the 15 evaluable recipients responded to treatment, with a reduction in tumor or long-term disease stabilization. Moreover, responders also showed increased abundance of taxa that were previously associated with response to immunotherapy, increased activation of CD8+ T cells, and decreased frequency of interleukin-8–expressing myeloid cells.

“This opens new doors for the future,” Dr. Zarour said. “It’s very encouraging, but I don’t want to overstate the data. It’s a small, nonrandomized trial, but one has to keep in mind that people were skeptical about this work; they didn’t think FMT would work. Now we see many people coming into the field to investigate the role of the microbiome as a therapeutic tool, which is great.”

Teri Greiling, MD, characterized the finding as a key development in understanding the microbiome’s potential to influence the course of melanoma and other diseases. “What’s emerging over the last decade of research is that our immune system has a close, back-and-forth relationship with our microbiota,” said Dr. Greiling, associate professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “From day 1 of birth, we’re colonized by microbes that train our immune system how to function. In response, your immune system keeps those microbes in check and shapes which ones are allowed to colonize, and which ones are a target for attack. Thus, inflammatory responses are generated. Similarly, the goal of immunotherapy is to activate the immune system to fight cancer. This study shows that the immune system continues to need the colonizing microbes in our body to function optimally.”

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors was not an option for malignant melanoma patients until 2011, she noted, so the potential for FMT to further improve outcomes is welcome news for patients and their families. “We went from a less than 5% chance of survival with metastatic melanoma to now, with the right combination of checkpoint inhibitors, we’re up over 50%, which is amazing in a decade,” Dr. Greiling said. “Still, we’re losing half of our patients. If [FMT provides] a 30% improvement over that, that would be great, but it’s hard to extrapolate from such small numbers.”
 

Positive results in an Israeli study

Results from a similar, smaller phase 1 trial of 2 FMT donors and 10 recipients with metastatic melanoma who had progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy, from the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel, yielded similar results. The FMT protocol in this study included colonoscopy and oral stool capsules, followed by the reintroduction of anti–PD-1 therapy with nivolumab. The two FMT donors had previously been treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy for metastatic melanoma and had achieved a clinical response for at least 1 year. Of the 10 FMT recipients, 1 had a complete response and 2 had a partial response.

“We expected changes in the immune system but did not expect that 3 out of the 10 patients in our study would be turned from nonresponders to responders,” the study’s lead author, Erez N. Baruch, MD, PhD, told this news organization. “Since this was a first-in-human study, we were aiming to assess safety and not clinical responses. [We found] that microbiota modulation can change the immune infiltration within melanoma tumors and by this affect response to immunotherapy.”

Dr. Baruch, an internal medicine resident in the physician-scientist track program at the University of Texas, Houston, said that the findings create a potential new therapeutic paradigm, or a new “playing ground” for drug development that can support existing immunotherapies. “It is important for dermatologists to understand that disruptions of the gut microbiota, mainly by antibiotics, may be harmful to melanoma patients,” he said. “Antibiotics in cancer patients should be used judiciously but of course should not be avoided when there’s an indication.”

As for next steps, Dr. Zarour and colleagues are recruiting more patients to boost their sample size and conducting sequential analysis of the microbiome of study participants “to better determine what the good and bad bugs are,” he said. “There are so many variables, including diet and geography. We need more data.” The hope is to develop a “microbiome signature” to identify patients likely to respond to FMT, and maybe one day, a probiotic capsule that patients take to optimize their response to immunotherapy.

“We don’t want to say that the microbiome is responsible for everything, but it’s responsible for some of the response and some of the resistance to treatment,” Dr. Zarour said. “So, we want to identify what candidate nonresponders are more likely to respond to FMT and be able to stick the right stool in the donor. This goes to better education of the microbiome signature. We are working hard on that.”

Dr. Baruch added that performing FMT for melanoma patients requires tight collaborations between oncologists, dermatologists, GI, and infectious disease experts. “These usually can be done in the setting of large cancer centers and will probably not be available in any hospital,” he said. “This is why understanding the mechanisms and developing an FMT-like drug is important. We are focusing on studying the mechanisms behind the clinical effect in order to develop a drug with an FMT-like effect without the safety and logistic issues related to FMTs.”

Studies raise more questions

In the opinion of Dr. Greiling, results from these two studies raise more questions than they answer. “The big question ... is why and how does FMT work, and how can we make the response better?” she said. “Is there one particular gene product from one microbe that is the key magic ingredient, and we can harness this as a drug? More likely it’s a complex interplay between multiple bacterial species needed to direct the immune response. Is there a group of microbes that is the same from person to person, or is it more complex?”

Then there are pending regulatory concerns. “We know that FMT works for [Clostridioides] difficile colitis but it’s not officially [Food and Drug Administration] approved,” Dr. Greiling said. “The FDA is really struggling with how to approve or regulate using bacteria as a drug. Where is that crossover? That inhibits things moving forward, for good reason. You want to balance safety with live microbes.”

The UPMC clinical trial was supported by Merck. Dr. Zarour disclosed that he is supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the James W. and Frances G. McGlothlin Chair in Melanoma Immunotherapy Research at UPMC. The Israeli study was funded by the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology. Dr. Baruch was supported by the Allen Berg Fund for Excellence in Immuno-Oncology Research. Dr. Greiling and Dr. Harris-Tryon reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

In the fall of 2020, Hassane M. Zarour, MD, and colleagues began to pore over raw data from their phase 1 clinical trial designed to determine if fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) could reprogram the gut microbiome in advanced melanoma patients who failed to respond to anti–programmed death 1immunotherapy.

Preclinical mouse studies have demonstrated that the gut microbiota could influence the response of tumors to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, but FMT had not been previously evaluated in human patients with malignant melanoma whose disease persisted or progressed after medical therapy. Only 30%-40% of melanoma patients respond to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, so the researchers’ sense of anticipation was palpable. “It’s a high-risk, high-reward study, so you never know,” Dr. Zarour, a dermatologist and immunologist who is coleader of the melanoma program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center, said in an interview.

For the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in Science, Dr. Zarour and a team of colleagues, including Diwakar Davar, MD, a medical oncologist/hematologist at UPMC and Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, head of the cancer immunology section at the National Cancer Institute, enrolled 16 patients with advanced melanoma whose disease had persisted or progressed with anti-PD-1 drugs; donors were 7 patients with advanced melanoma who had responded to pembrolizumab, 4 with a complete response and 3 with a partial response, with a median progression-free survival of 56 months.

After donors and patients underwent serial stool sampling and studies to stamp out the potential for transmitting infectious agents, the researchers administered the donor-derived FMT to patients via colonoscopy every 14 days for 3 weeks, followed by pembrolizumab. To their delight, 6 of the 15 evaluable recipients responded to treatment, with a reduction in tumor or long-term disease stabilization. Moreover, responders also showed increased abundance of taxa that were previously associated with response to immunotherapy, increased activation of CD8+ T cells, and decreased frequency of interleukin-8–expressing myeloid cells.

“This opens new doors for the future,” Dr. Zarour said. “It’s very encouraging, but I don’t want to overstate the data. It’s a small, nonrandomized trial, but one has to keep in mind that people were skeptical about this work; they didn’t think FMT would work. Now we see many people coming into the field to investigate the role of the microbiome as a therapeutic tool, which is great.”

Teri Greiling, MD, characterized the finding as a key development in understanding the microbiome’s potential to influence the course of melanoma and other diseases. “What’s emerging over the last decade of research is that our immune system has a close, back-and-forth relationship with our microbiota,” said Dr. Greiling, associate professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “From day 1 of birth, we’re colonized by microbes that train our immune system how to function. In response, your immune system keeps those microbes in check and shapes which ones are allowed to colonize, and which ones are a target for attack. Thus, inflammatory responses are generated. Similarly, the goal of immunotherapy is to activate the immune system to fight cancer. This study shows that the immune system continues to need the colonizing microbes in our body to function optimally.”

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors was not an option for malignant melanoma patients until 2011, she noted, so the potential for FMT to further improve outcomes is welcome news for patients and their families. “We went from a less than 5% chance of survival with metastatic melanoma to now, with the right combination of checkpoint inhibitors, we’re up over 50%, which is amazing in a decade,” Dr. Greiling said. “Still, we’re losing half of our patients. If [FMT provides] a 30% improvement over that, that would be great, but it’s hard to extrapolate from such small numbers.”
 

Positive results in an Israeli study

Results from a similar, smaller phase 1 trial of 2 FMT donors and 10 recipients with metastatic melanoma who had progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy, from the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel, yielded similar results. The FMT protocol in this study included colonoscopy and oral stool capsules, followed by the reintroduction of anti–PD-1 therapy with nivolumab. The two FMT donors had previously been treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy for metastatic melanoma and had achieved a clinical response for at least 1 year. Of the 10 FMT recipients, 1 had a complete response and 2 had a partial response.

“We expected changes in the immune system but did not expect that 3 out of the 10 patients in our study would be turned from nonresponders to responders,” the study’s lead author, Erez N. Baruch, MD, PhD, told this news organization. “Since this was a first-in-human study, we were aiming to assess safety and not clinical responses. [We found] that microbiota modulation can change the immune infiltration within melanoma tumors and by this affect response to immunotherapy.”

Dr. Baruch, an internal medicine resident in the physician-scientist track program at the University of Texas, Houston, said that the findings create a potential new therapeutic paradigm, or a new “playing ground” for drug development that can support existing immunotherapies. “It is important for dermatologists to understand that disruptions of the gut microbiota, mainly by antibiotics, may be harmful to melanoma patients,” he said. “Antibiotics in cancer patients should be used judiciously but of course should not be avoided when there’s an indication.”

As for next steps, Dr. Zarour and colleagues are recruiting more patients to boost their sample size and conducting sequential analysis of the microbiome of study participants “to better determine what the good and bad bugs are,” he said. “There are so many variables, including diet and geography. We need more data.” The hope is to develop a “microbiome signature” to identify patients likely to respond to FMT, and maybe one day, a probiotic capsule that patients take to optimize their response to immunotherapy.

“We don’t want to say that the microbiome is responsible for everything, but it’s responsible for some of the response and some of the resistance to treatment,” Dr. Zarour said. “So, we want to identify what candidate nonresponders are more likely to respond to FMT and be able to stick the right stool in the donor. This goes to better education of the microbiome signature. We are working hard on that.”

Dr. Baruch added that performing FMT for melanoma patients requires tight collaborations between oncologists, dermatologists, GI, and infectious disease experts. “These usually can be done in the setting of large cancer centers and will probably not be available in any hospital,” he said. “This is why understanding the mechanisms and developing an FMT-like drug is important. We are focusing on studying the mechanisms behind the clinical effect in order to develop a drug with an FMT-like effect without the safety and logistic issues related to FMTs.”

Studies raise more questions

In the opinion of Dr. Greiling, results from these two studies raise more questions than they answer. “The big question ... is why and how does FMT work, and how can we make the response better?” she said. “Is there one particular gene product from one microbe that is the key magic ingredient, and we can harness this as a drug? More likely it’s a complex interplay between multiple bacterial species needed to direct the immune response. Is there a group of microbes that is the same from person to person, or is it more complex?”

Then there are pending regulatory concerns. “We know that FMT works for [Clostridioides] difficile colitis but it’s not officially [Food and Drug Administration] approved,” Dr. Greiling said. “The FDA is really struggling with how to approve or regulate using bacteria as a drug. Where is that crossover? That inhibits things moving forward, for good reason. You want to balance safety with live microbes.”

The UPMC clinical trial was supported by Merck. Dr. Zarour disclosed that he is supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the James W. and Frances G. McGlothlin Chair in Melanoma Immunotherapy Research at UPMC. The Israeli study was funded by the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology. Dr. Baruch was supported by the Allen Berg Fund for Excellence in Immuno-Oncology Research. Dr. Greiling and Dr. Harris-Tryon reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

In the fall of 2020, Hassane M. Zarour, MD, and colleagues began to pore over raw data from their phase 1 clinical trial designed to determine if fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) could reprogram the gut microbiome in advanced melanoma patients who failed to respond to anti–programmed death 1immunotherapy.

Preclinical mouse studies have demonstrated that the gut microbiota could influence the response of tumors to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, but FMT had not been previously evaluated in human patients with malignant melanoma whose disease persisted or progressed after medical therapy. Only 30%-40% of melanoma patients respond to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, so the researchers’ sense of anticipation was palpable. “It’s a high-risk, high-reward study, so you never know,” Dr. Zarour, a dermatologist and immunologist who is coleader of the melanoma program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center, said in an interview.

For the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in Science, Dr. Zarour and a team of colleagues, including Diwakar Davar, MD, a medical oncologist/hematologist at UPMC and Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, head of the cancer immunology section at the National Cancer Institute, enrolled 16 patients with advanced melanoma whose disease had persisted or progressed with anti-PD-1 drugs; donors were 7 patients with advanced melanoma who had responded to pembrolizumab, 4 with a complete response and 3 with a partial response, with a median progression-free survival of 56 months.

After donors and patients underwent serial stool sampling and studies to stamp out the potential for transmitting infectious agents, the researchers administered the donor-derived FMT to patients via colonoscopy every 14 days for 3 weeks, followed by pembrolizumab. To their delight, 6 of the 15 evaluable recipients responded to treatment, with a reduction in tumor or long-term disease stabilization. Moreover, responders also showed increased abundance of taxa that were previously associated with response to immunotherapy, increased activation of CD8+ T cells, and decreased frequency of interleukin-8–expressing myeloid cells.

“This opens new doors for the future,” Dr. Zarour said. “It’s very encouraging, but I don’t want to overstate the data. It’s a small, nonrandomized trial, but one has to keep in mind that people were skeptical about this work; they didn’t think FMT would work. Now we see many people coming into the field to investigate the role of the microbiome as a therapeutic tool, which is great.”

Teri Greiling, MD, characterized the finding as a key development in understanding the microbiome’s potential to influence the course of melanoma and other diseases. “What’s emerging over the last decade of research is that our immune system has a close, back-and-forth relationship with our microbiota,” said Dr. Greiling, associate professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “From day 1 of birth, we’re colonized by microbes that train our immune system how to function. In response, your immune system keeps those microbes in check and shapes which ones are allowed to colonize, and which ones are a target for attack. Thus, inflammatory responses are generated. Similarly, the goal of immunotherapy is to activate the immune system to fight cancer. This study shows that the immune system continues to need the colonizing microbes in our body to function optimally.”

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors was not an option for malignant melanoma patients until 2011, she noted, so the potential for FMT to further improve outcomes is welcome news for patients and their families. “We went from a less than 5% chance of survival with metastatic melanoma to now, with the right combination of checkpoint inhibitors, we’re up over 50%, which is amazing in a decade,” Dr. Greiling said. “Still, we’re losing half of our patients. If [FMT provides] a 30% improvement over that, that would be great, but it’s hard to extrapolate from such small numbers.”
 

Positive results in an Israeli study

Results from a similar, smaller phase 1 trial of 2 FMT donors and 10 recipients with metastatic melanoma who had progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy, from the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel, yielded similar results. The FMT protocol in this study included colonoscopy and oral stool capsules, followed by the reintroduction of anti–PD-1 therapy with nivolumab. The two FMT donors had previously been treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy for metastatic melanoma and had achieved a clinical response for at least 1 year. Of the 10 FMT recipients, 1 had a complete response and 2 had a partial response.

“We expected changes in the immune system but did not expect that 3 out of the 10 patients in our study would be turned from nonresponders to responders,” the study’s lead author, Erez N. Baruch, MD, PhD, told this news organization. “Since this was a first-in-human study, we were aiming to assess safety and not clinical responses. [We found] that microbiota modulation can change the immune infiltration within melanoma tumors and by this affect response to immunotherapy.”

Dr. Baruch, an internal medicine resident in the physician-scientist track program at the University of Texas, Houston, said that the findings create a potential new therapeutic paradigm, or a new “playing ground” for drug development that can support existing immunotherapies. “It is important for dermatologists to understand that disruptions of the gut microbiota, mainly by antibiotics, may be harmful to melanoma patients,” he said. “Antibiotics in cancer patients should be used judiciously but of course should not be avoided when there’s an indication.”

As for next steps, Dr. Zarour and colleagues are recruiting more patients to boost their sample size and conducting sequential analysis of the microbiome of study participants “to better determine what the good and bad bugs are,” he said. “There are so many variables, including diet and geography. We need more data.” The hope is to develop a “microbiome signature” to identify patients likely to respond to FMT, and maybe one day, a probiotic capsule that patients take to optimize their response to immunotherapy.

“We don’t want to say that the microbiome is responsible for everything, but it’s responsible for some of the response and some of the resistance to treatment,” Dr. Zarour said. “So, we want to identify what candidate nonresponders are more likely to respond to FMT and be able to stick the right stool in the donor. This goes to better education of the microbiome signature. We are working hard on that.”

Dr. Baruch added that performing FMT for melanoma patients requires tight collaborations between oncologists, dermatologists, GI, and infectious disease experts. “These usually can be done in the setting of large cancer centers and will probably not be available in any hospital,” he said. “This is why understanding the mechanisms and developing an FMT-like drug is important. We are focusing on studying the mechanisms behind the clinical effect in order to develop a drug with an FMT-like effect without the safety and logistic issues related to FMTs.”

Studies raise more questions

In the opinion of Dr. Greiling, results from these two studies raise more questions than they answer. “The big question ... is why and how does FMT work, and how can we make the response better?” she said. “Is there one particular gene product from one microbe that is the key magic ingredient, and we can harness this as a drug? More likely it’s a complex interplay between multiple bacterial species needed to direct the immune response. Is there a group of microbes that is the same from person to person, or is it more complex?”

Then there are pending regulatory concerns. “We know that FMT works for [Clostridioides] difficile colitis but it’s not officially [Food and Drug Administration] approved,” Dr. Greiling said. “The FDA is really struggling with how to approve or regulate using bacteria as a drug. Where is that crossover? That inhibits things moving forward, for good reason. You want to balance safety with live microbes.”

The UPMC clinical trial was supported by Merck. Dr. Zarour disclosed that he is supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the James W. and Frances G. McGlothlin Chair in Melanoma Immunotherapy Research at UPMC. The Israeli study was funded by the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology. Dr. Baruch was supported by the Allen Berg Fund for Excellence in Immuno-Oncology Research. Dr. Greiling and Dr. Harris-Tryon reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

A ccording to the US Census Bureau, more than half of all Americans are projected to belong to a minority group, defined as any group other than non-Hispanic White alone, by 2044. ¹ Consequently, the United States rapidly is becoming a country in which the majority of citizens will have skin of color. Individuals with skin of color are of diverse ethnic backgrounds and include people of African, Latin American, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Asian descent, as well as interethnic backgrounds. ² Throughout the country, dermatologists along with primary care practitioners may be confronted with certain cutaneous conditions that have varying disease presentations or processes in patients with skin of color. It also is important to note that racial categories are socially rather than biologically constructed, and the term skin of color includes a wide variety of diverse skin types. Nevertheless, the current literature thoroughly supports unique pathophysiologic differences in skin of color as well as variations in disease manifestation compared to White patients. ^3-5 For example, the increased lability of melanosomes in skin of color patients, which increases their risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, has been well documented. ^5-7 There are various dermatologic conditions that also occur with higher frequency and manifest uniquely in people with darker, more pigmented skin, ^7-9 and dermatologists, along with primary care physicians, should feel prepared to recognize and address them.

Extensive evidence also indicates that there are unique aspects to consider while managing certain skin diseases in patients with skin of color.^8,10,11 Consequently, as noted on the Skin of Color Society (SOCS) website, “[a]n increase in the body of dermatological literature concerning skin of color as well as the advancement of both basic science and clinical investigational research is necessary to meet the needs of the expanding skin of color population.”² In the meantime, current knowledge regarding cutaneous conditions that diversely or disproportionately affect skin of color should be actively disseminated to physicians in training. Although patients with skin of color should always have access to comprehensive care and knowledgeable practitioners, the current changes in national and regional demographics further underscore the need for a more thorough understanding of skin of color with regard to disease pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment.

Several studies have found that medical students in the United States are minimally exposed to dermatology in general compared to other clinical specialties,^12-14 which can easily lead to the underrecognition of disorders that may uniquely or disproportionately affect individuals with pigmented skin. Recent data showed that medical schools typically required fewer than 10 hours of dermatology instruction,¹² and on average, dermatologic training made up less than 1% of a medical student’s undergraduate medical education.^13,15,16 Consequently, less than 40% of primary care residents felt that their medical school curriculum adequately prepared them to manage common skin conditions.¹⁴ Although not all physicians should be expected to fully grasp the complexities of skin of color and its diagnostic and therapeutic implications, both practicing and training dermatologists have acknowledged a lack of exposure to skin of color. In one study, approximately 47% of dermatologists and dermatology residents reported that their medical training (medical school and/or residency) was inadequate in training them on skin conditions in Black patients. Furthermore, many who felt their training was lacking in skin of color identified the need for greater exposure to Black patients and training materials.¹⁵ The absence of comprehensive medical education regarding skin of color ultimately can be a disadvantage for both practitioners and patients, resulting in poorer outcomes. Furthermore, underrepresentation of skin of color may persist beyond undergraduate and graduate medical education. There also is evidence to suggest that noninclusion of skin of color pervades foundational dermatologic educational resources, including commonly used textbooks as well as continuing medical education disseminated at national conferences and meetings.¹⁷ Taken together, these findings highlight the need for more diverse and representative exposure to skin of color throughout medical training, which begins with a diverse inclusive undergraduate medical education in dermatology.

The objective of this study was to determine if the preclinical dermatology curriculum at 3 US medical schools provided adequate representation of skin of color patients in their didactic presentation slides.

Methods

Participants—Three US medical schools, a blend of private and public medical schools located across different geographic boundaries, agreed to participate in the study. All 3 institutions were current members of the American Medical Association (AMA) Accelerating Change in Medical Education consortium, whose primary goal is to create the medical school of the future and transform physician training.¹⁸ All 32 member institutions of the AMA consortium were contacted to request their participation in the study. As part of the consortium, these institutions have vowed to collectively work to develop and share the best models for educational advancement to improve care for patients, populations, and communities¹⁸ and would expectedly provide a more racially and ethnically inclusive curriculum than an institution not accountable to a group dedicated to identifying the best ways to deliver care for increasingly diverse communities.

Data Collection—Lectures were included if they were presented during dermatology preclinical courses in the 2015 to 2016 academic year. An uninvolved third party removed the names and identities of instructors to preserve anonymity. Two independent coders from different institutions extracted the data—lecture title, total number of clinical and histologic images, and number of skin of color images—from each of the anonymized lectures using a standardized coding form. We documented differences in skin of color noted in lectures and the disease context for the discussed differences, such as variations in clinical presentation, disease process, epidemiology/risk, and treatment between different skin phenotypes or ethnic groups. Photographs in which the coders were unable to differentiate whether the patient had skin of color were designated as indeterminate or unclear. Photographs appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin types IV, V, and VI¹⁹ were categorically designated as skin of color, and those appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin types I and II were described as not skin of color; however, images appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin type III often were classified as not skin of color or indeterminate and occasionally skin of color. The Figure shows examples of images classified as skin of color, indeterminate, and not skin of color. Photographs often were classified as indeterminate due to poor lighting, close-up view photographs, or highlighted pathology obscuring the surrounding skin. We excluded duplicate photographs and histologic images from the analyses.

We also reviewed 19 conditions previously highlighted by the SOCS as areas of importance to skin of color patients.²⁰ The coders tracked how many of these conditions were noted in each lecture. Duplicate discussion of these conditions was not included in the analyses. Any discrepancies between coders were resolved through additional slide review and discussion. The final coded data with the agreed upon changes were used for statistical analyses. Recent national demographic data from the US Census Bureau in 2019 describe approximately 39.9% of the population as belonging to racial/ethnic groups other than non-Hispanic/Latinx White.²¹ Consequently, the standard for adequate representation for skin of color photographs was set at 35% for the purpose of this study.

Across all 3 institutions included in the study, the proportion of the total number of clinical photographs showing skin of color was 16% (290/1812). Eight percent of the total photographs (145/1812) were noted to be indeterminate (Table). For institution 1, 23.6% of photographs (155/658) showed skin of color, and 12.6% (83/658) were indeterminate. For institution 2, 13.1% (76/578) showed skin of color and 7.8% (45/578) were indeterminate. For institution 3, 10.2% (59/576) showed skin of color and 3% (17/576) were indeterminate.

Institutions 1, 2, and 3 had 18, 8, and 17 total dermatology lectures, respectively. Of the 19 conditions designated as areas of importance to skin of color patients by the SOCS, 16 (84.2%) were discussed by institution 1, 11 (57.9%) by institution 2, and 9 (47.4%) by institution 3 (eTable 1). Institution 3 did not include photographs of skin of color patients in its acne, psoriasis, or cutaneous malignancy lectures. Institution 1 also did not include any skin of color patients in its malignancy lecture. Lectures that focused on pigmentary disorders, atopic dermatitis, infectious conditions, and benign cutaneous neoplasms were more likely to display photographs of skin of color patients; for example, lectures that discussed infectious conditions, such as superficial mycoses, herpes viruses, human papillomavirus, syphilis, and atypical mycobacterial infections, were consistently among those with higher proportions of photographs of skin of color patients.

Throughout the entire preclinical dermatology course at all 3 institutions, of 2945 lecture slides, only 24 (0.8%) unique differences were noted between skin color and non–skin of color patients, with 10 total differences noted by institution 1, 6 by institution 2, and 8 by institution 3 (Table). The majority of these differences (19/24) were related to epidemiologic differences in prevalence among varying racial/ethnic groups, with only 5 instances highlighting differences in clinical presentation. There was only a single instance that elaborated on the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of the discussed difference. Of all 24 unique differences discussed, 8 were related to skin cancer, 3 were related to dermatitis, and 2 were related to the difference in manifestation of erythema in patients with darker skin (eTable 2).

Comment

The results of this study demonstrated that skin of color is underrepresented in the preclinical dermatology curriculum at these 3 institutions. Although only 16% of all included clinical photographs were of skin of color, individuals with skin of color will soon represent more than half of the total US population within the next 2 decades.¹ To increase representation of skin of color patients, teaching faculty should consciously and deliberately include more photographs of skin of color patients for a wider variety of common conditions, including atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, in addition to those that tend to disparately affect skin of color patients, such as pseudofolliculitis barbae or melasma. Furthermore, they also can incorporate more detailed discussions about important differences seen in skin of color patients.

More Skin of Color Photographs in Psoriasis Lectures—At institution 3, there were no skin of color patients included in the psoriasis lecture, even though there is considerable data in the literature indicating notable differences in the clinical presentation, quality-of-life impact, and treatment of psoriasis in skin of color patients.^11,22 There are multiple nuances in psoriasis manifestation in patients with skin of color, including less-conspicuous erythema in darker skin, higher degrees of dyspigmentation, and greater body surface area involvement. For Black patients with scalp psoriasis, the impact of hair texture, styling practices, and washing frequency are additional considerations that may impact disease severity and selection of topical therapy.¹¹ The lack of inclusion of any skin of color patients in the psoriasis lecture at one institution further underscores the pressing need to prioritize communities of color in medical education.

More Skin of Color Photographs in Cutaneous Malignancy Lectures—Similarly, while a lecturer at institution 2 noted that acral lentiginous melanoma accounts for a considerable proportion of melanoma among skin of color patients,²³ there was no mention of how melanoma generally is substantially more deadly in this population, potentially due to decreased awareness and inconsistent screening.²⁴ Furthermore, at institutions 1 and 3, there were no photographs or discussion of skin of color patients during the cutaneous malignancy lectures. Evidence shows that more emphasis is needed for melanoma screening and awareness in skin of color populations to improve survival outcomes,²⁴ and this begins with educating not only future dermatologists but all future physicians as well. The failure to include photographs of skin of color patients in discussions or lectures regarding cutaneous malignancies may serve to further perpetuate the harmful misperception that individuals with skin of color are unaffected by skin cancer.^25,26

Analysis of Skin of Color Photographs in Infectious Disease Lectures—In addition, lectures discussing infectious etiologies were among those with the highest proportion of skin of color photographs. This relatively disproportionate representation of skin of color compared to the other lectures may contribute to the development of harmful stereotypes or the stigmatization of skin of color patients. Although skin of color should continue to be represented in similar lectures, teaching faculty should remain mindful of the potential unintended impact from lectures including relatively disproportionate amounts of skin of color, particularly when other lectures may have sparse to absent representation of skin of color.

More Photographs Available for Education—Overall, our findings may help to inform changes to preclinical dermatology medical education at other institutions to create more inclusive and representative curricula for skin of color patients. The ability of instructors to provide visual representation of various dermatologic conditions may be limited by the photographs available in certain textbooks with few examples of patients with skin of color; however, concerns regarding the lack of skin of color representation in dermatology training is not a novel discussion.¹⁷ Although it is the responsibility of all dermatologists to advocate for the inclusion of skin of color, many dermatologists of color have been leading the way in this movement for decades, publishing several textbooks to document various skin conditions in those with darker skin types and discuss unique considerations for patients with skin of color.^27-29 Images from these textbooks can be utilized by programs to increase representation of skin of color in dermatology training. There also are multiple expanding online dermatologic databases, such as VisualDx, with an increasing focus on skin of color patients, some of which allow users to filter images by degree of skin pigmentation.³⁰ Moreover, instructors also can work to diversify their curricula by highlighting more of the SOCS conditions of importance to skin of color patients, which have since been renamed and highlighted on the Patient Dermatology Education section of the SOCS website.²⁰ These conditions, while not completely comprehensive, provide a useful starting point for medical educators to reevaluate for potential areas of improvement and inclusion.

There are several potential strategies that can be used to better represent skin of color in dermatologic preclinical medical education, including increasing awareness, especially among dermatology teaching faculty, of existing disparities in the representation of skin of color in the preclinical curricula. Additionally, all dermatology teaching materials could be reviewed at the department level prior to being disseminated to medical students to assess for instances in which skin of color could be prioritized for discussion or varying disease presentations in skin of color could be demonstrated. Finally, teaching faculty may consider photographing more clinical images of their skin of color patients to further develop a catalog of diverse images that can be used to teach students.

Study Limitations—Our study was unable to account for verbal discussion of skin of color not otherwise denoted or captured in lecture slides. Additional limitations include the utilization of Fitzpatrick skin types to describe and differentiate varying skin tones, as the Fitzpatrick scale originally was developed as a method to describe an individual’s response to UV exposure.¹⁹ The inability to further delineate the representation of darker skin types, such as those that may be classified as Fitzpatrick skin types V or VI,¹⁹ compared to those with lighter skin of color also was a limiting factor. This study was unable to assess for discussion of other common conditions affecting skin of color patients that were not listed as one of the priority conditions by SOCS. Photographs that were designated as indeterminate were difficult to elucidate as skin of color; however, it is possible that instructors may have verbally described these images as skin of color during lectures. Nonetheless, it may be beneficial for learners if teaching faculty were to clearly label instances where skin of color patients are shown or when notable differences are present.

Future studies would benefit from the inclusion of audio data from lectures, syllabi, and small group teaching materials from preclinical courses to more accurately assess representation of skin of color in dermatology training. Additionally, future studies also may expand to include images from lectures of overlapping clinical specialties, particularly infectious disease and rheumatology, to provide a broader assessment of skin of color exposure. Furthermore, repeat assessment may be beneficial to assess the longitudinal effectiveness of curricular changes at the institutions included in this study, comparing older lectures to more recent, updated lectures. This study also may be replicated at other medical schools to allow for wider comparison of curricula.

Acknowledgment—The authors wish to thank the institutions that offered and agreed to participate in this study with the hopes of improving medical education.

A ccording to the US Census Bureau, more than half of all Americans are projected to belong to a minority group, defined as any group other than non-Hispanic White alone, by 2044. ¹ Consequently, the United States rapidly is becoming a country in which the majority of citizens will have skin of color. Individuals with skin of color are of diverse ethnic backgrounds and include people of African, Latin American, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Asian descent, as well as interethnic backgrounds. ² Throughout the country, dermatologists along with primary care practitioners may be confronted with certain cutaneous conditions that have varying disease presentations or processes in patients with skin of color. It also is important to note that racial categories are socially rather than biologically constructed, and the term skin of color includes a wide variety of diverse skin types. Nevertheless, the current literature thoroughly supports unique pathophysiologic differences in skin of color as well as variations in disease manifestation compared to White patients. ^3-5 For example, the increased lability of melanosomes in skin of color patients, which increases their risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, has been well documented. ^5-7 There are various dermatologic conditions that also occur with higher frequency and manifest uniquely in people with darker, more pigmented skin, ^7-9 and dermatologists, along with primary care physicians, should feel prepared to recognize and address them.

Extensive evidence also indicates that there are unique aspects to consider while managing certain skin diseases in patients with skin of color.^8,10,11 Consequently, as noted on the Skin of Color Society (SOCS) website, “[a]n increase in the body of dermatological literature concerning skin of color as well as the advancement of both basic science and clinical investigational research is necessary to meet the needs of the expanding skin of color population.”² In the meantime, current knowledge regarding cutaneous conditions that diversely or disproportionately affect skin of color should be actively disseminated to physicians in training. Although patients with skin of color should always have access to comprehensive care and knowledgeable practitioners, the current changes in national and regional demographics further underscore the need for a more thorough understanding of skin of color with regard to disease pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment.

Several studies have found that medical students in the United States are minimally exposed to dermatology in general compared to other clinical specialties,^12-14 which can easily lead to the underrecognition of disorders that may uniquely or disproportionately affect individuals with pigmented skin. Recent data showed that medical schools typically required fewer than 10 hours of dermatology instruction,¹² and on average, dermatologic training made up less than 1% of a medical student’s undergraduate medical education.^13,15,16 Consequently, less than 40% of primary care residents felt that their medical school curriculum adequately prepared them to manage common skin conditions.¹⁴ Although not all physicians should be expected to fully grasp the complexities of skin of color and its diagnostic and therapeutic implications, both practicing and training dermatologists have acknowledged a lack of exposure to skin of color. In one study, approximately 47% of dermatologists and dermatology residents reported that their medical training (medical school and/or residency) was inadequate in training them on skin conditions in Black patients. Furthermore, many who felt their training was lacking in skin of color identified the need for greater exposure to Black patients and training materials.¹⁵ The absence of comprehensive medical education regarding skin of color ultimately can be a disadvantage for both practitioners and patients, resulting in poorer outcomes. Furthermore, underrepresentation of skin of color may persist beyond undergraduate and graduate medical education. There also is evidence to suggest that noninclusion of skin of color pervades foundational dermatologic educational resources, including commonly used textbooks as well as continuing medical education disseminated at national conferences and meetings.¹⁷ Taken together, these findings highlight the need for more diverse and representative exposure to skin of color throughout medical training, which begins with a diverse inclusive undergraduate medical education in dermatology.

The objective of this study was to determine if the preclinical dermatology curriculum at 3 US medical schools provided adequate representation of skin of color patients in their didactic presentation slides.

Methods

Participants—Three US medical schools, a blend of private and public medical schools located across different geographic boundaries, agreed to participate in the study. All 3 institutions were current members of the American Medical Association (AMA) Accelerating Change in Medical Education consortium, whose primary goal is to create the medical school of the future and transform physician training.¹⁸ All 32 member institutions of the AMA consortium were contacted to request their participation in the study. As part of the consortium, these institutions have vowed to collectively work to develop and share the best models for educational advancement to improve care for patients, populations, and communities¹⁸ and would expectedly provide a more racially and ethnically inclusive curriculum than an institution not accountable to a group dedicated to identifying the best ways to deliver care for increasingly diverse communities.

Data Collection—Lectures were included if they were presented during dermatology preclinical courses in the 2015 to 2016 academic year. An uninvolved third party removed the names and identities of instructors to preserve anonymity. Two independent coders from different institutions extracted the data—lecture title, total number of clinical and histologic images, and number of skin of color images—from each of the anonymized lectures using a standardized coding form. We documented differences in skin of color noted in lectures and the disease context for the discussed differences, such as variations in clinical presentation, disease process, epidemiology/risk, and treatment between different skin phenotypes or ethnic groups. Photographs in which the coders were unable to differentiate whether the patient had skin of color were designated as indeterminate or unclear. Photographs appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin types IV, V, and VI¹⁹ were categorically designated as skin of color, and those appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin types I and II were described as not skin of color; however, images appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin type III often were classified as not skin of color or indeterminate and occasionally skin of color. The Figure shows examples of images classified as skin of color, indeterminate, and not skin of color. Photographs often were classified as indeterminate due to poor lighting, close-up view photographs, or highlighted pathology obscuring the surrounding skin. We excluded duplicate photographs and histologic images from the analyses.

We also reviewed 19 conditions previously highlighted by the SOCS as areas of importance to skin of color patients.²⁰ The coders tracked how many of these conditions were noted in each lecture. Duplicate discussion of these conditions was not included in the analyses. Any discrepancies between coders were resolved through additional slide review and discussion. The final coded data with the agreed upon changes were used for statistical analyses. Recent national demographic data from the US Census Bureau in 2019 describe approximately 39.9% of the population as belonging to racial/ethnic groups other than non-Hispanic/Latinx White.²¹ Consequently, the standard for adequate representation for skin of color photographs was set at 35% for the purpose of this study.

Across all 3 institutions included in the study, the proportion of the total number of clinical photographs showing skin of color was 16% (290/1812). Eight percent of the total photographs (145/1812) were noted to be indeterminate (Table). For institution 1, 23.6% of photographs (155/658) showed skin of color, and 12.6% (83/658) were indeterminate. For institution 2, 13.1% (76/578) showed skin of color and 7.8% (45/578) were indeterminate. For institution 3, 10.2% (59/576) showed skin of color and 3% (17/576) were indeterminate.

Institutions 1, 2, and 3 had 18, 8, and 17 total dermatology lectures, respectively. Of the 19 conditions designated as areas of importance to skin of color patients by the SOCS, 16 (84.2%) were discussed by institution 1, 11 (57.9%) by institution 2, and 9 (47.4%) by institution 3 (eTable 1). Institution 3 did not include photographs of skin of color patients in its acne, psoriasis, or cutaneous malignancy lectures. Institution 1 also did not include any skin of color patients in its malignancy lecture. Lectures that focused on pigmentary disorders, atopic dermatitis, infectious conditions, and benign cutaneous neoplasms were more likely to display photographs of skin of color patients; for example, lectures that discussed infectious conditions, such as superficial mycoses, herpes viruses, human papillomavirus, syphilis, and atypical mycobacterial infections, were consistently among those with higher proportions of photographs of skin of color patients.

Throughout the entire preclinical dermatology course at all 3 institutions, of 2945 lecture slides, only 24 (0.8%) unique differences were noted between skin color and non–skin of color patients, with 10 total differences noted by institution 1, 6 by institution 2, and 8 by institution 3 (Table). The majority of these differences (19/24) were related to epidemiologic differences in prevalence among varying racial/ethnic groups, with only 5 instances highlighting differences in clinical presentation. There was only a single instance that elaborated on the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of the discussed difference. Of all 24 unique differences discussed, 8 were related to skin cancer, 3 were related to dermatitis, and 2 were related to the difference in manifestation of erythema in patients with darker skin (eTable 2).

Comment

The results of this study demonstrated that skin of color is underrepresented in the preclinical dermatology curriculum at these 3 institutions. Although only 16% of all included clinical photographs were of skin of color, individuals with skin of color will soon represent more than half of the total US population within the next 2 decades.¹ To increase representation of skin of color patients, teaching faculty should consciously and deliberately include more photographs of skin of color patients for a wider variety of common conditions, including atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, in addition to those that tend to disparately affect skin of color patients, such as pseudofolliculitis barbae or melasma. Furthermore, they also can incorporate more detailed discussions about important differences seen in skin of color patients.

More Skin of Color Photographs in Psoriasis Lectures—At institution 3, there were no skin of color patients included in the psoriasis lecture, even though there is considerable data in the literature indicating notable differences in the clinical presentation, quality-of-life impact, and treatment of psoriasis in skin of color patients.^11,22 There are multiple nuances in psoriasis manifestation in patients with skin of color, including less-conspicuous erythema in darker skin, higher degrees of dyspigmentation, and greater body surface area involvement. For Black patients with scalp psoriasis, the impact of hair texture, styling practices, and washing frequency are additional considerations that may impact disease severity and selection of topical therapy.¹¹ The lack of inclusion of any skin of color patients in the psoriasis lecture at one institution further underscores the pressing need to prioritize communities of color in medical education.

More Skin of Color Photographs in Cutaneous Malignancy Lectures—Similarly, while a lecturer at institution 2 noted that acral lentiginous melanoma accounts for a considerable proportion of melanoma among skin of color patients,²³ there was no mention of how melanoma generally is substantially more deadly in this population, potentially due to decreased awareness and inconsistent screening.²⁴ Furthermore, at institutions 1 and 3, there were no photographs or discussion of skin of color patients during the cutaneous malignancy lectures. Evidence shows that more emphasis is needed for melanoma screening and awareness in skin of color populations to improve survival outcomes,²⁴ and this begins with educating not only future dermatologists but all future physicians as well. The failure to include photographs of skin of color patients in discussions or lectures regarding cutaneous malignancies may serve to further perpetuate the harmful misperception that individuals with skin of color are unaffected by skin cancer.^25,26

Analysis of Skin of Color Photographs in Infectious Disease Lectures—In addition, lectures discussing infectious etiologies were among those with the highest proportion of skin of color photographs. This relatively disproportionate representation of skin of color compared to the other lectures may contribute to the development of harmful stereotypes or the stigmatization of skin of color patients. Although skin of color should continue to be represented in similar lectures, teaching faculty should remain mindful of the potential unintended impact from lectures including relatively disproportionate amounts of skin of color, particularly when other lectures may have sparse to absent representation of skin of color.

More Photographs Available for Education—Overall, our findings may help to inform changes to preclinical dermatology medical education at other institutions to create more inclusive and representative curricula for skin of color patients. The ability of instructors to provide visual representation of various dermatologic conditions may be limited by the photographs available in certain textbooks with few examples of patients with skin of color; however, concerns regarding the lack of skin of color representation in dermatology training is not a novel discussion.¹⁷ Although it is the responsibility of all dermatologists to advocate for the inclusion of skin of color, many dermatologists of color have been leading the way in this movement for decades, publishing several textbooks to document various skin conditions in those with darker skin types and discuss unique considerations for patients with skin of color.^27-29 Images from these textbooks can be utilized by programs to increase representation of skin of color in dermatology training. There also are multiple expanding online dermatologic databases, such as VisualDx, with an increasing focus on skin of color patients, some of which allow users to filter images by degree of skin pigmentation.³⁰ Moreover, instructors also can work to diversify their curricula by highlighting more of the SOCS conditions of importance to skin of color patients, which have since been renamed and highlighted on the Patient Dermatology Education section of the SOCS website.²⁰ These conditions, while not completely comprehensive, provide a useful starting point for medical educators to reevaluate for potential areas of improvement and inclusion.

There are several potential strategies that can be used to better represent skin of color in dermatologic preclinical medical education, including increasing awareness, especially among dermatology teaching faculty, of existing disparities in the representation of skin of color in the preclinical curricula. Additionally, all dermatology teaching materials could be reviewed at the department level prior to being disseminated to medical students to assess for instances in which skin of color could be prioritized for discussion or varying disease presentations in skin of color could be demonstrated. Finally, teaching faculty may consider photographing more clinical images of their skin of color patients to further develop a catalog of diverse images that can be used to teach students.

Study Limitations—Our study was unable to account for verbal discussion of skin of color not otherwise denoted or captured in lecture slides. Additional limitations include the utilization of Fitzpatrick skin types to describe and differentiate varying skin tones, as the Fitzpatrick scale originally was developed as a method to describe an individual’s response to UV exposure.¹⁹ The inability to further delineate the representation of darker skin types, such as those that may be classified as Fitzpatrick skin types V or VI,¹⁹ compared to those with lighter skin of color also was a limiting factor. This study was unable to assess for discussion of other common conditions affecting skin of color patients that were not listed as one of the priority conditions by SOCS. Photographs that were designated as indeterminate were difficult to elucidate as skin of color; however, it is possible that instructors may have verbally described these images as skin of color during lectures. Nonetheless, it may be beneficial for learners if teaching faculty were to clearly label instances where skin of color patients are shown or when notable differences are present.

Future studies would benefit from the inclusion of audio data from lectures, syllabi, and small group teaching materials from preclinical courses to more accurately assess representation of skin of color in dermatology training. Additionally, future studies also may expand to include images from lectures of overlapping clinical specialties, particularly infectious disease and rheumatology, to provide a broader assessment of skin of color exposure. Furthermore, repeat assessment may be beneficial to assess the longitudinal effectiveness of curricular changes at the institutions included in this study, comparing older lectures to more recent, updated lectures. This study also may be replicated at other medical schools to allow for wider comparison of curricula.

Acknowledgment—The authors wish to thank the institutions that offered and agreed to participate in this study with the hopes of improving medical education.

A ccording to the US Census Bureau, more than half of all Americans are projected to belong to a minority group, defined as any group other than non-Hispanic White alone, by 2044. ¹ Consequently, the United States rapidly is becoming a country in which the majority of citizens will have skin of color. Individuals with skin of color are of diverse ethnic backgrounds and include people of African, Latin American, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Asian descent, as well as interethnic backgrounds. ² Throughout the country, dermatologists along with primary care practitioners may be confronted with certain cutaneous conditions that have varying disease presentations or processes in patients with skin of color. It also is important to note that racial categories are socially rather than biologically constructed, and the term skin of color includes a wide variety of diverse skin types. Nevertheless, the current literature thoroughly supports unique pathophysiologic differences in skin of color as well as variations in disease manifestation compared to White patients. ^3-5 For example, the increased lability of melanosomes in skin of color patients, which increases their risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, has been well documented. ^5-7 There are various dermatologic conditions that also occur with higher frequency and manifest uniquely in people with darker, more pigmented skin, ^7-9 and dermatologists, along with primary care physicians, should feel prepared to recognize and address them.

Extensive evidence also indicates that there are unique aspects to consider while managing certain skin diseases in patients with skin of color.^8,10,11 Consequently, as noted on the Skin of Color Society (SOCS) website, “[a]n increase in the body of dermatological literature concerning skin of color as well as the advancement of both basic science and clinical investigational research is necessary to meet the needs of the expanding skin of color population.”² In the meantime, current knowledge regarding cutaneous conditions that diversely or disproportionately affect skin of color should be actively disseminated to physicians in training. Although patients with skin of color should always have access to comprehensive care and knowledgeable practitioners, the current changes in national and regional demographics further underscore the need for a more thorough understanding of skin of color with regard to disease pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment.

Several studies have found that medical students in the United States are minimally exposed to dermatology in general compared to other clinical specialties,^12-14 which can easily lead to the underrecognition of disorders that may uniquely or disproportionately affect individuals with pigmented skin. Recent data showed that medical schools typically required fewer than 10 hours of dermatology instruction,¹² and on average, dermatologic training made up less than 1% of a medical student’s undergraduate medical education.^13,15,16 Consequently, less than 40% of primary care residents felt that their medical school curriculum adequately prepared them to manage common skin conditions.¹⁴ Although not all physicians should be expected to fully grasp the complexities of skin of color and its diagnostic and therapeutic implications, both practicing and training dermatologists have acknowledged a lack of exposure to skin of color. In one study, approximately 47% of dermatologists and dermatology residents reported that their medical training (medical school and/or residency) was inadequate in training them on skin conditions in Black patients. Furthermore, many who felt their training was lacking in skin of color identified the need for greater exposure to Black patients and training materials.¹⁵ The absence of comprehensive medical education regarding skin of color ultimately can be a disadvantage for both practitioners and patients, resulting in poorer outcomes. Furthermore, underrepresentation of skin of color may persist beyond undergraduate and graduate medical education. There also is evidence to suggest that noninclusion of skin of color pervades foundational dermatologic educational resources, including commonly used textbooks as well as continuing medical education disseminated at national conferences and meetings.¹⁷ Taken together, these findings highlight the need for more diverse and representative exposure to skin of color throughout medical training, which begins with a diverse inclusive undergraduate medical education in dermatology.

The objective of this study was to determine if the preclinical dermatology curriculum at 3 US medical schools provided adequate representation of skin of color patients in their didactic presentation slides.

Methods

Participants—Three US medical schools, a blend of private and public medical schools located across different geographic boundaries, agreed to participate in the study. All 3 institutions were current members of the American Medical Association (AMA) Accelerating Change in Medical Education consortium, whose primary goal is to create the medical school of the future and transform physician training.¹⁸ All 32 member institutions of the AMA consortium were contacted to request their participation in the study. As part of the consortium, these institutions have vowed to collectively work to develop and share the best models for educational advancement to improve care for patients, populations, and communities¹⁸ and would expectedly provide a more racially and ethnically inclusive curriculum than an institution not accountable to a group dedicated to identifying the best ways to deliver care for increasingly diverse communities.

Data Collection—Lectures were included if they were presented during dermatology preclinical courses in the 2015 to 2016 academic year. An uninvolved third party removed the names and identities of instructors to preserve anonymity. Two independent coders from different institutions extracted the data—lecture title, total number of clinical and histologic images, and number of skin of color images—from each of the anonymized lectures using a standardized coding form. We documented differences in skin of color noted in lectures and the disease context for the discussed differences, such as variations in clinical presentation, disease process, epidemiology/risk, and treatment between different skin phenotypes or ethnic groups. Photographs in which the coders were unable to differentiate whether the patient had skin of color were designated as indeterminate or unclear. Photographs appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin types IV, V, and VI¹⁹ were categorically designated as skin of color, and those appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin types I and II were described as not skin of color; however, images appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin type III often were classified as not skin of color or indeterminate and occasionally skin of color. The Figure shows examples of images classified as skin of color, indeterminate, and not skin of color. Photographs often were classified as indeterminate due to poor lighting, close-up view photographs, or highlighted pathology obscuring the surrounding skin. We excluded duplicate photographs and histologic images from the analyses.

We also reviewed 19 conditions previously highlighted by the SOCS as areas of importance to skin of color patients.²⁰ The coders tracked how many of these conditions were noted in each lecture. Duplicate discussion of these conditions was not included in the analyses. Any discrepancies between coders were resolved through additional slide review and discussion. The final coded data with the agreed upon changes were used for statistical analyses. Recent national demographic data from the US Census Bureau in 2019 describe approximately 39.9% of the population as belonging to racial/ethnic groups other than non-Hispanic/Latinx White.²¹ Consequently, the standard for adequate representation for skin of color photographs was set at 35% for the purpose of this study.

Across all 3 institutions included in the study, the proportion of the total number of clinical photographs showing skin of color was 16% (290/1812). Eight percent of the total photographs (145/1812) were noted to be indeterminate (Table). For institution 1, 23.6% of photographs (155/658) showed skin of color, and 12.6% (83/658) were indeterminate. For institution 2, 13.1% (76/578) showed skin of color and 7.8% (45/578) were indeterminate. For institution 3, 10.2% (59/576) showed skin of color and 3% (17/576) were indeterminate.

Institutions 1, 2, and 3 had 18, 8, and 17 total dermatology lectures, respectively. Of the 19 conditions designated as areas of importance to skin of color patients by the SOCS, 16 (84.2%) were discussed by institution 1, 11 (57.9%) by institution 2, and 9 (47.4%) by institution 3 (eTable 1). Institution 3 did not include photographs of skin of color patients in its acne, psoriasis, or cutaneous malignancy lectures. Institution 1 also did not include any skin of color patients in its malignancy lecture. Lectures that focused on pigmentary disorders, atopic dermatitis, infectious conditions, and benign cutaneous neoplasms were more likely to display photographs of skin of color patients; for example, lectures that discussed infectious conditions, such as superficial mycoses, herpes viruses, human papillomavirus, syphilis, and atypical mycobacterial infections, were consistently among those with higher proportions of photographs of skin of color patients.

Throughout the entire preclinical dermatology course at all 3 institutions, of 2945 lecture slides, only 24 (0.8%) unique differences were noted between skin color and non–skin of color patients, with 10 total differences noted by institution 1, 6 by institution 2, and 8 by institution 3 (Table). The majority of these differences (19/24) were related to epidemiologic differences in prevalence among varying racial/ethnic groups, with only 5 instances highlighting differences in clinical presentation. There was only a single instance that elaborated on the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of the discussed difference. Of all 24 unique differences discussed, 8 were related to skin cancer, 3 were related to dermatitis, and 2 were related to the difference in manifestation of erythema in patients with darker skin (eTable 2).

Comment

The results of this study demonstrated that skin of color is underrepresented in the preclinical dermatology curriculum at these 3 institutions. Although only 16% of all included clinical photographs were of skin of color, individuals with skin of color will soon represent more than half of the total US population within the next 2 decades.¹ To increase representation of skin of color patients, teaching faculty should consciously and deliberately include more photographs of skin of color patients for a wider variety of common conditions, including atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, in addition to those that tend to disparately affect skin of color patients, such as pseudofolliculitis barbae or melasma. Furthermore, they also can incorporate more detailed discussions about important differences seen in skin of color patients.

More Skin of Color Photographs in Psoriasis Lectures—At institution 3, there were no skin of color patients included in the psoriasis lecture, even though there is considerable data in the literature indicating notable differences in the clinical presentation, quality-of-life impact, and treatment of psoriasis in skin of color patients.^11,22 There are multiple nuances in psoriasis manifestation in patients with skin of color, including less-conspicuous erythema in darker skin, higher degrees of dyspigmentation, and greater body surface area involvement. For Black patients with scalp psoriasis, the impact of hair texture, styling practices, and washing frequency are additional considerations that may impact disease severity and selection of topical therapy.¹¹ The lack of inclusion of any skin of color patients in the psoriasis lecture at one institution further underscores the pressing need to prioritize communities of color in medical education.

More Skin of Color Photographs in Cutaneous Malignancy Lectures—Similarly, while a lecturer at institution 2 noted that acral lentiginous melanoma accounts for a considerable proportion of melanoma among skin of color patients,²³ there was no mention of how melanoma generally is substantially more deadly in this population, potentially due to decreased awareness and inconsistent screening.²⁴ Furthermore, at institutions 1 and 3, there were no photographs or discussion of skin of color patients during the cutaneous malignancy lectures. Evidence shows that more emphasis is needed for melanoma screening and awareness in skin of color populations to improve survival outcomes,²⁴ and this begins with educating not only future dermatologists but all future physicians as well. The failure to include photographs of skin of color patients in discussions or lectures regarding cutaneous malignancies may serve to further perpetuate the harmful misperception that individuals with skin of color are unaffected by skin cancer.^25,26

Analysis of Skin of Color Photographs in Infectious Disease Lectures—In addition, lectures discussing infectious etiologies were among those with the highest proportion of skin of color photographs. This relatively disproportionate representation of skin of color compared to the other lectures may contribute to the development of harmful stereotypes or the stigmatization of skin of color patients. Although skin of color should continue to be represented in similar lectures, teaching faculty should remain mindful of the potential unintended impact from lectures including relatively disproportionate amounts of skin of color, particularly when other lectures may have sparse to absent representation of skin of color.

More Photographs Available for Education—Overall, our findings may help to inform changes to preclinical dermatology medical education at other institutions to create more inclusive and representative curricula for skin of color patients. The ability of instructors to provide visual representation of various dermatologic conditions may be limited by the photographs available in certain textbooks with few examples of patients with skin of color; however, concerns regarding the lack of skin of color representation in dermatology training is not a novel discussion.¹⁷ Although it is the responsibility of all dermatologists to advocate for the inclusion of skin of color, many dermatologists of color have been leading the way in this movement for decades, publishing several textbooks to document various skin conditions in those with darker skin types and discuss unique considerations for patients with skin of color.^27-29 Images from these textbooks can be utilized by programs to increase representation of skin of color in dermatology training. There also are multiple expanding online dermatologic databases, such as VisualDx, with an increasing focus on skin of color patients, some of which allow users to filter images by degree of skin pigmentation.³⁰ Moreover, instructors also can work to diversify their curricula by highlighting more of the SOCS conditions of importance to skin of color patients, which have since been renamed and highlighted on the Patient Dermatology Education section of the SOCS website.²⁰ These conditions, while not completely comprehensive, provide a useful starting point for medical educators to reevaluate for potential areas of improvement and inclusion.

There are several potential strategies that can be used to better represent skin of color in dermatologic preclinical medical education, including increasing awareness, especially among dermatology teaching faculty, of existing disparities in the representation of skin of color in the preclinical curricula. Additionally, all dermatology teaching materials could be reviewed at the department level prior to being disseminated to medical students to assess for instances in which skin of color could be prioritized for discussion or varying disease presentations in skin of color could be demonstrated. Finally, teaching faculty may consider photographing more clinical images of their skin of color patients to further develop a catalog of diverse images that can be used to teach students.

Study Limitations—Our study was unable to account for verbal discussion of skin of color not otherwise denoted or captured in lecture slides. Additional limitations include the utilization of Fitzpatrick skin types to describe and differentiate varying skin tones, as the Fitzpatrick scale originally was developed as a method to describe an individual’s response to UV exposure.¹⁹ The inability to further delineate the representation of darker skin types, such as those that may be classified as Fitzpatrick skin types V or VI,¹⁹ compared to those with lighter skin of color also was a limiting factor. This study was unable to assess for discussion of other common conditions affecting skin of color patients that were not listed as one of the priority conditions by SOCS. Photographs that were designated as indeterminate were difficult to elucidate as skin of color; however, it is possible that instructors may have verbally described these images as skin of color during lectures. Nonetheless, it may be beneficial for learners if teaching faculty were to clearly label instances where skin of color patients are shown or when notable differences are present.

Future studies would benefit from the inclusion of audio data from lectures, syllabi, and small group teaching materials from preclinical courses to more accurately assess representation of skin of color in dermatology training. Additionally, future studies also may expand to include images from lectures of overlapping clinical specialties, particularly infectious disease and rheumatology, to provide a broader assessment of skin of color exposure. Furthermore, repeat assessment may be beneficial to assess the longitudinal effectiveness of curricular changes at the institutions included in this study, comparing older lectures to more recent, updated lectures. This study also may be replicated at other medical schools to allow for wider comparison of curricula.

Acknowledgment—The authors wish to thank the institutions that offered and agreed to participate in this study with the hopes of improving medical education.

Many patients with cancer, as well as doctors in fields other than oncology, are unaware of just how much progress has been made in recent years in the treatment of cancer, particularly with immunotherapy.

This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.

When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.

Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.

“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.

After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”

Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.

Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.

He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.

“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.

That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.

For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
 

Findings from the patient survey

It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.

“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients

The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.

Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”

Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.

“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.

A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.

“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.

Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
 

Results of the doctor survey

The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.

Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).

Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.

Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.

Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.

However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.

“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.

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

Many patients with cancer, as well as doctors in fields other than oncology, are unaware of just how much progress has been made in recent years in the treatment of cancer, particularly with immunotherapy.

This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.

When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.

Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.

“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.

After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”

Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.

Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.

He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.

“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.

That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.

For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
 

Findings from the patient survey

It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.

“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients

The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.

Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”

Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.

“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.

A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.

“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.

Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
 

Results of the doctor survey

The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.

Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).

Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.

Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.

Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.

However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.

“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.

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

Many patients with cancer, as well as doctors in fields other than oncology, are unaware of just how much progress has been made in recent years in the treatment of cancer, particularly with immunotherapy.

This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.

When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.

Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.

“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.

After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”

Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.

Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.

He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.

“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.

That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.

For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
 

Findings from the patient survey

It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.

“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients

The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.

Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”

Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.

“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.

A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.

“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.

Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
 

Results of the doctor survey

The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.

Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).

Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.

Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.

Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.

However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.

“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.

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

The proportion of patients who obtained an opioid prescription for hydrocodone after Mohs micrographic surgery fell by 21.7% between 2011 and 2020, while the use of tramadol increased by 26.3% between 2009 and 2020, according to a cross-sectional analysis of national insurance claims data.

The findings suggest that dermatologic surgeons generally understood opioid prescription risks and public health warnings about the opioid epidemic, corresponding study author Surya A. Veerabagu said in an interview.

“The frequency of opioid prescriptions after Mohs surgery went up a little bit from 2009 to 2011, but then it subsequently decreased,” said Ms. Veerabagu, a 4th-year student at Tulane University, New Orleans. “It very much correlates with the overarching opioid trends of the time. From 2010 to 2015, research questioning the safety of opioids increased and in 2012, national prescriptions claims for opioids began to decrease. More media outlets voiced concerns over the growing opioid epidemic, as well.”

As she and her associates noted in their study, published online Sept. 22 in JAMA Dermatology, sales of opioids skyrocketed, increasing by 400% from 1999 to 2011, while prescription opioid–related deaths exceeded deaths caused by heroin and cocaine combined.

“In 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidelines to curtail unnecessary opioid prescriptions,” they wrote. “Unfortunately, overdose deaths involving prescription opioids continued to increase even after these measures.”

The researchers drew from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (Optum CDM), a nationally representative insurance claims database, and limited the analysis to 358,012 adults who underwent Mohs surgery and obtained an opioid prescription within 2 days of surgery in the United States from Jan. 1, 2009, to June 1, 2020. They found that 34.6% of patients underwent Mohs surgery with opioid claims in 2009. This rose to a peak of 39.6% in 2011, then decreased annually to a rate of 11.7% in 2020.

The four opioids obtained most during the study period were hydrocodone (55%), codeine (16.3%), oxycodone (12%), and tramadol (11.6%). However, over time, the proportion of patients who obtained hydrocodone fell 21.7% from a peak of 67.1% in 2011 to 45.4% in 2020, while the proportion of patients who obtained tramadol – generally recognized as a safer option – increased 26.3% from a low of 1.6% in 2009 to 27.9% in 2020.

“The switch from very addictive opioids like hydrocodone and oxycodone to weaker opioids like tramadol was fascinating to see,” said Ms. Veerabagu, who conducted the study during her research fellowship in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “I remember at first thinking I had coded the data wrong. I reviewed the results with the team to ensure it was correct. We noticed that propoxyphene prescriptions suddenly dropped to 0% in 2011.” She found that the FDA warning in 2010 and recall regarding the use of propoxyphene because of cardiotoxicity correlated with her data, which, “in addition to the thorough review, convinced me that my coding was correct.” Prior to 2011, propoxyphene constituted 28% of prescriptions in 2009 and 24% of prescriptions in 2010.

In an interview, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said that the findings support recent opioid prescription recommendations following Mohs and other dermatologic procedures from professional societies including those from the American College of Mohs Surgery.

“More awareness has been raised in the past decade regarding the opioid epidemic and the rise of opioid abuse and deaths,” she said. “There has been increased scrutiny on procedures and prescribing of opioids post procedures.”

State-led efforts to lower the number of opioid prescriptions also play a role. For example, in 2016, Massachusetts launched the Massachusetts Prescription Awareness Tool (MassPAT), which imposes a 7-day limit on first-time prescriptions of opioids to patients and mandates that all prescribers check the prescription drug monitoring program before prescribing schedule II or III substances.

“The MassPAT system also gives you quarterly data on how your opioid prescriptions compare with those of your peers within your specialty and subspecialty,” Dr. Asgari said. “If you’re an outlier, I think that quickly leads you to change your prescribing patterns.”

Dr. Asgari noted that most opioids prescribed in the study by Ms. Veerabagu and colleagues were for cancers that arose on the head and neck. “There is still a perception among providers that cancers that arise in those anatomic sites can potentially cause more discomfort for the patient,” she said. “So, knowing more about the degree of pain among the head and neck cases would be an area of knowledge that would help provider behavior down the line.”

Ms. Veerabagu acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that unfilled prescriptions could not be accounted for, nor could opioids not taken or those obtained without a prescription. “We cannot survey patients in insurance claims database studies, so we have no way of knowing if everyone’s pain was adequately controlled from 2009 to 2020,” she said.

“The main takeaway message is to make sure doctors and patients share an open dialogue,” she added. “Informing patients of the major pros and cons of the appropriate postoperative pain management options available, including opioids’ addiction potential, is crucial. We hope our study adds to the larger continuing conversation of opioid usage within dermatology.”

The study’s senior author was Cerrene N. Giordano, MD, of the department of dermatology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Coauthor Jeremy R. Etzkorn, MD, is supported by a Dermatology Foundation Career Development Award in Dermatologic Surgery; coauthor Megan H. Noe, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. Another coauthor, Thuzar M. Shin, MD, PhD, reported receiving grants from Regeneron outside the submitted work. Dr. Asgari disclosed that she has received support from the Melanoma Research Alliance. She also contributes a chapter on skin cancer to UpToDate, for which she receives royalties.

[email protected]

The proportion of patients who obtained an opioid prescription for hydrocodone after Mohs micrographic surgery fell by 21.7% between 2011 and 2020, while the use of tramadol increased by 26.3% between 2009 and 2020, according to a cross-sectional analysis of national insurance claims data.

The findings suggest that dermatologic surgeons generally understood opioid prescription risks and public health warnings about the opioid epidemic, corresponding study author Surya A. Veerabagu said in an interview.

“The frequency of opioid prescriptions after Mohs surgery went up a little bit from 2009 to 2011, but then it subsequently decreased,” said Ms. Veerabagu, a 4th-year student at Tulane University, New Orleans. “It very much correlates with the overarching opioid trends of the time. From 2010 to 2015, research questioning the safety of opioids increased and in 2012, national prescriptions claims for opioids began to decrease. More media outlets voiced concerns over the growing opioid epidemic, as well.”

As she and her associates noted in their study, published online Sept. 22 in JAMA Dermatology, sales of opioids skyrocketed, increasing by 400% from 1999 to 2011, while prescription opioid–related deaths exceeded deaths caused by heroin and cocaine combined.

“In 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidelines to curtail unnecessary opioid prescriptions,” they wrote. “Unfortunately, overdose deaths involving prescription opioids continued to increase even after these measures.”

The researchers drew from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (Optum CDM), a nationally representative insurance claims database, and limited the analysis to 358,012 adults who underwent Mohs surgery and obtained an opioid prescription within 2 days of surgery in the United States from Jan. 1, 2009, to June 1, 2020. They found that 34.6% of patients underwent Mohs surgery with opioid claims in 2009. This rose to a peak of 39.6% in 2011, then decreased annually to a rate of 11.7% in 2020.

The four opioids obtained most during the study period were hydrocodone (55%), codeine (16.3%), oxycodone (12%), and tramadol (11.6%). However, over time, the proportion of patients who obtained hydrocodone fell 21.7% from a peak of 67.1% in 2011 to 45.4% in 2020, while the proportion of patients who obtained tramadol – generally recognized as a safer option – increased 26.3% from a low of 1.6% in 2009 to 27.9% in 2020.

“The switch from very addictive opioids like hydrocodone and oxycodone to weaker opioids like tramadol was fascinating to see,” said Ms. Veerabagu, who conducted the study during her research fellowship in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “I remember at first thinking I had coded the data wrong. I reviewed the results with the team to ensure it was correct. We noticed that propoxyphene prescriptions suddenly dropped to 0% in 2011.” She found that the FDA warning in 2010 and recall regarding the use of propoxyphene because of cardiotoxicity correlated with her data, which, “in addition to the thorough review, convinced me that my coding was correct.” Prior to 2011, propoxyphene constituted 28% of prescriptions in 2009 and 24% of prescriptions in 2010.

In an interview, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said that the findings support recent opioid prescription recommendations following Mohs and other dermatologic procedures from professional societies including those from the American College of Mohs Surgery.

“More awareness has been raised in the past decade regarding the opioid epidemic and the rise of opioid abuse and deaths,” she said. “There has been increased scrutiny on procedures and prescribing of opioids post procedures.”

State-led efforts to lower the number of opioid prescriptions also play a role. For example, in 2016, Massachusetts launched the Massachusetts Prescription Awareness Tool (MassPAT), which imposes a 7-day limit on first-time prescriptions of opioids to patients and mandates that all prescribers check the prescription drug monitoring program before prescribing schedule II or III substances.

“The MassPAT system also gives you quarterly data on how your opioid prescriptions compare with those of your peers within your specialty and subspecialty,” Dr. Asgari said. “If you’re an outlier, I think that quickly leads you to change your prescribing patterns.”

Dr. Asgari noted that most opioids prescribed in the study by Ms. Veerabagu and colleagues were for cancers that arose on the head and neck. “There is still a perception among providers that cancers that arise in those anatomic sites can potentially cause more discomfort for the patient,” she said. “So, knowing more about the degree of pain among the head and neck cases would be an area of knowledge that would help provider behavior down the line.”

Ms. Veerabagu acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that unfilled prescriptions could not be accounted for, nor could opioids not taken or those obtained without a prescription. “We cannot survey patients in insurance claims database studies, so we have no way of knowing if everyone’s pain was adequately controlled from 2009 to 2020,” she said.

“The main takeaway message is to make sure doctors and patients share an open dialogue,” she added. “Informing patients of the major pros and cons of the appropriate postoperative pain management options available, including opioids’ addiction potential, is crucial. We hope our study adds to the larger continuing conversation of opioid usage within dermatology.”

The study’s senior author was Cerrene N. Giordano, MD, of the department of dermatology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Coauthor Jeremy R. Etzkorn, MD, is supported by a Dermatology Foundation Career Development Award in Dermatologic Surgery; coauthor Megan H. Noe, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. Another coauthor, Thuzar M. Shin, MD, PhD, reported receiving grants from Regeneron outside the submitted work. Dr. Asgari disclosed that she has received support from the Melanoma Research Alliance. She also contributes a chapter on skin cancer to UpToDate, for which she receives royalties.

[email protected]

The proportion of patients who obtained an opioid prescription for hydrocodone after Mohs micrographic surgery fell by 21.7% between 2011 and 2020, while the use of tramadol increased by 26.3% between 2009 and 2020, according to a cross-sectional analysis of national insurance claims data.

The findings suggest that dermatologic surgeons generally understood opioid prescription risks and public health warnings about the opioid epidemic, corresponding study author Surya A. Veerabagu said in an interview.

“The frequency of opioid prescriptions after Mohs surgery went up a little bit from 2009 to 2011, but then it subsequently decreased,” said Ms. Veerabagu, a 4th-year student at Tulane University, New Orleans. “It very much correlates with the overarching opioid trends of the time. From 2010 to 2015, research questioning the safety of opioids increased and in 2012, national prescriptions claims for opioids began to decrease. More media outlets voiced concerns over the growing opioid epidemic, as well.”

As she and her associates noted in their study, published online Sept. 22 in JAMA Dermatology, sales of opioids skyrocketed, increasing by 400% from 1999 to 2011, while prescription opioid–related deaths exceeded deaths caused by heroin and cocaine combined.

“In 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidelines to curtail unnecessary opioid prescriptions,” they wrote. “Unfortunately, overdose deaths involving prescription opioids continued to increase even after these measures.”

The researchers drew from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (Optum CDM), a nationally representative insurance claims database, and limited the analysis to 358,012 adults who underwent Mohs surgery and obtained an opioid prescription within 2 days of surgery in the United States from Jan. 1, 2009, to June 1, 2020. They found that 34.6% of patients underwent Mohs surgery with opioid claims in 2009. This rose to a peak of 39.6% in 2011, then decreased annually to a rate of 11.7% in 2020.

The four opioids obtained most during the study period were hydrocodone (55%), codeine (16.3%), oxycodone (12%), and tramadol (11.6%). However, over time, the proportion of patients who obtained hydrocodone fell 21.7% from a peak of 67.1% in 2011 to 45.4% in 2020, while the proportion of patients who obtained tramadol – generally recognized as a safer option – increased 26.3% from a low of 1.6% in 2009 to 27.9% in 2020.

“The switch from very addictive opioids like hydrocodone and oxycodone to weaker opioids like tramadol was fascinating to see,” said Ms. Veerabagu, who conducted the study during her research fellowship in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “I remember at first thinking I had coded the data wrong. I reviewed the results with the team to ensure it was correct. We noticed that propoxyphene prescriptions suddenly dropped to 0% in 2011.” She found that the FDA warning in 2010 and recall regarding the use of propoxyphene because of cardiotoxicity correlated with her data, which, “in addition to the thorough review, convinced me that my coding was correct.” Prior to 2011, propoxyphene constituted 28% of prescriptions in 2009 and 24% of prescriptions in 2010.

In an interview, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said that the findings support recent opioid prescription recommendations following Mohs and other dermatologic procedures from professional societies including those from the American College of Mohs Surgery.

“More awareness has been raised in the past decade regarding the opioid epidemic and the rise of opioid abuse and deaths,” she said. “There has been increased scrutiny on procedures and prescribing of opioids post procedures.”

State-led efforts to lower the number of opioid prescriptions also play a role. For example, in 2016, Massachusetts launched the Massachusetts Prescription Awareness Tool (MassPAT), which imposes a 7-day limit on first-time prescriptions of opioids to patients and mandates that all prescribers check the prescription drug monitoring program before prescribing schedule II or III substances.

“The MassPAT system also gives you quarterly data on how your opioid prescriptions compare with those of your peers within your specialty and subspecialty,” Dr. Asgari said. “If you’re an outlier, I think that quickly leads you to change your prescribing patterns.”

Dr. Asgari noted that most opioids prescribed in the study by Ms. Veerabagu and colleagues were for cancers that arose on the head and neck. “There is still a perception among providers that cancers that arise in those anatomic sites can potentially cause more discomfort for the patient,” she said. “So, knowing more about the degree of pain among the head and neck cases would be an area of knowledge that would help provider behavior down the line.”

Ms. Veerabagu acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that unfilled prescriptions could not be accounted for, nor could opioids not taken or those obtained without a prescription. “We cannot survey patients in insurance claims database studies, so we have no way of knowing if everyone’s pain was adequately controlled from 2009 to 2020,” she said.

“The main takeaway message is to make sure doctors and patients share an open dialogue,” she added. “Informing patients of the major pros and cons of the appropriate postoperative pain management options available, including opioids’ addiction potential, is crucial. We hope our study adds to the larger continuing conversation of opioid usage within dermatology.”

The study’s senior author was Cerrene N. Giordano, MD, of the department of dermatology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Coauthor Jeremy R. Etzkorn, MD, is supported by a Dermatology Foundation Career Development Award in Dermatologic Surgery; coauthor Megan H. Noe, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. Another coauthor, Thuzar M. Shin, MD, PhD, reported receiving grants from Regeneron outside the submitted work. Dr. Asgari disclosed that she has received support from the Melanoma Research Alliance. She also contributes a chapter on skin cancer to UpToDate, for which she receives royalties.

[email protected]

Federal efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of over-the-counter sunscreens took a step forward today with the release of two orders aimed at updating regulatory requirements for most sunscreen products in the United States.

“We see it as a key public health priority and our regulatory obligation to make sure that marketed sunscreen products offer protection from the sun’s effects and that they deliver on those promises to consumers,” Theresa Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said during a media briefing.

When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed in 2020, the FDA was in the middle of amending a sunscreen monograph through the previous rule-making process, and the agency had issued a proposed rule for sunscreens in February of 2019. The CARES Act provided the FDA with new authority related to OTC drugs including sunscreens.

It also established a deemed final order for sunscreens, which set the current requirements for OTC sunscreen products marketed without an application. The deemed final order, released on Sept. 24, “essentially preserves the pre-CARES Act status quo marketing conditions for these sunscreens,” Dr. Michele explained. “Before the CARES Act was passed, sunscreens were marketed according to nearly identical terms that were described in an FDA enforcement discretion policy. For this reason, the agency believes that most sunscreens on the market today are already in compliance with this order.”

The CARES Act also required the FDA to issue a proposed order by Sept. 27 to amend and revise the deemed final order. Dr. Michele described the proposed order, which was released on Sept. 24, as “a vehicle to effectively transition our ongoing consideration of the appropriate requirements for OTC sunscreens marketed without approved applications from the previous rule-making process to this new order process. The provisions in today’s proposed order are therefore substantively the same as those described in the FDA’s 2019 proposed rule on sunscreens. With this proposed order, we’re proposing new requirements to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of sunscreens that Americans use every day.”

The order proposes to update the generally recognized as safe (GRASE) status for the 16 active ingredients listed in the deemed final order. It also proposes that dosage forms that are GRASE for use as sunscreens include oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks, and proposes GRASE status for spray sunscreens, subject to testing and labeling requirements.

Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized that photoprotection “is important for everyone, regardless of skin tone,” in an interview. “Broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of 15 and higher play an important role in this. This should not be lost amidst the proposed order.”

Changes between the deemed and proposed order that he highlighted include a maximum SPF of 60+ (though up to 80 might be allowed) and that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are GRASE. “The FDA did not say that nanoparticle formulations of these, which are easier to use, are not GRASE; they are asking for community input,” he said.

Other changes between the deemed and proposed order are that PABA and trolamine salicylate are not GRASE and that broad-spectrum testing will be mandatory. In addition, Dr. Friedman said, “sprays will be considered for GRASE so long as properly tested, labeling should be clearer (and a warning will be applied to those sunscreens not shown to prevent all the bad stuff with UVR [ultraviolet radiation]), and bug spray–sunscreen combos are a no-go.”

The FDA will consider comments on the proposed order submitted during a 45-day public comment period before issuing a revised final order. “As part of this process, we’ll consider all timely comments submitted both in response to the February 2019 proposed rule and to the current proposed order,” Dr. Michele said.

Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Abbvie, LRP, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

[email protected]

Federal efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of over-the-counter sunscreens took a step forward today with the release of two orders aimed at updating regulatory requirements for most sunscreen products in the United States.

“We see it as a key public health priority and our regulatory obligation to make sure that marketed sunscreen products offer protection from the sun’s effects and that they deliver on those promises to consumers,” Theresa Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said during a media briefing.

When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed in 2020, the FDA was in the middle of amending a sunscreen monograph through the previous rule-making process, and the agency had issued a proposed rule for sunscreens in February of 2019. The CARES Act provided the FDA with new authority related to OTC drugs including sunscreens.

It also established a deemed final order for sunscreens, which set the current requirements for OTC sunscreen products marketed without an application. The deemed final order, released on Sept. 24, “essentially preserves the pre-CARES Act status quo marketing conditions for these sunscreens,” Dr. Michele explained. “Before the CARES Act was passed, sunscreens were marketed according to nearly identical terms that were described in an FDA enforcement discretion policy. For this reason, the agency believes that most sunscreens on the market today are already in compliance with this order.”

The CARES Act also required the FDA to issue a proposed order by Sept. 27 to amend and revise the deemed final order. Dr. Michele described the proposed order, which was released on Sept. 24, as “a vehicle to effectively transition our ongoing consideration of the appropriate requirements for OTC sunscreens marketed without approved applications from the previous rule-making process to this new order process. The provisions in today’s proposed order are therefore substantively the same as those described in the FDA’s 2019 proposed rule on sunscreens. With this proposed order, we’re proposing new requirements to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of sunscreens that Americans use every day.”

The order proposes to update the generally recognized as safe (GRASE) status for the 16 active ingredients listed in the deemed final order. It also proposes that dosage forms that are GRASE for use as sunscreens include oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks, and proposes GRASE status for spray sunscreens, subject to testing and labeling requirements.

Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized that photoprotection “is important for everyone, regardless of skin tone,” in an interview. “Broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of 15 and higher play an important role in this. This should not be lost amidst the proposed order.”

Changes between the deemed and proposed order that he highlighted include a maximum SPF of 60+ (though up to 80 might be allowed) and that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are GRASE. “The FDA did not say that nanoparticle formulations of these, which are easier to use, are not GRASE; they are asking for community input,” he said.

Other changes between the deemed and proposed order are that PABA and trolamine salicylate are not GRASE and that broad-spectrum testing will be mandatory. In addition, Dr. Friedman said, “sprays will be considered for GRASE so long as properly tested, labeling should be clearer (and a warning will be applied to those sunscreens not shown to prevent all the bad stuff with UVR [ultraviolet radiation]), and bug spray–sunscreen combos are a no-go.”

The FDA will consider comments on the proposed order submitted during a 45-day public comment period before issuing a revised final order. “As part of this process, we’ll consider all timely comments submitted both in response to the February 2019 proposed rule and to the current proposed order,” Dr. Michele said.

Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Abbvie, LRP, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

[email protected]

Federal efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of over-the-counter sunscreens took a step forward today with the release of two orders aimed at updating regulatory requirements for most sunscreen products in the United States.

“We see it as a key public health priority and our regulatory obligation to make sure that marketed sunscreen products offer protection from the sun’s effects and that they deliver on those promises to consumers,” Theresa Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said during a media briefing.

When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed in 2020, the FDA was in the middle of amending a sunscreen monograph through the previous rule-making process, and the agency had issued a proposed rule for sunscreens in February of 2019. The CARES Act provided the FDA with new authority related to OTC drugs including sunscreens.

It also established a deemed final order for sunscreens, which set the current requirements for OTC sunscreen products marketed without an application. The deemed final order, released on Sept. 24, “essentially preserves the pre-CARES Act status quo marketing conditions for these sunscreens,” Dr. Michele explained. “Before the CARES Act was passed, sunscreens were marketed according to nearly identical terms that were described in an FDA enforcement discretion policy. For this reason, the agency believes that most sunscreens on the market today are already in compliance with this order.”

The CARES Act also required the FDA to issue a proposed order by Sept. 27 to amend and revise the deemed final order. Dr. Michele described the proposed order, which was released on Sept. 24, as “a vehicle to effectively transition our ongoing consideration of the appropriate requirements for OTC sunscreens marketed without approved applications from the previous rule-making process to this new order process. The provisions in today’s proposed order are therefore substantively the same as those described in the FDA’s 2019 proposed rule on sunscreens. With this proposed order, we’re proposing new requirements to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of sunscreens that Americans use every day.”

The order proposes to update the generally recognized as safe (GRASE) status for the 16 active ingredients listed in the deemed final order. It also proposes that dosage forms that are GRASE for use as sunscreens include oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks, and proposes GRASE status for spray sunscreens, subject to testing and labeling requirements.

Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized that photoprotection “is important for everyone, regardless of skin tone,” in an interview. “Broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of 15 and higher play an important role in this. This should not be lost amidst the proposed order.”

Changes between the deemed and proposed order that he highlighted include a maximum SPF of 60+ (though up to 80 might be allowed) and that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are GRASE. “The FDA did not say that nanoparticle formulations of these, which are easier to use, are not GRASE; they are asking for community input,” he said.

Other changes between the deemed and proposed order are that PABA and trolamine salicylate are not GRASE and that broad-spectrum testing will be mandatory. In addition, Dr. Friedman said, “sprays will be considered for GRASE so long as properly tested, labeling should be clearer (and a warning will be applied to those sunscreens not shown to prevent all the bad stuff with UVR [ultraviolet radiation]), and bug spray–sunscreen combos are a no-go.”

The FDA will consider comments on the proposed order submitted during a 45-day public comment period before issuing a revised final order. “As part of this process, we’ll consider all timely comments submitted both in response to the February 2019 proposed rule and to the current proposed order,” Dr. Michele said.

Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Abbvie, LRP, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

[email protected]

Among patients with uveal melanoma treated with tebentafusp, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) reduction may be a better surrogate of overall survival than RECIST response, according to Alexander Noor Shoushtari, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Tebentafusp is the first therapy to demonstrate an overall survival (OS) benefit in uveal melanoma, Dr. Shoushtari noted in a 2021 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress virtual oral presentation Sept. 17 (abstract 17570). He noted further that, in prior research, OS was improved regardless of RECISTv1.1 best response, suggesting that better surrogate efficacy endpoints are needed.

Uveal melanoma is a rare melanoma type with low mutational burden, but frequent liver metastases. Benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors is poor, and there is no established standard of care once the disease becomes metastatic. “Immune checkpoint inhibitors are not as good for treating this type of melanoma as they are for treating cutaneous disease, and traditionally preferred treatment is within clinical trials,” Dr. Shoushtari said. In frontline trials, 1-year survival has been in the 50% range. Tebentafusp is an investigational, first-in-class bispecific soluble T-cell receptor (TCR) therapeutic. It is designed to target gp100 (a melanoma-associated antigen) through a high-affinity TCR-binding domain and an anti-CD3 T-cell–engaging domain, which redirects T cells to kill gp100 positive melanocytic expressing tumor cells.

Prior research has demonstrated a disconnect between RECIST response classification and tebentafusp OS benefit. In the IMCgp100-202 study among patients treated first-line for metastatic uveal melanoma with tebentafusp or investigator choice, intent-to-treat analysis showed a survival probability benefit for tebentafusp (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.71), with a best response of progressive disease population HR of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.27-0.68). While the RECIST response rate was only 9.1%, the HR for progression-free survival was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94). “That suggests that RECIST is not a fantastic way to predict who will benefit from this drug,” Dr. Shoushtari stated.

Similarly in the IMCgp100-102 study of tebentafusp monotherapy in second-line metastatic uveal melanoma (n = 127), the RECIST response rate was 5%. Duration of response was 8.7 months and median OS was 16.8 months. Historical second-line OS has been reported at 7.8 months. The 1- and 2-year survival (62%/37%) compared favorably with historical rates (37%/15%), as well. Dr. Shoushtari noted that 92% of patients had detectable ctDNA with mutations in known uveal melanoma oncogenes. He pointed out that baseline ctDNA levels significantly correlated with tumor burden. Also, 70% of evaluable patients had any ctDNA reduction, with 0.5-3.2 log reduction in 99.9%, a 0.5 log reduction in 68% and 3 log reduction (cleared) in 14% of patients. ctDNA reduction, Dr. Shoushtari said, was associated with greater mean tumor shrinkage and with less tumor growth. Importantly, there was a linear correlation between ctDNA reduction and better OS (R2, 0.88, P < .0001).

Among all evaluable patients, comparing those with less than 0.5 log ctDNA reduction with those with at least a 0.5 log reduction showed a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.32-0.95; P = .03). Among those whose best response was progressive disease, 35% had at least a 0.5 log reduction in ctDNA with an OS hazard ratio of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.2-0.94; P = .027), compared with less than a 0.5 log reduction. Among those whose best response was stable disease, 28% had at least 1 log reduction with a hazard ratio of 0.48 (95% CI 0.16-1.43; P = .16) for OS, compared with those with less than 1 log reduction. Dr. Shoushtari pointed out that “14% of patients cleared ctDNA, including some (n = 12) with best RECIST responses of stable or progressive disease. All patients with ctDNA clearance were alive beyond 1 year; with a hazard ratio, compared to those who had not cleared ctDNA, of 0.14 (95% CI, 0.03-0.57).

Summing up, Dr. Shoushtari said that ctDNA was detectable in more than 90% of second-line tebentafusp-treated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and correlated with tumor burden. About 70% had ctDNA reduction versus 39% with tumor shrinkage and 5% RECIST response. The linear correlation between the magnitude of ctDNA reduction and improved OS on tebentafusp, was uncoupled from best RECIST response. “For tebentafusp, ctDNA reduction may be a better surrogate of overall survival than RECIST response.”

The ESMO-appointed discussant for the study, Christian Rolfo, MD, PhD, MBA, Icahan School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, examined the tebentafusp study author’s claim that the radiographic assessment of tumors may underestimate the effect of tebentafusp, compared with ctDNA. The strengths of the study include, he said, that it is a drug- and tumor-specific evaluation of the role of ctDNA as a surrogate of response. “Its strength is that it shows an important correlation between ctDNA levels and overall survival, and that response rate is evaluated better with ctDNA.” A question that remains open, Dr. Rolfo added, is whether RECIST criteria are still a good comparator for biologic response.

The study was funded by Immunocore Dr. Shoushtari disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

Among patients with uveal melanoma treated with tebentafusp, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) reduction may be a better surrogate of overall survival than RECIST response, according to Alexander Noor Shoushtari, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Tebentafusp is the first therapy to demonstrate an overall survival (OS) benefit in uveal melanoma, Dr. Shoushtari noted in a 2021 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress virtual oral presentation Sept. 17 (abstract 17570). He noted further that, in prior research, OS was improved regardless of RECISTv1.1 best response, suggesting that better surrogate efficacy endpoints are needed.

Uveal melanoma is a rare melanoma type with low mutational burden, but frequent liver metastases. Benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors is poor, and there is no established standard of care once the disease becomes metastatic. “Immune checkpoint inhibitors are not as good for treating this type of melanoma as they are for treating cutaneous disease, and traditionally preferred treatment is within clinical trials,” Dr. Shoushtari said. In frontline trials, 1-year survival has been in the 50% range. Tebentafusp is an investigational, first-in-class bispecific soluble T-cell receptor (TCR) therapeutic. It is designed to target gp100 (a melanoma-associated antigen) through a high-affinity TCR-binding domain and an anti-CD3 T-cell–engaging domain, which redirects T cells to kill gp100 positive melanocytic expressing tumor cells.

Prior research has demonstrated a disconnect between RECIST response classification and tebentafusp OS benefit. In the IMCgp100-202 study among patients treated first-line for metastatic uveal melanoma with tebentafusp or investigator choice, intent-to-treat analysis showed a survival probability benefit for tebentafusp (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.71), with a best response of progressive disease population HR of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.27-0.68). While the RECIST response rate was only 9.1%, the HR for progression-free survival was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94). “That suggests that RECIST is not a fantastic way to predict who will benefit from this drug,” Dr. Shoushtari stated.

Similarly in the IMCgp100-102 study of tebentafusp monotherapy in second-line metastatic uveal melanoma (n = 127), the RECIST response rate was 5%. Duration of response was 8.7 months and median OS was 16.8 months. Historical second-line OS has been reported at 7.8 months. The 1- and 2-year survival (62%/37%) compared favorably with historical rates (37%/15%), as well. Dr. Shoushtari noted that 92% of patients had detectable ctDNA with mutations in known uveal melanoma oncogenes. He pointed out that baseline ctDNA levels significantly correlated with tumor burden. Also, 70% of evaluable patients had any ctDNA reduction, with 0.5-3.2 log reduction in 99.9%, a 0.5 log reduction in 68% and 3 log reduction (cleared) in 14% of patients. ctDNA reduction, Dr. Shoushtari said, was associated with greater mean tumor shrinkage and with less tumor growth. Importantly, there was a linear correlation between ctDNA reduction and better OS (R2, 0.88, P < .0001).

Among all evaluable patients, comparing those with less than 0.5 log ctDNA reduction with those with at least a 0.5 log reduction showed a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.32-0.95; P = .03). Among those whose best response was progressive disease, 35% had at least a 0.5 log reduction in ctDNA with an OS hazard ratio of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.2-0.94; P = .027), compared with less than a 0.5 log reduction. Among those whose best response was stable disease, 28% had at least 1 log reduction with a hazard ratio of 0.48 (95% CI 0.16-1.43; P = .16) for OS, compared with those with less than 1 log reduction. Dr. Shoushtari pointed out that “14% of patients cleared ctDNA, including some (n = 12) with best RECIST responses of stable or progressive disease. All patients with ctDNA clearance were alive beyond 1 year; with a hazard ratio, compared to those who had not cleared ctDNA, of 0.14 (95% CI, 0.03-0.57).

Summing up, Dr. Shoushtari said that ctDNA was detectable in more than 90% of second-line tebentafusp-treated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and correlated with tumor burden. About 70% had ctDNA reduction versus 39% with tumor shrinkage and 5% RECIST response. The linear correlation between the magnitude of ctDNA reduction and improved OS on tebentafusp, was uncoupled from best RECIST response. “For tebentafusp, ctDNA reduction may be a better surrogate of overall survival than RECIST response.”

The ESMO-appointed discussant for the study, Christian Rolfo, MD, PhD, MBA, Icahan School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, examined the tebentafusp study author’s claim that the radiographic assessment of tumors may underestimate the effect of tebentafusp, compared with ctDNA. The strengths of the study include, he said, that it is a drug- and tumor-specific evaluation of the role of ctDNA as a surrogate of response. “Its strength is that it shows an important correlation between ctDNA levels and overall survival, and that response rate is evaluated better with ctDNA.” A question that remains open, Dr. Rolfo added, is whether RECIST criteria are still a good comparator for biologic response.

The study was funded by Immunocore Dr. Shoushtari disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

Among patients with uveal melanoma treated with tebentafusp, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) reduction may be a better surrogate of overall survival than RECIST response, according to Alexander Noor Shoushtari, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Tebentafusp is the first therapy to demonstrate an overall survival (OS) benefit in uveal melanoma, Dr. Shoushtari noted in a 2021 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress virtual oral presentation Sept. 17 (abstract 17570). He noted further that, in prior research, OS was improved regardless of RECISTv1.1 best response, suggesting that better surrogate efficacy endpoints are needed.

Uveal melanoma is a rare melanoma type with low mutational burden, but frequent liver metastases. Benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors is poor, and there is no established standard of care once the disease becomes metastatic. “Immune checkpoint inhibitors are not as good for treating this type of melanoma as they are for treating cutaneous disease, and traditionally preferred treatment is within clinical trials,” Dr. Shoushtari said. In frontline trials, 1-year survival has been in the 50% range. Tebentafusp is an investigational, first-in-class bispecific soluble T-cell receptor (TCR) therapeutic. It is designed to target gp100 (a melanoma-associated antigen) through a high-affinity TCR-binding domain and an anti-CD3 T-cell–engaging domain, which redirects T cells to kill gp100 positive melanocytic expressing tumor cells.

Prior research has demonstrated a disconnect between RECIST response classification and tebentafusp OS benefit. In the IMCgp100-202 study among patients treated first-line for metastatic uveal melanoma with tebentafusp or investigator choice, intent-to-treat analysis showed a survival probability benefit for tebentafusp (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.71), with a best response of progressive disease population HR of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.27-0.68). While the RECIST response rate was only 9.1%, the HR for progression-free survival was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94). “That suggests that RECIST is not a fantastic way to predict who will benefit from this drug,” Dr. Shoushtari stated.

Similarly in the IMCgp100-102 study of tebentafusp monotherapy in second-line metastatic uveal melanoma (n = 127), the RECIST response rate was 5%. Duration of response was 8.7 months and median OS was 16.8 months. Historical second-line OS has been reported at 7.8 months. The 1- and 2-year survival (62%/37%) compared favorably with historical rates (37%/15%), as well. Dr. Shoushtari noted that 92% of patients had detectable ctDNA with mutations in known uveal melanoma oncogenes. He pointed out that baseline ctDNA levels significantly correlated with tumor burden. Also, 70% of evaluable patients had any ctDNA reduction, with 0.5-3.2 log reduction in 99.9%, a 0.5 log reduction in 68% and 3 log reduction (cleared) in 14% of patients. ctDNA reduction, Dr. Shoushtari said, was associated with greater mean tumor shrinkage and with less tumor growth. Importantly, there was a linear correlation between ctDNA reduction and better OS (R2, 0.88, P < .0001).

Among all evaluable patients, comparing those with less than 0.5 log ctDNA reduction with those with at least a 0.5 log reduction showed a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.32-0.95; P = .03). Among those whose best response was progressive disease, 35% had at least a 0.5 log reduction in ctDNA with an OS hazard ratio of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.2-0.94; P = .027), compared with less than a 0.5 log reduction. Among those whose best response was stable disease, 28% had at least 1 log reduction with a hazard ratio of 0.48 (95% CI 0.16-1.43; P = .16) for OS, compared with those with less than 1 log reduction. Dr. Shoushtari pointed out that “14% of patients cleared ctDNA, including some (n = 12) with best RECIST responses of stable or progressive disease. All patients with ctDNA clearance were alive beyond 1 year; with a hazard ratio, compared to those who had not cleared ctDNA, of 0.14 (95% CI, 0.03-0.57).

Summing up, Dr. Shoushtari said that ctDNA was detectable in more than 90% of second-line tebentafusp-treated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and correlated with tumor burden. About 70% had ctDNA reduction versus 39% with tumor shrinkage and 5% RECIST response. The linear correlation between the magnitude of ctDNA reduction and improved OS on tebentafusp, was uncoupled from best RECIST response. “For tebentafusp, ctDNA reduction may be a better surrogate of overall survival than RECIST response.”

The ESMO-appointed discussant for the study, Christian Rolfo, MD, PhD, MBA, Icahan School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, examined the tebentafusp study author’s claim that the radiographic assessment of tumors may underestimate the effect of tebentafusp, compared with ctDNA. The strengths of the study include, he said, that it is a drug- and tumor-specific evaluation of the role of ctDNA as a surrogate of response. “Its strength is that it shows an important correlation between ctDNA levels and overall survival, and that response rate is evaluated better with ctDNA.” A question that remains open, Dr. Rolfo added, is whether RECIST criteria are still a good comparator for biologic response.

The study was funded by Immunocore Dr. Shoushtari disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.