User login
Pioneering test predicts return of malignant melanoma
Their research, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, describes how early-stage melanomas at risk of spreading secrete transforming growth factor beta2 (TGF-beta2), which causes the reduction, or down-regulation, of the proteins AMBRA1 and loricrin, both of which are found in the skin overlaying the tumor. TGF-beta2 also causes the loss of claudin-1, which in turn leads to loss of skin integrity, facilitating ulceration.
Senior author Penny Lovat, PhD, professor of cellular dermatology and oncology at Newcastle University, and chief scientific officer at AMLo Biosciences, explained: “AMBRA1, loricrin, and claudin-1 are all proteins key to maintaining the integrity of the upper layer of the skin,” and that the loss of these proteins causes gaps to develop, allowing the tumor to spread and ulcerate – a process associated with high-risk tumors. Dr. Lovat likened the process to that of “mortar and bricks holding together a wall”, with the loss of these proteins being “like the mortar crumbling away in the wall.”
According to Cancer Research UK, there are over 16,000 new cases of melanoma skin cancer each year in the United Kingdom, with over 2,000 deaths annually. After being surgically removed, primary tumors are histologically staged, with even low-risk cases being followed up for a number of years, a process that can be time-consuming for patients and costly for the NHS.
Some reassurance for those with melanoma
The creators of the new test say that it is these low-risk patients that the test is able to identify, offering a degree of reassurance to those diagnosed with the disease, and potentially reducing the number of hospital clinic visits they require.
Dr. Lovat commented: “Our test offers a personalized prognosis as it more accurately predicts if your skin cancer is unlikely to spread.”
She added that the test will aid clinicians to identify genuinely low-risk patients diagnosed with an early-stage melanoma, reducing the number of follow-up appointments for those identified as low risk. It, therefore, offers the opportunity to save the NHS time and money.
Excellent news for those with skin cancer
Phil Brady, chief operating officer of the British Skin Foundation, echoed Dr. Lovat’s comments, saying: “The test can alleviate stress and anxiety for patients caused by this potentially deadly skin cancer, whilst increasing efficiency and reducing costs to the NHS.”
Nick Levell, MD, consultant dermatologist & British Skin Foundation spokesperson, who has not been involved in the research, commented how the arrival of the test was “excellent news,” adding that “people at low risk can be reassured and will not have to attend hospital so often for check-ups”.
The development of the new test AMBLor has been led by Dr. Lovat, in association with the university spin-out company AMLo Biosciences, and is accredited by the National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom. The test involves tissue sections from the standard biopsy being sent in the post to the lab for analysis and costs £293 plus VAT. Currently available through a private referral service, the Newcastle team have applied for the test to be made available on the NHS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Their research, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, describes how early-stage melanomas at risk of spreading secrete transforming growth factor beta2 (TGF-beta2), which causes the reduction, or down-regulation, of the proteins AMBRA1 and loricrin, both of which are found in the skin overlaying the tumor. TGF-beta2 also causes the loss of claudin-1, which in turn leads to loss of skin integrity, facilitating ulceration.
Senior author Penny Lovat, PhD, professor of cellular dermatology and oncology at Newcastle University, and chief scientific officer at AMLo Biosciences, explained: “AMBRA1, loricrin, and claudin-1 are all proteins key to maintaining the integrity of the upper layer of the skin,” and that the loss of these proteins causes gaps to develop, allowing the tumor to spread and ulcerate – a process associated with high-risk tumors. Dr. Lovat likened the process to that of “mortar and bricks holding together a wall”, with the loss of these proteins being “like the mortar crumbling away in the wall.”
According to Cancer Research UK, there are over 16,000 new cases of melanoma skin cancer each year in the United Kingdom, with over 2,000 deaths annually. After being surgically removed, primary tumors are histologically staged, with even low-risk cases being followed up for a number of years, a process that can be time-consuming for patients and costly for the NHS.
Some reassurance for those with melanoma
The creators of the new test say that it is these low-risk patients that the test is able to identify, offering a degree of reassurance to those diagnosed with the disease, and potentially reducing the number of hospital clinic visits they require.
Dr. Lovat commented: “Our test offers a personalized prognosis as it more accurately predicts if your skin cancer is unlikely to spread.”
She added that the test will aid clinicians to identify genuinely low-risk patients diagnosed with an early-stage melanoma, reducing the number of follow-up appointments for those identified as low risk. It, therefore, offers the opportunity to save the NHS time and money.
Excellent news for those with skin cancer
Phil Brady, chief operating officer of the British Skin Foundation, echoed Dr. Lovat’s comments, saying: “The test can alleviate stress and anxiety for patients caused by this potentially deadly skin cancer, whilst increasing efficiency and reducing costs to the NHS.”
Nick Levell, MD, consultant dermatologist & British Skin Foundation spokesperson, who has not been involved in the research, commented how the arrival of the test was “excellent news,” adding that “people at low risk can be reassured and will not have to attend hospital so often for check-ups”.
The development of the new test AMBLor has been led by Dr. Lovat, in association with the university spin-out company AMLo Biosciences, and is accredited by the National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom. The test involves tissue sections from the standard biopsy being sent in the post to the lab for analysis and costs £293 plus VAT. Currently available through a private referral service, the Newcastle team have applied for the test to be made available on the NHS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Their research, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, describes how early-stage melanomas at risk of spreading secrete transforming growth factor beta2 (TGF-beta2), which causes the reduction, or down-regulation, of the proteins AMBRA1 and loricrin, both of which are found in the skin overlaying the tumor. TGF-beta2 also causes the loss of claudin-1, which in turn leads to loss of skin integrity, facilitating ulceration.
Senior author Penny Lovat, PhD, professor of cellular dermatology and oncology at Newcastle University, and chief scientific officer at AMLo Biosciences, explained: “AMBRA1, loricrin, and claudin-1 are all proteins key to maintaining the integrity of the upper layer of the skin,” and that the loss of these proteins causes gaps to develop, allowing the tumor to spread and ulcerate – a process associated with high-risk tumors. Dr. Lovat likened the process to that of “mortar and bricks holding together a wall”, with the loss of these proteins being “like the mortar crumbling away in the wall.”
According to Cancer Research UK, there are over 16,000 new cases of melanoma skin cancer each year in the United Kingdom, with over 2,000 deaths annually. After being surgically removed, primary tumors are histologically staged, with even low-risk cases being followed up for a number of years, a process that can be time-consuming for patients and costly for the NHS.
Some reassurance for those with melanoma
The creators of the new test say that it is these low-risk patients that the test is able to identify, offering a degree of reassurance to those diagnosed with the disease, and potentially reducing the number of hospital clinic visits they require.
Dr. Lovat commented: “Our test offers a personalized prognosis as it more accurately predicts if your skin cancer is unlikely to spread.”
She added that the test will aid clinicians to identify genuinely low-risk patients diagnosed with an early-stage melanoma, reducing the number of follow-up appointments for those identified as low risk. It, therefore, offers the opportunity to save the NHS time and money.
Excellent news for those with skin cancer
Phil Brady, chief operating officer of the British Skin Foundation, echoed Dr. Lovat’s comments, saying: “The test can alleviate stress and anxiety for patients caused by this potentially deadly skin cancer, whilst increasing efficiency and reducing costs to the NHS.”
Nick Levell, MD, consultant dermatologist & British Skin Foundation spokesperson, who has not been involved in the research, commented how the arrival of the test was “excellent news,” adding that “people at low risk can be reassured and will not have to attend hospital so often for check-ups”.
The development of the new test AMBLor has been led by Dr. Lovat, in association with the university spin-out company AMLo Biosciences, and is accredited by the National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom. The test involves tissue sections from the standard biopsy being sent in the post to the lab for analysis and costs £293 plus VAT. Currently available through a private referral service, the Newcastle team have applied for the test to be made available on the NHS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
FROM THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
U.S. cancer deaths continue to fall, especially lung cancer
There has been an overall decline of 32% in cancer deaths as of 2019, or approximately 3.5 million cancer deaths averted, the report noted.
“This success is largely because of reductions in smoking that resulted in downstream declines in lung and other smoking-related cancers,” lead author Rebecca L. Siegel of the ACS, and colleagues, noted in the latest edition of the society’s annual report on cancer rates and trends.
The paper was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
In particular, there has been a fall in both the incidence of and mortality from lung cancer, largely due to successful efforts to get people to quit smoking, but also from earlier diagnosis at a stage when the disease is far more amenable to treatment, noted the authors.
For example, the incidence of lung cancer declined by almost 3% per year in men between the years 2009 and 2018 and by 1% a year in women. Currently, the historically large gender gap in lung cancer incidence is disappearing such that in 2018, lung cancer rates were 24% higher in men than they were in women, and rates in women were actually higher in some younger age groups than they were in men.
Moreover, 28% of lung cancers detected in 2018 were found at a localized stage of disease compared with 17% in 2004.
Patients diagnosed with lung cancer are also living longer, with almost one-third of lung cancer patients still alive 3 years after their diagnosis compared with 21% a decade ago.
However, lung cancer is still the biggest contributor to cancer-related mortality overall, at a death toll of 350 per day – more than breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer combined, the authors wrote.
This is 2.5 times higher than the death rate from colorectal cancer (CRC), the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, they added.
Nevertheless, the decrease in lung cancer mortality accelerated from 3.1% per year between 2010 and 2014 to 5.4% per year during 2015 to 2019 in men and from 1.8% to 4.3% in women. “Overall, the lung cancer death rate has dropped by 56% from 1990 to 2019 in men and by 32% from 2002 to 2019 in women,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues emphasized.
Overall, the ACS projects there will be over 1.9 million new cancer cases and over 600,000 cancer deaths across the United States in 2022.
Patterns are changing
With prostate cancer now accounting for some 27% of all cancer diagnoses in men, recent trends in the incidence of prostate cancer are somewhat worrisome, the authors wrote. While the incidence for local-stage disease remained stable from 2014 through to 2018, the incidence of advanced-stage disease has increased by 6% a year since 2011. “Consequently, the proportion of distant-stage diagnoses has more than doubled,” the authors noted, “from a low of 3.9% in 2007 to 8.2% in 2018.”
The incidence of breast cancer among women has been slowly increasing by 0.5% per year since about the mid-2000s. This increase is due at least in part to declines in fertility and increases in body weight among women, the authors suggested. Declines in breast cancer mortality have slowed in recent years, dropping from 1% per year from 2013 to 2019 from 2%-3% per year seen during the 1990s and the early 2000s.
As for CRC, incidence patterns are similar by sex but differ by age. For example, incidence rates of CRC declined by about 2% per year between 2014 and 2018 in individuals 50 years and older, but they increased by 1.5% per year in adults under the age of 50. Overall, however, mortality from CRC decreased by about 2% per year between 2010 and 2019, although this trend again masks increasing mortality from CRC among younger adults, where death rates rose by 1.2% per year from 2005 through 2019 in patients under the age of 50.
The third leading cause of death in men and women combined is pancreatic cancer. Here again, mortality rates slowly increased in men between 2000 and 2013 but have remained relatively stable in women.
Between 2010 and 2019, cancers of the tongue, tonsils, and oropharynx caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) increased by about 2% per year in men and by 1% per year in women.
Death from cervical cancer – despite its being one of the most preventable cancers overall – is still the second leading cause of cancer death in women between 20 and 39 years of age. “Most of these women have never been screened so this is low-hanging fruit easily addressed by increasing access to screening and [HPV] vaccination among underserved women,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.
On the other hand, mortality from liver cancer – having increased rapidly over the past number of decades – appears to have stabilized in more recent years.
Survival at 5 years
For all cancers combined, survival at 5 years between the mid-1970s and 2011 through 2017 increased from 50% to 68% for White patients and by 39% to 63% for Black patients. “For all stages combined, survival is highest for prostate cancer (98%), melanoma of the skin (93%) and female breast cancer (90%),” the authors pointed out.
In contrast, survival at 5 years is lowest, at 11% for pancreatic cancer, 20% for cancers of the liver and esophagus, and 22% for lung cancer.
Indeed, for most of the common cancers, cancer survival has improved since the mid-1970s with the exception or uterine and cervical cancer, the latter because there have been few advancements in treatment.
Even among the more rare blood and lymphoid malignancies, improvements in treatment strategies, including the use of targeted therapies, have resulted in major survival gains from around 20% in the mid-1970s for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients to over 70% for CML patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017.
Similarly, the discovery and use of immunotherapy has doubled 5-year survival rates to 30% for patients with metastatic melanoma from 15% in 2004. On the other hand, racial disparities in survival odds continue to persist. For every cancer type except for cancer of the pancreas and kidney, survival rates were lower for Black patients than for White patients, the researchers pointed out.
“Black individuals also have lower stage-specific survival for most cancer types,” the report authors noted. Indeed, after adjustment for sex, age, and stage at diagnosis, the risk of death is 33% higher in Black patients than White patients and 51% higher in American Indian/Alaska Natives compared to White patients.
That said, the overall incidence of cancer is still highest among White individuals, in part because of high rates of breast cancer in White women, which may in part reflect overdiagnosis of breast cancer in this patient population, as the authors suggested.
“However, Black women have the highest cancer mortality rates – 12% higher than White women,” they observed. Even more striking, Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than White women but a 41% higher mortality risk from it.
As for pediatric and adolescent cancers, incidence rates may be increasing slightly among both age groups, but dramatic reductions in death by 71% among children and by 61% among adolescents from the mid-70s until now continue as a singular success story in the treatment of cancer overall.
All the authors are employed by the ACS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There has been an overall decline of 32% in cancer deaths as of 2019, or approximately 3.5 million cancer deaths averted, the report noted.
“This success is largely because of reductions in smoking that resulted in downstream declines in lung and other smoking-related cancers,” lead author Rebecca L. Siegel of the ACS, and colleagues, noted in the latest edition of the society’s annual report on cancer rates and trends.
The paper was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
In particular, there has been a fall in both the incidence of and mortality from lung cancer, largely due to successful efforts to get people to quit smoking, but also from earlier diagnosis at a stage when the disease is far more amenable to treatment, noted the authors.
For example, the incidence of lung cancer declined by almost 3% per year in men between the years 2009 and 2018 and by 1% a year in women. Currently, the historically large gender gap in lung cancer incidence is disappearing such that in 2018, lung cancer rates were 24% higher in men than they were in women, and rates in women were actually higher in some younger age groups than they were in men.
Moreover, 28% of lung cancers detected in 2018 were found at a localized stage of disease compared with 17% in 2004.
Patients diagnosed with lung cancer are also living longer, with almost one-third of lung cancer patients still alive 3 years after their diagnosis compared with 21% a decade ago.
However, lung cancer is still the biggest contributor to cancer-related mortality overall, at a death toll of 350 per day – more than breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer combined, the authors wrote.
This is 2.5 times higher than the death rate from colorectal cancer (CRC), the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, they added.
Nevertheless, the decrease in lung cancer mortality accelerated from 3.1% per year between 2010 and 2014 to 5.4% per year during 2015 to 2019 in men and from 1.8% to 4.3% in women. “Overall, the lung cancer death rate has dropped by 56% from 1990 to 2019 in men and by 32% from 2002 to 2019 in women,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues emphasized.
Overall, the ACS projects there will be over 1.9 million new cancer cases and over 600,000 cancer deaths across the United States in 2022.
Patterns are changing
With prostate cancer now accounting for some 27% of all cancer diagnoses in men, recent trends in the incidence of prostate cancer are somewhat worrisome, the authors wrote. While the incidence for local-stage disease remained stable from 2014 through to 2018, the incidence of advanced-stage disease has increased by 6% a year since 2011. “Consequently, the proportion of distant-stage diagnoses has more than doubled,” the authors noted, “from a low of 3.9% in 2007 to 8.2% in 2018.”
The incidence of breast cancer among women has been slowly increasing by 0.5% per year since about the mid-2000s. This increase is due at least in part to declines in fertility and increases in body weight among women, the authors suggested. Declines in breast cancer mortality have slowed in recent years, dropping from 1% per year from 2013 to 2019 from 2%-3% per year seen during the 1990s and the early 2000s.
As for CRC, incidence patterns are similar by sex but differ by age. For example, incidence rates of CRC declined by about 2% per year between 2014 and 2018 in individuals 50 years and older, but they increased by 1.5% per year in adults under the age of 50. Overall, however, mortality from CRC decreased by about 2% per year between 2010 and 2019, although this trend again masks increasing mortality from CRC among younger adults, where death rates rose by 1.2% per year from 2005 through 2019 in patients under the age of 50.
The third leading cause of death in men and women combined is pancreatic cancer. Here again, mortality rates slowly increased in men between 2000 and 2013 but have remained relatively stable in women.
Between 2010 and 2019, cancers of the tongue, tonsils, and oropharynx caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) increased by about 2% per year in men and by 1% per year in women.
Death from cervical cancer – despite its being one of the most preventable cancers overall – is still the second leading cause of cancer death in women between 20 and 39 years of age. “Most of these women have never been screened so this is low-hanging fruit easily addressed by increasing access to screening and [HPV] vaccination among underserved women,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.
On the other hand, mortality from liver cancer – having increased rapidly over the past number of decades – appears to have stabilized in more recent years.
Survival at 5 years
For all cancers combined, survival at 5 years between the mid-1970s and 2011 through 2017 increased from 50% to 68% for White patients and by 39% to 63% for Black patients. “For all stages combined, survival is highest for prostate cancer (98%), melanoma of the skin (93%) and female breast cancer (90%),” the authors pointed out.
In contrast, survival at 5 years is lowest, at 11% for pancreatic cancer, 20% for cancers of the liver and esophagus, and 22% for lung cancer.
Indeed, for most of the common cancers, cancer survival has improved since the mid-1970s with the exception or uterine and cervical cancer, the latter because there have been few advancements in treatment.
Even among the more rare blood and lymphoid malignancies, improvements in treatment strategies, including the use of targeted therapies, have resulted in major survival gains from around 20% in the mid-1970s for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients to over 70% for CML patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017.
Similarly, the discovery and use of immunotherapy has doubled 5-year survival rates to 30% for patients with metastatic melanoma from 15% in 2004. On the other hand, racial disparities in survival odds continue to persist. For every cancer type except for cancer of the pancreas and kidney, survival rates were lower for Black patients than for White patients, the researchers pointed out.
“Black individuals also have lower stage-specific survival for most cancer types,” the report authors noted. Indeed, after adjustment for sex, age, and stage at diagnosis, the risk of death is 33% higher in Black patients than White patients and 51% higher in American Indian/Alaska Natives compared to White patients.
That said, the overall incidence of cancer is still highest among White individuals, in part because of high rates of breast cancer in White women, which may in part reflect overdiagnosis of breast cancer in this patient population, as the authors suggested.
“However, Black women have the highest cancer mortality rates – 12% higher than White women,” they observed. Even more striking, Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than White women but a 41% higher mortality risk from it.
As for pediatric and adolescent cancers, incidence rates may be increasing slightly among both age groups, but dramatic reductions in death by 71% among children and by 61% among adolescents from the mid-70s until now continue as a singular success story in the treatment of cancer overall.
All the authors are employed by the ACS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There has been an overall decline of 32% in cancer deaths as of 2019, or approximately 3.5 million cancer deaths averted, the report noted.
“This success is largely because of reductions in smoking that resulted in downstream declines in lung and other smoking-related cancers,” lead author Rebecca L. Siegel of the ACS, and colleagues, noted in the latest edition of the society’s annual report on cancer rates and trends.
The paper was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
In particular, there has been a fall in both the incidence of and mortality from lung cancer, largely due to successful efforts to get people to quit smoking, but also from earlier diagnosis at a stage when the disease is far more amenable to treatment, noted the authors.
For example, the incidence of lung cancer declined by almost 3% per year in men between the years 2009 and 2018 and by 1% a year in women. Currently, the historically large gender gap in lung cancer incidence is disappearing such that in 2018, lung cancer rates were 24% higher in men than they were in women, and rates in women were actually higher in some younger age groups than they were in men.
Moreover, 28% of lung cancers detected in 2018 were found at a localized stage of disease compared with 17% in 2004.
Patients diagnosed with lung cancer are also living longer, with almost one-third of lung cancer patients still alive 3 years after their diagnosis compared with 21% a decade ago.
However, lung cancer is still the biggest contributor to cancer-related mortality overall, at a death toll of 350 per day – more than breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer combined, the authors wrote.
This is 2.5 times higher than the death rate from colorectal cancer (CRC), the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, they added.
Nevertheless, the decrease in lung cancer mortality accelerated from 3.1% per year between 2010 and 2014 to 5.4% per year during 2015 to 2019 in men and from 1.8% to 4.3% in women. “Overall, the lung cancer death rate has dropped by 56% from 1990 to 2019 in men and by 32% from 2002 to 2019 in women,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues emphasized.
Overall, the ACS projects there will be over 1.9 million new cancer cases and over 600,000 cancer deaths across the United States in 2022.
Patterns are changing
With prostate cancer now accounting for some 27% of all cancer diagnoses in men, recent trends in the incidence of prostate cancer are somewhat worrisome, the authors wrote. While the incidence for local-stage disease remained stable from 2014 through to 2018, the incidence of advanced-stage disease has increased by 6% a year since 2011. “Consequently, the proportion of distant-stage diagnoses has more than doubled,” the authors noted, “from a low of 3.9% in 2007 to 8.2% in 2018.”
The incidence of breast cancer among women has been slowly increasing by 0.5% per year since about the mid-2000s. This increase is due at least in part to declines in fertility and increases in body weight among women, the authors suggested. Declines in breast cancer mortality have slowed in recent years, dropping from 1% per year from 2013 to 2019 from 2%-3% per year seen during the 1990s and the early 2000s.
As for CRC, incidence patterns are similar by sex but differ by age. For example, incidence rates of CRC declined by about 2% per year between 2014 and 2018 in individuals 50 years and older, but they increased by 1.5% per year in adults under the age of 50. Overall, however, mortality from CRC decreased by about 2% per year between 2010 and 2019, although this trend again masks increasing mortality from CRC among younger adults, where death rates rose by 1.2% per year from 2005 through 2019 in patients under the age of 50.
The third leading cause of death in men and women combined is pancreatic cancer. Here again, mortality rates slowly increased in men between 2000 and 2013 but have remained relatively stable in women.
Between 2010 and 2019, cancers of the tongue, tonsils, and oropharynx caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) increased by about 2% per year in men and by 1% per year in women.
Death from cervical cancer – despite its being one of the most preventable cancers overall – is still the second leading cause of cancer death in women between 20 and 39 years of age. “Most of these women have never been screened so this is low-hanging fruit easily addressed by increasing access to screening and [HPV] vaccination among underserved women,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.
On the other hand, mortality from liver cancer – having increased rapidly over the past number of decades – appears to have stabilized in more recent years.
Survival at 5 years
For all cancers combined, survival at 5 years between the mid-1970s and 2011 through 2017 increased from 50% to 68% for White patients and by 39% to 63% for Black patients. “For all stages combined, survival is highest for prostate cancer (98%), melanoma of the skin (93%) and female breast cancer (90%),” the authors pointed out.
In contrast, survival at 5 years is lowest, at 11% for pancreatic cancer, 20% for cancers of the liver and esophagus, and 22% for lung cancer.
Indeed, for most of the common cancers, cancer survival has improved since the mid-1970s with the exception or uterine and cervical cancer, the latter because there have been few advancements in treatment.
Even among the more rare blood and lymphoid malignancies, improvements in treatment strategies, including the use of targeted therapies, have resulted in major survival gains from around 20% in the mid-1970s for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients to over 70% for CML patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017.
Similarly, the discovery and use of immunotherapy has doubled 5-year survival rates to 30% for patients with metastatic melanoma from 15% in 2004. On the other hand, racial disparities in survival odds continue to persist. For every cancer type except for cancer of the pancreas and kidney, survival rates were lower for Black patients than for White patients, the researchers pointed out.
“Black individuals also have lower stage-specific survival for most cancer types,” the report authors noted. Indeed, after adjustment for sex, age, and stage at diagnosis, the risk of death is 33% higher in Black patients than White patients and 51% higher in American Indian/Alaska Natives compared to White patients.
That said, the overall incidence of cancer is still highest among White individuals, in part because of high rates of breast cancer in White women, which may in part reflect overdiagnosis of breast cancer in this patient population, as the authors suggested.
“However, Black women have the highest cancer mortality rates – 12% higher than White women,” they observed. Even more striking, Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than White women but a 41% higher mortality risk from it.
As for pediatric and adolescent cancers, incidence rates may be increasing slightly among both age groups, but dramatic reductions in death by 71% among children and by 61% among adolescents from the mid-70s until now continue as a singular success story in the treatment of cancer overall.
All the authors are employed by the ACS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CA: A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS
Soon-to-be medical student awarded $10K after spotting melanoma
A soon-to-be medical student and former oncology ward volunteer has received a $10,000 scholarship for her education recently after tipping off a Vancouver Canucks staff member about a cancerous mole on the back of his neck during a National Hockey League game in Seattle this past October.
Sitting immediately behind the visiting team’s bench, Nadia Popovici wrote a large-font message on her cell phone and tapped the protective glass to get the attention of Brian Hamilton, assistant equipment manager for the Canucks.
“The mole on the back of your neck is possibly cancerous. Please go see a doctor!” read the message.
Mr. Hamilton acted on the tip and was eventually diagnosed with a malignant stage II melanoma, according to a report in the Seattle Times.
As noted in a Medscape Q&A, “ABCDE” is the acronym that indicates the visible, physical characteristics suggestive of melanoma. ABCDE stands for asymmetry, irregular border, color variations (especially red, white, and blue tones in a brown or black lesion), diameter greater than 6 mm, and elevated surface. The lesions may itch, bleed, ulcerate, or develop satellites.
The Canucks returned to Seattle recently for another game against the Seattle Kraken, and the visiting team posted a note on social media from Mr. Hamilton seeking the identity of the good Samaritan.
“... the message you showed me on your cell phone will forever be etched into my brain and has made a true life-changing difference for me and my family,” wrote Mr. Hamilton.
Within hours, Ms. Popovici’s mother, whose family has season tickets to the Seattle team’s games, responded to the message.
Ms. Popovici and Mr. Hamilton met up again at the Jan. 1 game, where Ms. Popovici was rewarded with a $10,000 medical school scholarship in a surprise announcement, shared on Twitter and liked more than 42,000 times.
“She didn’t take me out of a burning car like the big stories, but she took me out of a slow fire. And the words out of the doctor’s mouth were, if I ignored that for 4-5 years, I wouldn’t be here,” Mr. Hamilton said at a news conference on Jan. 1.
Ms. Popovici says she has been accepted to several medical schools and will start school in the fall, according to a press release from the National Hockey League.
More money for medical school may be on the way for Ms. Popovici after a GoFundMe page was started. With a goal of $25,000, the fund had received just over $2,500 as of Jan. 4.
“The teams made a kind gesture of giving her 10K, but I think we can do better!” Josh Doxey, a sales manager from Lehi, Utah, wrote on the page he created for Ms. Popovici.
Mr. Doxey told this news organization, “I started the GoFundMe thinking it would be a nice gesture especially for someone going into health care after 2 crazy years of COVID ... I have gotten in touch with her and her mother, and have been chatting with both. They both seem incredibly kind, grateful, and humble.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A soon-to-be medical student and former oncology ward volunteer has received a $10,000 scholarship for her education recently after tipping off a Vancouver Canucks staff member about a cancerous mole on the back of his neck during a National Hockey League game in Seattle this past October.
Sitting immediately behind the visiting team’s bench, Nadia Popovici wrote a large-font message on her cell phone and tapped the protective glass to get the attention of Brian Hamilton, assistant equipment manager for the Canucks.
“The mole on the back of your neck is possibly cancerous. Please go see a doctor!” read the message.
Mr. Hamilton acted on the tip and was eventually diagnosed with a malignant stage II melanoma, according to a report in the Seattle Times.
As noted in a Medscape Q&A, “ABCDE” is the acronym that indicates the visible, physical characteristics suggestive of melanoma. ABCDE stands for asymmetry, irregular border, color variations (especially red, white, and blue tones in a brown or black lesion), diameter greater than 6 mm, and elevated surface. The lesions may itch, bleed, ulcerate, or develop satellites.
The Canucks returned to Seattle recently for another game against the Seattle Kraken, and the visiting team posted a note on social media from Mr. Hamilton seeking the identity of the good Samaritan.
“... the message you showed me on your cell phone will forever be etched into my brain and has made a true life-changing difference for me and my family,” wrote Mr. Hamilton.
Within hours, Ms. Popovici’s mother, whose family has season tickets to the Seattle team’s games, responded to the message.
Ms. Popovici and Mr. Hamilton met up again at the Jan. 1 game, where Ms. Popovici was rewarded with a $10,000 medical school scholarship in a surprise announcement, shared on Twitter and liked more than 42,000 times.
“She didn’t take me out of a burning car like the big stories, but she took me out of a slow fire. And the words out of the doctor’s mouth were, if I ignored that for 4-5 years, I wouldn’t be here,” Mr. Hamilton said at a news conference on Jan. 1.
Ms. Popovici says she has been accepted to several medical schools and will start school in the fall, according to a press release from the National Hockey League.
More money for medical school may be on the way for Ms. Popovici after a GoFundMe page was started. With a goal of $25,000, the fund had received just over $2,500 as of Jan. 4.
“The teams made a kind gesture of giving her 10K, but I think we can do better!” Josh Doxey, a sales manager from Lehi, Utah, wrote on the page he created for Ms. Popovici.
Mr. Doxey told this news organization, “I started the GoFundMe thinking it would be a nice gesture especially for someone going into health care after 2 crazy years of COVID ... I have gotten in touch with her and her mother, and have been chatting with both. They both seem incredibly kind, grateful, and humble.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A soon-to-be medical student and former oncology ward volunteer has received a $10,000 scholarship for her education recently after tipping off a Vancouver Canucks staff member about a cancerous mole on the back of his neck during a National Hockey League game in Seattle this past October.
Sitting immediately behind the visiting team’s bench, Nadia Popovici wrote a large-font message on her cell phone and tapped the protective glass to get the attention of Brian Hamilton, assistant equipment manager for the Canucks.
“The mole on the back of your neck is possibly cancerous. Please go see a doctor!” read the message.
Mr. Hamilton acted on the tip and was eventually diagnosed with a malignant stage II melanoma, according to a report in the Seattle Times.
As noted in a Medscape Q&A, “ABCDE” is the acronym that indicates the visible, physical characteristics suggestive of melanoma. ABCDE stands for asymmetry, irregular border, color variations (especially red, white, and blue tones in a brown or black lesion), diameter greater than 6 mm, and elevated surface. The lesions may itch, bleed, ulcerate, or develop satellites.
The Canucks returned to Seattle recently for another game against the Seattle Kraken, and the visiting team posted a note on social media from Mr. Hamilton seeking the identity of the good Samaritan.
“... the message you showed me on your cell phone will forever be etched into my brain and has made a true life-changing difference for me and my family,” wrote Mr. Hamilton.
Within hours, Ms. Popovici’s mother, whose family has season tickets to the Seattle team’s games, responded to the message.
Ms. Popovici and Mr. Hamilton met up again at the Jan. 1 game, where Ms. Popovici was rewarded with a $10,000 medical school scholarship in a surprise announcement, shared on Twitter and liked more than 42,000 times.
“She didn’t take me out of a burning car like the big stories, but she took me out of a slow fire. And the words out of the doctor’s mouth were, if I ignored that for 4-5 years, I wouldn’t be here,” Mr. Hamilton said at a news conference on Jan. 1.
Ms. Popovici says she has been accepted to several medical schools and will start school in the fall, according to a press release from the National Hockey League.
More money for medical school may be on the way for Ms. Popovici after a GoFundMe page was started. With a goal of $25,000, the fund had received just over $2,500 as of Jan. 4.
“The teams made a kind gesture of giving her 10K, but I think we can do better!” Josh Doxey, a sales manager from Lehi, Utah, wrote on the page he created for Ms. Popovici.
Mr. Doxey told this news organization, “I started the GoFundMe thinking it would be a nice gesture especially for someone going into health care after 2 crazy years of COVID ... I have gotten in touch with her and her mother, and have been chatting with both. They both seem incredibly kind, grateful, and humble.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
High-fiber diet may improve melanoma immunotherapy response, outcomes
a new study shows.
Investigators found that the patients who reported consuming at least 20 g of dietary fiber daily had significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) than those who reported consuming lower amounts of dietary fiber. However, patients who took a probiotic supplement in the past month had slightly shorter PFS, but the results were not statistically significant.
And after adjusting for clinical factors, each 5-g increase in daily dietary fiber intake corresponded to a 30% lower risk of disease progression, according to the analysis, published online Dec. 23, 2021, in Science.
“Our study sheds light on the potential effects of a patient’s diet and supplement use when starting treatment with immune checkpoint blockade,” co–lead study author Jennifer Wargo, MD, professor of genomic medicine and surgical oncology at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a press release. “These results provide further support for clinical trials to modulate the microbiome with the goal of improving cancer outcomes using dietary and other strategies.”
Previous research has suggested that the microbiome can influence patients’ response to immunotherapy. One recent analysis, for instance, found that fecal microbiota transplant can improve response to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. And a small 2019 analysis from Dr. Dr. Wargo and colleagues hinted that a high-fiber diet may enhance patients’ ability to respond to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma, while probiotics appear to dampen that response.
Still, the role diet and probiotic supplements play in treatment response remains poorly understood.
In the current study, Dr. Wargo and colleagues assessed fecal microbiota profiles and dietary habits, including fiber intake and probiotic use, in 158 patients with advanced melanoma who received immune checkpoint blockade inhibitors.
In the cohort, 31% (49 of 158) of late-stage melanoma patients reported taking a commercially available probiotic in the past month. When assessing whether probiotic use influenced patient outcomes, the investigators observed a shorter but not statistically significant difference in PFS in those who took a probiotic (median, 17 months) versus those who did not (23 months).
Higher dietary fiber, however, was associated with significantly improved PFS in a subset of 128 patients. The team divided patients into a higher-fiber intake group (those consuming at least 20 g/day) and a low-fiber group (those consuming less than 20 g).
The 37 patients reporting higher fiber intake demonstrated improved PFS, compared with those in the low-intake group (median PFS not reached vs. 13 months), plus a 30% lower risk of disease progression or death for each additional 5 g consumed each day.
“The observed protective effect of dietary fiber intake in relation to PFS and response remained consistent among the subset of patients treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy, with the exclusion of patients reporting recent antibiotic use,” the authors noted.
When assessing fiber and probiotic intake together, the researchers found that immunotherapy response rate was higher (82%) in the 22 patients who reported sufficient dietary fiber intake with no probiotic use versus 59% in 101 patients who reported either insufficient fiber intake or probiotic use.
Overall, the research suggests that “consuming a diet rich in fiber, like fruits, vegetables, and legumes, could improve your ability to respond to immunotherapy,” co–lead author Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, chief of the Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology in the National Cancer Institute’s Center for Cancer Research, Bethesda, Md., said in a press statement. “The data also suggest that it’s probably better for people with cancer receiving immunotherapy not to use commercially available probiotics.”
The investigators also explored whether dietary fiber intake enhanced treatment response in preclinical mouse models of melanoma. In this instance, mice receiving a fiber-rich diet showed delayed tumor growth after anti–PD-1 treatment, compared with mice given a low-fiber diet or probiotics.
According to the authors, “our preclinical models support the hypothesis that dietary fiber and probiotics modulate the microbiome and that antitumor immunity is impaired in mice receiving a low-fiber diet and in those receiving probiotics – with suppression of intratumoral [interferon-gamma] T-cell responses in both cases.”
Dietary fiber may exert beneficial effect by increasing specific types of bacteria in the gut, such as Ruminococcaceae, which “produce high levels of certain short-chain fatty acids that have an antitumor effect,” Dr. Trinchieri explained.
However, “the impact of dietary fiber and probiotics on the gut microbiota is only part of the bigger picture,” Dr. Trinchieri said in a press release. “Many factors can affect the ability of a patient with melanoma to respond to immunotherapy” but, according to this analysis, “the microbiota seems to be one of the dominant factors.”
While Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, applauded the “innovative and interesting” research, he believes the patient population is too small to confirm that a high-fiber diet does indeed contribute to improved immunotherapy response and PFS in patients with advanced melanoma.
Additional data are needed to clarify these findings. “I will believe it if I could see it replicated in a larger study,” Dr. Weber, professor and deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, said in an interview.
Dr. Wargo noted that a randomized clinical trial exploring how diets with varying fiber content affect the microbiome and immune response is currently enrolling patients with stage III and IV melanoma receiving immunotherapy.
This study was supported by the Melanoma Moon Shot, among others. Dr. Wargo is a collaborator on a U.S. patent application that covers methods to enhance immune checkpoint blockade responses by modulating the microbiome. Dr. Weber reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech BioOncology, Merck, Novartis, EMD Serono, Celldex, CytomX, Nektar, Roche, Altor, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly, and is named on patents filed for biomarkers for ipilimumab and nivolumab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new study shows.
Investigators found that the patients who reported consuming at least 20 g of dietary fiber daily had significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) than those who reported consuming lower amounts of dietary fiber. However, patients who took a probiotic supplement in the past month had slightly shorter PFS, but the results were not statistically significant.
And after adjusting for clinical factors, each 5-g increase in daily dietary fiber intake corresponded to a 30% lower risk of disease progression, according to the analysis, published online Dec. 23, 2021, in Science.
“Our study sheds light on the potential effects of a patient’s diet and supplement use when starting treatment with immune checkpoint blockade,” co–lead study author Jennifer Wargo, MD, professor of genomic medicine and surgical oncology at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a press release. “These results provide further support for clinical trials to modulate the microbiome with the goal of improving cancer outcomes using dietary and other strategies.”
Previous research has suggested that the microbiome can influence patients’ response to immunotherapy. One recent analysis, for instance, found that fecal microbiota transplant can improve response to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. And a small 2019 analysis from Dr. Dr. Wargo and colleagues hinted that a high-fiber diet may enhance patients’ ability to respond to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma, while probiotics appear to dampen that response.
Still, the role diet and probiotic supplements play in treatment response remains poorly understood.
In the current study, Dr. Wargo and colleagues assessed fecal microbiota profiles and dietary habits, including fiber intake and probiotic use, in 158 patients with advanced melanoma who received immune checkpoint blockade inhibitors.
In the cohort, 31% (49 of 158) of late-stage melanoma patients reported taking a commercially available probiotic in the past month. When assessing whether probiotic use influenced patient outcomes, the investigators observed a shorter but not statistically significant difference in PFS in those who took a probiotic (median, 17 months) versus those who did not (23 months).
Higher dietary fiber, however, was associated with significantly improved PFS in a subset of 128 patients. The team divided patients into a higher-fiber intake group (those consuming at least 20 g/day) and a low-fiber group (those consuming less than 20 g).
The 37 patients reporting higher fiber intake demonstrated improved PFS, compared with those in the low-intake group (median PFS not reached vs. 13 months), plus a 30% lower risk of disease progression or death for each additional 5 g consumed each day.
“The observed protective effect of dietary fiber intake in relation to PFS and response remained consistent among the subset of patients treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy, with the exclusion of patients reporting recent antibiotic use,” the authors noted.
When assessing fiber and probiotic intake together, the researchers found that immunotherapy response rate was higher (82%) in the 22 patients who reported sufficient dietary fiber intake with no probiotic use versus 59% in 101 patients who reported either insufficient fiber intake or probiotic use.
Overall, the research suggests that “consuming a diet rich in fiber, like fruits, vegetables, and legumes, could improve your ability to respond to immunotherapy,” co–lead author Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, chief of the Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology in the National Cancer Institute’s Center for Cancer Research, Bethesda, Md., said in a press statement. “The data also suggest that it’s probably better for people with cancer receiving immunotherapy not to use commercially available probiotics.”
The investigators also explored whether dietary fiber intake enhanced treatment response in preclinical mouse models of melanoma. In this instance, mice receiving a fiber-rich diet showed delayed tumor growth after anti–PD-1 treatment, compared with mice given a low-fiber diet or probiotics.
According to the authors, “our preclinical models support the hypothesis that dietary fiber and probiotics modulate the microbiome and that antitumor immunity is impaired in mice receiving a low-fiber diet and in those receiving probiotics – with suppression of intratumoral [interferon-gamma] T-cell responses in both cases.”
Dietary fiber may exert beneficial effect by increasing specific types of bacteria in the gut, such as Ruminococcaceae, which “produce high levels of certain short-chain fatty acids that have an antitumor effect,” Dr. Trinchieri explained.
However, “the impact of dietary fiber and probiotics on the gut microbiota is only part of the bigger picture,” Dr. Trinchieri said in a press release. “Many factors can affect the ability of a patient with melanoma to respond to immunotherapy” but, according to this analysis, “the microbiota seems to be one of the dominant factors.”
While Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, applauded the “innovative and interesting” research, he believes the patient population is too small to confirm that a high-fiber diet does indeed contribute to improved immunotherapy response and PFS in patients with advanced melanoma.
Additional data are needed to clarify these findings. “I will believe it if I could see it replicated in a larger study,” Dr. Weber, professor and deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, said in an interview.
Dr. Wargo noted that a randomized clinical trial exploring how diets with varying fiber content affect the microbiome and immune response is currently enrolling patients with stage III and IV melanoma receiving immunotherapy.
This study was supported by the Melanoma Moon Shot, among others. Dr. Wargo is a collaborator on a U.S. patent application that covers methods to enhance immune checkpoint blockade responses by modulating the microbiome. Dr. Weber reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech BioOncology, Merck, Novartis, EMD Serono, Celldex, CytomX, Nektar, Roche, Altor, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly, and is named on patents filed for biomarkers for ipilimumab and nivolumab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new study shows.
Investigators found that the patients who reported consuming at least 20 g of dietary fiber daily had significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) than those who reported consuming lower amounts of dietary fiber. However, patients who took a probiotic supplement in the past month had slightly shorter PFS, but the results were not statistically significant.
And after adjusting for clinical factors, each 5-g increase in daily dietary fiber intake corresponded to a 30% lower risk of disease progression, according to the analysis, published online Dec. 23, 2021, in Science.
“Our study sheds light on the potential effects of a patient’s diet and supplement use when starting treatment with immune checkpoint blockade,” co–lead study author Jennifer Wargo, MD, professor of genomic medicine and surgical oncology at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a press release. “These results provide further support for clinical trials to modulate the microbiome with the goal of improving cancer outcomes using dietary and other strategies.”
Previous research has suggested that the microbiome can influence patients’ response to immunotherapy. One recent analysis, for instance, found that fecal microbiota transplant can improve response to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. And a small 2019 analysis from Dr. Dr. Wargo and colleagues hinted that a high-fiber diet may enhance patients’ ability to respond to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma, while probiotics appear to dampen that response.
Still, the role diet and probiotic supplements play in treatment response remains poorly understood.
In the current study, Dr. Wargo and colleagues assessed fecal microbiota profiles and dietary habits, including fiber intake and probiotic use, in 158 patients with advanced melanoma who received immune checkpoint blockade inhibitors.
In the cohort, 31% (49 of 158) of late-stage melanoma patients reported taking a commercially available probiotic in the past month. When assessing whether probiotic use influenced patient outcomes, the investigators observed a shorter but not statistically significant difference in PFS in those who took a probiotic (median, 17 months) versus those who did not (23 months).
Higher dietary fiber, however, was associated with significantly improved PFS in a subset of 128 patients. The team divided patients into a higher-fiber intake group (those consuming at least 20 g/day) and a low-fiber group (those consuming less than 20 g).
The 37 patients reporting higher fiber intake demonstrated improved PFS, compared with those in the low-intake group (median PFS not reached vs. 13 months), plus a 30% lower risk of disease progression or death for each additional 5 g consumed each day.
“The observed protective effect of dietary fiber intake in relation to PFS and response remained consistent among the subset of patients treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy, with the exclusion of patients reporting recent antibiotic use,” the authors noted.
When assessing fiber and probiotic intake together, the researchers found that immunotherapy response rate was higher (82%) in the 22 patients who reported sufficient dietary fiber intake with no probiotic use versus 59% in 101 patients who reported either insufficient fiber intake or probiotic use.
Overall, the research suggests that “consuming a diet rich in fiber, like fruits, vegetables, and legumes, could improve your ability to respond to immunotherapy,” co–lead author Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, chief of the Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology in the National Cancer Institute’s Center for Cancer Research, Bethesda, Md., said in a press statement. “The data also suggest that it’s probably better for people with cancer receiving immunotherapy not to use commercially available probiotics.”
The investigators also explored whether dietary fiber intake enhanced treatment response in preclinical mouse models of melanoma. In this instance, mice receiving a fiber-rich diet showed delayed tumor growth after anti–PD-1 treatment, compared with mice given a low-fiber diet or probiotics.
According to the authors, “our preclinical models support the hypothesis that dietary fiber and probiotics modulate the microbiome and that antitumor immunity is impaired in mice receiving a low-fiber diet and in those receiving probiotics – with suppression of intratumoral [interferon-gamma] T-cell responses in both cases.”
Dietary fiber may exert beneficial effect by increasing specific types of bacteria in the gut, such as Ruminococcaceae, which “produce high levels of certain short-chain fatty acids that have an antitumor effect,” Dr. Trinchieri explained.
However, “the impact of dietary fiber and probiotics on the gut microbiota is only part of the bigger picture,” Dr. Trinchieri said in a press release. “Many factors can affect the ability of a patient with melanoma to respond to immunotherapy” but, according to this analysis, “the microbiota seems to be one of the dominant factors.”
While Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, applauded the “innovative and interesting” research, he believes the patient population is too small to confirm that a high-fiber diet does indeed contribute to improved immunotherapy response and PFS in patients with advanced melanoma.
Additional data are needed to clarify these findings. “I will believe it if I could see it replicated in a larger study,” Dr. Weber, professor and deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, said in an interview.
Dr. Wargo noted that a randomized clinical trial exploring how diets with varying fiber content affect the microbiome and immune response is currently enrolling patients with stage III and IV melanoma receiving immunotherapy.
This study was supported by the Melanoma Moon Shot, among others. Dr. Wargo is a collaborator on a U.S. patent application that covers methods to enhance immune checkpoint blockade responses by modulating the microbiome. Dr. Weber reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech BioOncology, Merck, Novartis, EMD Serono, Celldex, CytomX, Nektar, Roche, Altor, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly, and is named on patents filed for biomarkers for ipilimumab and nivolumab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE
Skin imaging working group releases first guidelines for AI algorithms used in dermatology
The
The guidelines, published in JAMA Dermatology on Dec. 1, 2021, contain a broad range of recommendations stakeholders should consider when developing and assessing image-based AI algorithms in dermatology. The recommendations are divided into categories of data, technique, technical assessment, and application. ISIC is “an academia and industry partnership designed to facilitate the application of digital skin imaging to help reduce melanoma mortality,” and is organized into different working groups, including the AI working group, according to its website.
“Our goal with these guidelines was to create higher-quality reporting of dataset and algorithm characteristics for dermatology AI,” first author Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, clinical scholar in dermatology, in the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “We hope these guidelines also aid regulatory bodies around the world when they are assessing algorithms to be used in dermatology.”
Recommendations for data
The authors recommended that datasets used by AI algorithms have image descriptions and details on image artifacts. “For photography, these include the type of camera used; whether images were taken under standardized or varying conditions; whether they were taken by professional photographers, laymen, or health care professionals; and image quality,” they wrote. They also recommended that developers include in an image description the type of lighting used and whether the photo contains pen markings, hair, tattoos, injuries, surgical effects, or other “physical perturbations.”
Exchangeable image file format data obtained from the camera, and preprocessing procedures like color normalization and “postprocessing” of images, such as filtering, should also be disclosed. In addition, developers should disclose and justify inclusion of images that have been created by an algorithm within a dataset. Any public images used in the datasets should have references, and privately used images should be made public where possible, the authors said.
The ISIC working group guidelines also provided recommendations for patient-level metadata. Each image should include a patient’s geographical location and medical center they visited as well as their age, sex and gender, ethnicity and/or race, and skin tone. Dr. Daneshjou said this was one area where she and her colleagues found a lack of transparency in AI datasets in algorithms in a recent review. “We found that many AI papers provided sparse details about the images used to train and test their algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou explained. “For example, only 7 out of 70 papers had any information about the skin tones in the images used for developing and/or testing AI algorithms. Understanding the diversity of images used to train and test algorithms is important because algorithms that are developed on images of predominantly white skin likely won’t work as well on Black and brown skin.”
The guideline authors also asked algorithm developers to describe the limitations of not including patient-level metadata information when it is incomplete or unavailable. In addition, “we ask that algorithm developers comment on potential biases of their algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “For example, an algorithm based only on telemedicine images may not capture the full range of diseases seen within an in-person clinic.”
When describing their AI algorithm, developers should detail their reasoning for the dataset size and partitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria for images, and use of any external samples for test sets. “Authors should consider any differences between the image characteristics used for algorithm development and those that might be encountered in the real world,” the guidelines stated.
Recommendations for technique
How the images in a dataset are labeled is a unique challenge in developing AI algorithms for dermatology, the authors noted. Developers should use histopathological diagnosis in their labeling, but this can sometimes result in label noise.
“Many of the AI algorithms in dermatology use supervised learning, which requires labeled examples to help the algorithm ‘learn’ features for discriminating between lesions. We found that some papers use consensus labeling – dermatologists providing a label – to label skin cancers; however, the standard for diagnosing skin cancer is using histopathology from a biopsy,” she said. “Dermatologists can biopsy seven to eight suspected melanomas before discovering a true melanoma, so dermatologist labeling of skin cancers is prone to label noise.”
ISIC’s guidelines stated a gold standard of labeling for dermatologic images is one area that still needs future research, but currently, “diagnoses, labels and diagnostic groups used in data repositories as well as public ontologies” such as ICD-11, AnatomyMapper, and SNOMED-CT should be included in dermatologic image datasets.
AI developers should also provide a detailed description of their algorithm, which includes methods, work flows, mathematical formulas as well as the generalizability of the algorithm across more than one dataset.
Recommendations for technical assessment
“Another important recommendation is that algorithm developers should provide a way for algorithms to be publicly evaluable by researchers,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “Many dermatology AI algorithms do not share either their data or their algorithm. Algorithm sharing is important for assessing reproducibility and robustness.”
Google’s recently announced AI-powered dermatology assistant tool, for example, “has made claims about its accuracy and ability to diagnose skin disease at a dermatologist level, but there is no way for researchers to independently test these claims,” she said. Other options like Model Dermatology, developed by Seung Seog Han, MD, PhD, of the Dermatology Clinic in Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues, offer an application programming interface “that allows researchers to test the algorithm,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “This kind of openness is key for assessing algorithm robustness.”
Developers should also note in their algorithm explanations how performance markers and benchmarks would translate to proposed clinical application. “In this context,” the use case – the context in which the AI application is being used – “should be clearly described – who are the intended users and under what clinical scenario are they using the algorithm,” the authors wrote.
Recommendations for application
The guidelines note that use case for the model should also be described by the AI developers. “Our checklist includes delineating use cases for algorithms and describing what use cases may be within the scope of the algorithm versus which use cases are out of scope,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “For example, an algorithm developed to provide decision support to dermatologists, with a human in the loop, may not be accurate enough to release directly to consumers.”
As the goal of AI algorithms in dermatology is eventual implementation for clinicians and patients, the authors asked developers to consider shortcomings and potential harms of the algorithm during implementation. “Ethical considerations and impact on vulnerable populations should also be considered and discussed,” they wrote. An algorithm “suggesting aesthetic medical treatments may have negative effects given the biased nature of beauty standards,” and “an algorithm that diagnoses basal cell carcinomas but lacks any pigmented basal cell carcinomas, which are more often seen in skin of color, will not perform equitably across populations.”
Prior to implementing an AI algorithm, the ISIC working group recommended developers perform prospective clinical trials for validation. Checklists and guidelines like SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI “provide guidance on how to design clinical trials to test AI algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou said.
After implementation, “I believe we need additional research in how we monitor algorithms after they are deployed clinically, Dr. Daneshjou said. “Currently there are no [Food and Drug Administration]–approved AI algorithms in dermatology; however, there are several applications that have CE mark in Europe, and there are no mechanisms for postmarket surveillance there.
'Timely' recommendations
Commenting on the ISIC working group guidelines, Justin M. Ko, MD, MBA, director and chief of medical dermatology for Stanford Health Care, who was not involved with the work, said that the recommendations are timely and provide “a framework for a ‘common language’ around AI datasets specifically tailored to dermatology.” Dr. Ko, chair of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Ad Hoc Task Force on Augmented Intelligence, noted the work by Dr. Daneshjou and colleagues “is consistent with and builds further details” on the position statement released by the AAD AI task force in 2019.
“As machine-learning capabilities and commercial efforts continue to mature, it becomes increasingly important that we are able to ‘look under the hood,’ and evaluate all the critical factors that influence development of these capabilities,” he said in an interview. “A standard set of reporting guidelines not only allows for transparency in evaluating data and performance of models and algorithms, but also forces the consideration of issues of equity, fairness, mitigation of bias, and clinically meaningful outcomes.”
One concern is the impact of AI algorithms on societal or health systems, he noted, which is brought up in the guidelines. “The last thing we would want is the development of robust AI systems that exacerbate access challenges, or generate patient anxiety/worry, or drive low-value utilization, or adds to care team burden, or create a technological barrier to care, or increases inequity in dermatologic care,” he said.
In developing AI algorithms for dermatology, a “major practical issue” is how performance on paper will translate to real-world use, Dr. Ko explained, and the ISIC guidelines “provide a critical step in empowering clinicians, practices, and our field to shape the advent of the AI and augmented intelligence tools and systems to promote and enhance meaningful clinical outcomes, and augment the core patient-clinician relationship and ensure they are grounded in principles of fairness, equity and transparency.”
This research was funded by awards and grants to individual authors from the Charina Fund, a Google Research Award, Melanoma Research Alliance, National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, National Science Foundation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors disclosed relationships with governmental entities, pharmaceutical companies, technology startups, medical publishers, charitable trusts, consulting firms, dermatology training companies, providers of medical devices, manufacturers of dermatologic products, and other organizations related to the paper in the form of supplied equipment, having founded a company; receiving grants, patents, or personal fees; holding shares; and medical reporting. Dr. Ko reported that he serves as a clinical advisor for Skin Analytics, and has an ongoing research collaboration with Google.
The
The guidelines, published in JAMA Dermatology on Dec. 1, 2021, contain a broad range of recommendations stakeholders should consider when developing and assessing image-based AI algorithms in dermatology. The recommendations are divided into categories of data, technique, technical assessment, and application. ISIC is “an academia and industry partnership designed to facilitate the application of digital skin imaging to help reduce melanoma mortality,” and is organized into different working groups, including the AI working group, according to its website.
“Our goal with these guidelines was to create higher-quality reporting of dataset and algorithm characteristics for dermatology AI,” first author Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, clinical scholar in dermatology, in the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “We hope these guidelines also aid regulatory bodies around the world when they are assessing algorithms to be used in dermatology.”
Recommendations for data
The authors recommended that datasets used by AI algorithms have image descriptions and details on image artifacts. “For photography, these include the type of camera used; whether images were taken under standardized or varying conditions; whether they were taken by professional photographers, laymen, or health care professionals; and image quality,” they wrote. They also recommended that developers include in an image description the type of lighting used and whether the photo contains pen markings, hair, tattoos, injuries, surgical effects, or other “physical perturbations.”
Exchangeable image file format data obtained from the camera, and preprocessing procedures like color normalization and “postprocessing” of images, such as filtering, should also be disclosed. In addition, developers should disclose and justify inclusion of images that have been created by an algorithm within a dataset. Any public images used in the datasets should have references, and privately used images should be made public where possible, the authors said.
The ISIC working group guidelines also provided recommendations for patient-level metadata. Each image should include a patient’s geographical location and medical center they visited as well as their age, sex and gender, ethnicity and/or race, and skin tone. Dr. Daneshjou said this was one area where she and her colleagues found a lack of transparency in AI datasets in algorithms in a recent review. “We found that many AI papers provided sparse details about the images used to train and test their algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou explained. “For example, only 7 out of 70 papers had any information about the skin tones in the images used for developing and/or testing AI algorithms. Understanding the diversity of images used to train and test algorithms is important because algorithms that are developed on images of predominantly white skin likely won’t work as well on Black and brown skin.”
The guideline authors also asked algorithm developers to describe the limitations of not including patient-level metadata information when it is incomplete or unavailable. In addition, “we ask that algorithm developers comment on potential biases of their algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “For example, an algorithm based only on telemedicine images may not capture the full range of diseases seen within an in-person clinic.”
When describing their AI algorithm, developers should detail their reasoning for the dataset size and partitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria for images, and use of any external samples for test sets. “Authors should consider any differences between the image characteristics used for algorithm development and those that might be encountered in the real world,” the guidelines stated.
Recommendations for technique
How the images in a dataset are labeled is a unique challenge in developing AI algorithms for dermatology, the authors noted. Developers should use histopathological diagnosis in their labeling, but this can sometimes result in label noise.
“Many of the AI algorithms in dermatology use supervised learning, which requires labeled examples to help the algorithm ‘learn’ features for discriminating between lesions. We found that some papers use consensus labeling – dermatologists providing a label – to label skin cancers; however, the standard for diagnosing skin cancer is using histopathology from a biopsy,” she said. “Dermatologists can biopsy seven to eight suspected melanomas before discovering a true melanoma, so dermatologist labeling of skin cancers is prone to label noise.”
ISIC’s guidelines stated a gold standard of labeling for dermatologic images is one area that still needs future research, but currently, “diagnoses, labels and diagnostic groups used in data repositories as well as public ontologies” such as ICD-11, AnatomyMapper, and SNOMED-CT should be included in dermatologic image datasets.
AI developers should also provide a detailed description of their algorithm, which includes methods, work flows, mathematical formulas as well as the generalizability of the algorithm across more than one dataset.
Recommendations for technical assessment
“Another important recommendation is that algorithm developers should provide a way for algorithms to be publicly evaluable by researchers,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “Many dermatology AI algorithms do not share either their data or their algorithm. Algorithm sharing is important for assessing reproducibility and robustness.”
Google’s recently announced AI-powered dermatology assistant tool, for example, “has made claims about its accuracy and ability to diagnose skin disease at a dermatologist level, but there is no way for researchers to independently test these claims,” she said. Other options like Model Dermatology, developed by Seung Seog Han, MD, PhD, of the Dermatology Clinic in Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues, offer an application programming interface “that allows researchers to test the algorithm,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “This kind of openness is key for assessing algorithm robustness.”
Developers should also note in their algorithm explanations how performance markers and benchmarks would translate to proposed clinical application. “In this context,” the use case – the context in which the AI application is being used – “should be clearly described – who are the intended users and under what clinical scenario are they using the algorithm,” the authors wrote.
Recommendations for application
The guidelines note that use case for the model should also be described by the AI developers. “Our checklist includes delineating use cases for algorithms and describing what use cases may be within the scope of the algorithm versus which use cases are out of scope,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “For example, an algorithm developed to provide decision support to dermatologists, with a human in the loop, may not be accurate enough to release directly to consumers.”
As the goal of AI algorithms in dermatology is eventual implementation for clinicians and patients, the authors asked developers to consider shortcomings and potential harms of the algorithm during implementation. “Ethical considerations and impact on vulnerable populations should also be considered and discussed,” they wrote. An algorithm “suggesting aesthetic medical treatments may have negative effects given the biased nature of beauty standards,” and “an algorithm that diagnoses basal cell carcinomas but lacks any pigmented basal cell carcinomas, which are more often seen in skin of color, will not perform equitably across populations.”
Prior to implementing an AI algorithm, the ISIC working group recommended developers perform prospective clinical trials for validation. Checklists and guidelines like SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI “provide guidance on how to design clinical trials to test AI algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou said.
After implementation, “I believe we need additional research in how we monitor algorithms after they are deployed clinically, Dr. Daneshjou said. “Currently there are no [Food and Drug Administration]–approved AI algorithms in dermatology; however, there are several applications that have CE mark in Europe, and there are no mechanisms for postmarket surveillance there.
'Timely' recommendations
Commenting on the ISIC working group guidelines, Justin M. Ko, MD, MBA, director and chief of medical dermatology for Stanford Health Care, who was not involved with the work, said that the recommendations are timely and provide “a framework for a ‘common language’ around AI datasets specifically tailored to dermatology.” Dr. Ko, chair of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Ad Hoc Task Force on Augmented Intelligence, noted the work by Dr. Daneshjou and colleagues “is consistent with and builds further details” on the position statement released by the AAD AI task force in 2019.
“As machine-learning capabilities and commercial efforts continue to mature, it becomes increasingly important that we are able to ‘look under the hood,’ and evaluate all the critical factors that influence development of these capabilities,” he said in an interview. “A standard set of reporting guidelines not only allows for transparency in evaluating data and performance of models and algorithms, but also forces the consideration of issues of equity, fairness, mitigation of bias, and clinically meaningful outcomes.”
One concern is the impact of AI algorithms on societal or health systems, he noted, which is brought up in the guidelines. “The last thing we would want is the development of robust AI systems that exacerbate access challenges, or generate patient anxiety/worry, or drive low-value utilization, or adds to care team burden, or create a technological barrier to care, or increases inequity in dermatologic care,” he said.
In developing AI algorithms for dermatology, a “major practical issue” is how performance on paper will translate to real-world use, Dr. Ko explained, and the ISIC guidelines “provide a critical step in empowering clinicians, practices, and our field to shape the advent of the AI and augmented intelligence tools and systems to promote and enhance meaningful clinical outcomes, and augment the core patient-clinician relationship and ensure they are grounded in principles of fairness, equity and transparency.”
This research was funded by awards and grants to individual authors from the Charina Fund, a Google Research Award, Melanoma Research Alliance, National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, National Science Foundation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors disclosed relationships with governmental entities, pharmaceutical companies, technology startups, medical publishers, charitable trusts, consulting firms, dermatology training companies, providers of medical devices, manufacturers of dermatologic products, and other organizations related to the paper in the form of supplied equipment, having founded a company; receiving grants, patents, or personal fees; holding shares; and medical reporting. Dr. Ko reported that he serves as a clinical advisor for Skin Analytics, and has an ongoing research collaboration with Google.
The
The guidelines, published in JAMA Dermatology on Dec. 1, 2021, contain a broad range of recommendations stakeholders should consider when developing and assessing image-based AI algorithms in dermatology. The recommendations are divided into categories of data, technique, technical assessment, and application. ISIC is “an academia and industry partnership designed to facilitate the application of digital skin imaging to help reduce melanoma mortality,” and is organized into different working groups, including the AI working group, according to its website.
“Our goal with these guidelines was to create higher-quality reporting of dataset and algorithm characteristics for dermatology AI,” first author Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, clinical scholar in dermatology, in the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “We hope these guidelines also aid regulatory bodies around the world when they are assessing algorithms to be used in dermatology.”
Recommendations for data
The authors recommended that datasets used by AI algorithms have image descriptions and details on image artifacts. “For photography, these include the type of camera used; whether images were taken under standardized or varying conditions; whether they were taken by professional photographers, laymen, or health care professionals; and image quality,” they wrote. They also recommended that developers include in an image description the type of lighting used and whether the photo contains pen markings, hair, tattoos, injuries, surgical effects, or other “physical perturbations.”
Exchangeable image file format data obtained from the camera, and preprocessing procedures like color normalization and “postprocessing” of images, such as filtering, should also be disclosed. In addition, developers should disclose and justify inclusion of images that have been created by an algorithm within a dataset. Any public images used in the datasets should have references, and privately used images should be made public where possible, the authors said.
The ISIC working group guidelines also provided recommendations for patient-level metadata. Each image should include a patient’s geographical location and medical center they visited as well as their age, sex and gender, ethnicity and/or race, and skin tone. Dr. Daneshjou said this was one area where she and her colleagues found a lack of transparency in AI datasets in algorithms in a recent review. “We found that many AI papers provided sparse details about the images used to train and test their algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou explained. “For example, only 7 out of 70 papers had any information about the skin tones in the images used for developing and/or testing AI algorithms. Understanding the diversity of images used to train and test algorithms is important because algorithms that are developed on images of predominantly white skin likely won’t work as well on Black and brown skin.”
The guideline authors also asked algorithm developers to describe the limitations of not including patient-level metadata information when it is incomplete or unavailable. In addition, “we ask that algorithm developers comment on potential biases of their algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “For example, an algorithm based only on telemedicine images may not capture the full range of diseases seen within an in-person clinic.”
When describing their AI algorithm, developers should detail their reasoning for the dataset size and partitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria for images, and use of any external samples for test sets. “Authors should consider any differences between the image characteristics used for algorithm development and those that might be encountered in the real world,” the guidelines stated.
Recommendations for technique
How the images in a dataset are labeled is a unique challenge in developing AI algorithms for dermatology, the authors noted. Developers should use histopathological diagnosis in their labeling, but this can sometimes result in label noise.
“Many of the AI algorithms in dermatology use supervised learning, which requires labeled examples to help the algorithm ‘learn’ features for discriminating between lesions. We found that some papers use consensus labeling – dermatologists providing a label – to label skin cancers; however, the standard for diagnosing skin cancer is using histopathology from a biopsy,” she said. “Dermatologists can biopsy seven to eight suspected melanomas before discovering a true melanoma, so dermatologist labeling of skin cancers is prone to label noise.”
ISIC’s guidelines stated a gold standard of labeling for dermatologic images is one area that still needs future research, but currently, “diagnoses, labels and diagnostic groups used in data repositories as well as public ontologies” such as ICD-11, AnatomyMapper, and SNOMED-CT should be included in dermatologic image datasets.
AI developers should also provide a detailed description of their algorithm, which includes methods, work flows, mathematical formulas as well as the generalizability of the algorithm across more than one dataset.
Recommendations for technical assessment
“Another important recommendation is that algorithm developers should provide a way for algorithms to be publicly evaluable by researchers,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “Many dermatology AI algorithms do not share either their data or their algorithm. Algorithm sharing is important for assessing reproducibility and robustness.”
Google’s recently announced AI-powered dermatology assistant tool, for example, “has made claims about its accuracy and ability to diagnose skin disease at a dermatologist level, but there is no way for researchers to independently test these claims,” she said. Other options like Model Dermatology, developed by Seung Seog Han, MD, PhD, of the Dermatology Clinic in Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues, offer an application programming interface “that allows researchers to test the algorithm,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “This kind of openness is key for assessing algorithm robustness.”
Developers should also note in their algorithm explanations how performance markers and benchmarks would translate to proposed clinical application. “In this context,” the use case – the context in which the AI application is being used – “should be clearly described – who are the intended users and under what clinical scenario are they using the algorithm,” the authors wrote.
Recommendations for application
The guidelines note that use case for the model should also be described by the AI developers. “Our checklist includes delineating use cases for algorithms and describing what use cases may be within the scope of the algorithm versus which use cases are out of scope,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “For example, an algorithm developed to provide decision support to dermatologists, with a human in the loop, may not be accurate enough to release directly to consumers.”
As the goal of AI algorithms in dermatology is eventual implementation for clinicians and patients, the authors asked developers to consider shortcomings and potential harms of the algorithm during implementation. “Ethical considerations and impact on vulnerable populations should also be considered and discussed,” they wrote. An algorithm “suggesting aesthetic medical treatments may have negative effects given the biased nature of beauty standards,” and “an algorithm that diagnoses basal cell carcinomas but lacks any pigmented basal cell carcinomas, which are more often seen in skin of color, will not perform equitably across populations.”
Prior to implementing an AI algorithm, the ISIC working group recommended developers perform prospective clinical trials for validation. Checklists and guidelines like SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI “provide guidance on how to design clinical trials to test AI algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou said.
After implementation, “I believe we need additional research in how we monitor algorithms after they are deployed clinically, Dr. Daneshjou said. “Currently there are no [Food and Drug Administration]–approved AI algorithms in dermatology; however, there are several applications that have CE mark in Europe, and there are no mechanisms for postmarket surveillance there.
'Timely' recommendations
Commenting on the ISIC working group guidelines, Justin M. Ko, MD, MBA, director and chief of medical dermatology for Stanford Health Care, who was not involved with the work, said that the recommendations are timely and provide “a framework for a ‘common language’ around AI datasets specifically tailored to dermatology.” Dr. Ko, chair of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Ad Hoc Task Force on Augmented Intelligence, noted the work by Dr. Daneshjou and colleagues “is consistent with and builds further details” on the position statement released by the AAD AI task force in 2019.
“As machine-learning capabilities and commercial efforts continue to mature, it becomes increasingly important that we are able to ‘look under the hood,’ and evaluate all the critical factors that influence development of these capabilities,” he said in an interview. “A standard set of reporting guidelines not only allows for transparency in evaluating data and performance of models and algorithms, but also forces the consideration of issues of equity, fairness, mitigation of bias, and clinically meaningful outcomes.”
One concern is the impact of AI algorithms on societal or health systems, he noted, which is brought up in the guidelines. “The last thing we would want is the development of robust AI systems that exacerbate access challenges, or generate patient anxiety/worry, or drive low-value utilization, or adds to care team burden, or create a technological barrier to care, or increases inequity in dermatologic care,” he said.
In developing AI algorithms for dermatology, a “major practical issue” is how performance on paper will translate to real-world use, Dr. Ko explained, and the ISIC guidelines “provide a critical step in empowering clinicians, practices, and our field to shape the advent of the AI and augmented intelligence tools and systems to promote and enhance meaningful clinical outcomes, and augment the core patient-clinician relationship and ensure they are grounded in principles of fairness, equity and transparency.”
This research was funded by awards and grants to individual authors from the Charina Fund, a Google Research Award, Melanoma Research Alliance, National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, National Science Foundation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors disclosed relationships with governmental entities, pharmaceutical companies, technology startups, medical publishers, charitable trusts, consulting firms, dermatology training companies, providers of medical devices, manufacturers of dermatologic products, and other organizations related to the paper in the form of supplied equipment, having founded a company; receiving grants, patents, or personal fees; holding shares; and medical reporting. Dr. Ko reported that he serves as a clinical advisor for Skin Analytics, and has an ongoing research collaboration with Google.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Metastatic uveal melanoma: New drugs in pipeline, but prognoses remain grim
No one’s quite sure what causes uveal melanoma (UM). Unlike skin cancers, UM doesn’t seem to have any link to exposure to ultraviolet rays, although it’s most likely to strike people who are vulnerable to sun damage, like Caucasians and people with lighter eyes and lighter skin (but not lighter hair), and an inability to tan. Up to half of those affected by the disease will recover after treatment. In the other half, the cancer spreads from the eye – typically to the liver – and patient prognoses remain extremely poor despite extensive efforts to develop effective treatments.
“The median survival is probably about 2 years, and there are a number of papers out there that talk about life expectancy as short as 6 months,” said Marlana Orloff, MD, an associate professor of medical oncology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia.
But there is hope on the horizon, even if it’s not as near as patients would prefer. “Just over the last 5-10 years, we’ve gained a lot more knowledge about this disease as we try to understand how distinctly different it is, how mutations drive it, and how we can approach it using immunotherapy,” Dr. Orloff said. “I hope we’ll come up with better options for prolonging survival.”
Tracking uveal melanoma’s dangerous course
All melanomas, including UM, strike the melanocytes (cells) that provide pigment. According to a 2017 report1 in the journal Eye, “uveal melanoma is the most common primary intraocular tumor in adults with a mean age-adjusted incidence of 5.1 cases per million per year. Tumors are located either in the iris (4%), ciliary body (6%), or choroid (90%) . … As in many other cancer indications, both early detection and early treatment could be critical for a positive long-term survival outcome in uveal melanoma.”
The median age of diagnosis is 59-62 years, the report says, although non-Whites seem to develop the disease earlier.
The vast majority of patients receive treatment by plaque brachytherapy via radioactive seeds. “It’s like brachytherapy of the prostate,” said medical oncologist Rino S. Seedor, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. “If the eye tumor is too big or invasive, they’ll cut out the eye.”
As many as 50% of patients will develop metastasis, sometimes within 2-3 years in those who have large tumors and high genetic risk, said ophthalmologist and radiation oncologist Miguel Materin, MD, of Duke University Eye Center, Durham, N.C. “There’s probably micrometastasis early in the development of the tumor,” he said. “The metastasis might develop before we or the patient knows there’s a tumor.”
Some physicians question the value of prognostic testing in patients who don’t yet show signs of metastasis, Dr. Materin said, because the findings can be grim.
Unlike his more cautious colleagues, Dr. Materin prefers to pursue testing, he said. Most patients agree to it. “It’s up to them to decide if they want to know if they have a bad prognosis,” he said, and the findings can be helpful to physicians because they provide useful genetic information about tumors.
Monitoring for liver metastasis is key
UM metastases are most likely to strike the liver, and prognoses are especially poor when they do. According to a 2019 analysis of 175 patients with metastatic UM in the Netherlands, “the presence of liver metastases is negatively associated with survival (hazard ratio = 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-4.08). … In 154 (88%) patients, the liver was affected, and only 3 patients were reported to have brain metastases.”2
As a result, physicians recommend close monitoring in patients with UM. Thomas Jefferson University’s Dr. Orloff uses tumor stages and genetic risk profiles to guide surveillance. “Very large tumors and/or monosomy 3 and 8q amplification or a Class 2 gene signature would suggest a higher-risk tumor,” she said. “For these patients we recommend MRI of the abdomen every 3 months for 2 years, CT of the chest every 6 months for 2 years, labs every 3 months for 2 years, then MRI every 6 months until year 5 with chest imaging yearly, then at 5 years everything yearly. For lower- or intermediate-risk patients we recommend MRI of the abdomen every 6 months for 5 years, chest imaging yearly, labs every 6 months, then at 5 years everything yearly.”
In the United States, patients with metastatic disease are typically sent to referral centers at institutions such as Duke, Yale (New Haven, Conn.), and Thomas Jefferson universities.
Metastasis treatments offer limited relief
There are no FDA-approved treatments for metastatic MU, and the treatments that physicians do use don’t seem to have much of an effect on life span. A 2019 study examined 73 patients with MU metastasis to the liver who were treated from 2004 to 2011 and 2012 to 2016. Among both cohorts, those who had no treatment lived nearly as long (median of 15 months) as those treated with local therapy (median of 18.7 months). Median survival for the entire population was 15 months (95% CI: 11–18 months). There was no statistically significant difference between the periods.3
However, there are signs that a move away from first-line chemotherapy in recent decades has led to longer life spans. Dr. Seedor led a 2018 study4 that compared two cohorts of MU patients with liver metastasis at her university: 98 patients from 1971 to 1993 (81% received systemic chemotherapy as their initial therapy) and 574 from 2000 to 2017 (they received various liver-directed initial treatments such as chemoembolization, drug-eluting beads, immunoembolization, and radioembolization).
The patients in the second group lived longer after treatment of initial UM than the first group (5.1 years vs. 3.3 years, P < .001) and after the development of liver metastasis (16.4 months vs. 4.8 months, P < .001). A 2020 follow-up study reported similar findings and noted that a “combination of liver-directed and newly developed systemic treatments may further improve the survival of these patients.”5
At Thomas Jefferson Medical Center, liver-directed therapy includes radioembolization, chemomobilization, and microwave ablation, Dr. Seedor said. “Which one we choose is based on how big the tumors are.”
Treatments in development could make advances
Physicians are working on several fronts to develop new treatments. A 2021 review of clinical trials found numerous trials regarding checkpoint inhibition, one devoted to a vaccine, and several involving checkpoint inhibitors. The review author notes that “the low mutational burden and poor immunogenicity of UM tumors may underlie poor responses and resistance to [immune checkpoint inhibitors] alone.”6
Earlier this year, grant-funded researchers reported encouraging news on the G protein inhibitor front. Their study found that FR900359, a selective inhibitor of the Gq/11/14 subfamily of heterotrimeric G proteins, could hold promise for “treating UM and potentially other diseases caused by constitutively active Gq/11.”7
In another 2021 study, this one with no reported funding, researchers explored the tumor microenvironment of UM and reported that their findings “provided a robust gene-based prognostic signature for predicting prognosis of UM patients and proposed a potential targeted therapy for preventing UM metastasis.”8
Experimental drug may add months of life
Physicians often recommend that patients take part in clinical trials. Earlier this year, researchers reported that a drug called tebentafusp – a bispecific fusion protein – slightly boosted metastatic UM survival in an open-label, phase 3 clinical trial when used as a first-line treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to tebentafusp, 1 of 2 immunotherapy drugs (ipilimumab or pembrolizumab), or the chemotherapy drug dacarbazine. Those who took tebentafusp vs. the other options lived longer with an estimated 1-year overall rate of 73.2% (95% CI: 66.3-78.9) vs. 57.5% (95% CI: 47.0-66.6), respectively. Fewer than 4% of those on tebentafusp needed to stop it because of adverse effects, and no treatment-related deaths occurred.9
Dr. Orloff is one of the coauthors of this study.
The National Cancer Institute provided more details about the industry-funded research and noted that median overall survival for patients who received the drug was 21.7 months vs. 16 months for the control group.
Not every patient is eligible for this treatment, however. A coauthor told the American Association for Cancer Research that “the major limitation of tebentafusp is that it can only be used in patients who have a specific HLA [human leukocyte antigen] type.” Patients must be HLA-A*0201-positive.10
In August 2021, the FDA granted priority review for tebentafusp.11 And in September 2021, a company called TriSalus announced the first patient enrollment in a “clinical study evaluating the administration of SD-101, an investigational toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonist in adults with metastatic uveal melanoma.”12
According to the company, the research “is designed to evaluate the intravascular administration of SD-101 into uveal melanoma liver metastasis lesions in combination with checkpoint inhibitors using the novel Pressure-Enabled Drug Delivery (PEDD) approach.” This strategy is “designed to overcome the inherent intratumoral pressure of solid tumors,” the company said.
Dr. Materin serves on a scientific advisory board for Castle Biosciences. Dr. Orloff is a consultant for Immunocore, which funded the tebentafusp study, and serves on a scientific advisory board for TriSalus. Dr. Seedor reports no disclosures.
References
1.Kaliki S and Shields C. Eye. 2017 Feb;31:241-57.
2.Jochems A et al. Cancers. 2019 July;11(7):1007.
3.Xu LT et al. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2019;5:323-32.
4.Seedor RS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 May;36(15_suppl):9592.
5.Seedor RS et al. Cancers (Basel). 2020 Jan 1;12(1):117.
6.Orloff M. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2021 July;7:168-76.
7.Onken MD et al. J Biol Chem. 2021;296:100403.
8.Lei S and Zhang Y. Int Immunopharmacol. 2021 July;96:107816.
9.Piperno-Neumann S et al. Proceedings of the 112th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2021 April 10-15. Philadelphia (Pa.): AACR; 2021. Abstract nr 5133.
10.National Cancer Institute: https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2021/tebentafusp-uveal-melanoma-improves-survival
11.Immunocore press release: https://ir.immunocore.com/news-releases/news-release-details/immunocore-announces-us-food-and-drug-administration-and
12.Trisalus announcement: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trisalus-life-sciences-announces-first-130000215.html?guccounter=1
No one’s quite sure what causes uveal melanoma (UM). Unlike skin cancers, UM doesn’t seem to have any link to exposure to ultraviolet rays, although it’s most likely to strike people who are vulnerable to sun damage, like Caucasians and people with lighter eyes and lighter skin (but not lighter hair), and an inability to tan. Up to half of those affected by the disease will recover after treatment. In the other half, the cancer spreads from the eye – typically to the liver – and patient prognoses remain extremely poor despite extensive efforts to develop effective treatments.
“The median survival is probably about 2 years, and there are a number of papers out there that talk about life expectancy as short as 6 months,” said Marlana Orloff, MD, an associate professor of medical oncology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia.
But there is hope on the horizon, even if it’s not as near as patients would prefer. “Just over the last 5-10 years, we’ve gained a lot more knowledge about this disease as we try to understand how distinctly different it is, how mutations drive it, and how we can approach it using immunotherapy,” Dr. Orloff said. “I hope we’ll come up with better options for prolonging survival.”
Tracking uveal melanoma’s dangerous course
All melanomas, including UM, strike the melanocytes (cells) that provide pigment. According to a 2017 report1 in the journal Eye, “uveal melanoma is the most common primary intraocular tumor in adults with a mean age-adjusted incidence of 5.1 cases per million per year. Tumors are located either in the iris (4%), ciliary body (6%), or choroid (90%) . … As in many other cancer indications, both early detection and early treatment could be critical for a positive long-term survival outcome in uveal melanoma.”
The median age of diagnosis is 59-62 years, the report says, although non-Whites seem to develop the disease earlier.
The vast majority of patients receive treatment by plaque brachytherapy via radioactive seeds. “It’s like brachytherapy of the prostate,” said medical oncologist Rino S. Seedor, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. “If the eye tumor is too big or invasive, they’ll cut out the eye.”
As many as 50% of patients will develop metastasis, sometimes within 2-3 years in those who have large tumors and high genetic risk, said ophthalmologist and radiation oncologist Miguel Materin, MD, of Duke University Eye Center, Durham, N.C. “There’s probably micrometastasis early in the development of the tumor,” he said. “The metastasis might develop before we or the patient knows there’s a tumor.”
Some physicians question the value of prognostic testing in patients who don’t yet show signs of metastasis, Dr. Materin said, because the findings can be grim.
Unlike his more cautious colleagues, Dr. Materin prefers to pursue testing, he said. Most patients agree to it. “It’s up to them to decide if they want to know if they have a bad prognosis,” he said, and the findings can be helpful to physicians because they provide useful genetic information about tumors.
Monitoring for liver metastasis is key
UM metastases are most likely to strike the liver, and prognoses are especially poor when they do. According to a 2019 analysis of 175 patients with metastatic UM in the Netherlands, “the presence of liver metastases is negatively associated with survival (hazard ratio = 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-4.08). … In 154 (88%) patients, the liver was affected, and only 3 patients were reported to have brain metastases.”2
As a result, physicians recommend close monitoring in patients with UM. Thomas Jefferson University’s Dr. Orloff uses tumor stages and genetic risk profiles to guide surveillance. “Very large tumors and/or monosomy 3 and 8q amplification or a Class 2 gene signature would suggest a higher-risk tumor,” she said. “For these patients we recommend MRI of the abdomen every 3 months for 2 years, CT of the chest every 6 months for 2 years, labs every 3 months for 2 years, then MRI every 6 months until year 5 with chest imaging yearly, then at 5 years everything yearly. For lower- or intermediate-risk patients we recommend MRI of the abdomen every 6 months for 5 years, chest imaging yearly, labs every 6 months, then at 5 years everything yearly.”
In the United States, patients with metastatic disease are typically sent to referral centers at institutions such as Duke, Yale (New Haven, Conn.), and Thomas Jefferson universities.
Metastasis treatments offer limited relief
There are no FDA-approved treatments for metastatic MU, and the treatments that physicians do use don’t seem to have much of an effect on life span. A 2019 study examined 73 patients with MU metastasis to the liver who were treated from 2004 to 2011 and 2012 to 2016. Among both cohorts, those who had no treatment lived nearly as long (median of 15 months) as those treated with local therapy (median of 18.7 months). Median survival for the entire population was 15 months (95% CI: 11–18 months). There was no statistically significant difference between the periods.3
However, there are signs that a move away from first-line chemotherapy in recent decades has led to longer life spans. Dr. Seedor led a 2018 study4 that compared two cohorts of MU patients with liver metastasis at her university: 98 patients from 1971 to 1993 (81% received systemic chemotherapy as their initial therapy) and 574 from 2000 to 2017 (they received various liver-directed initial treatments such as chemoembolization, drug-eluting beads, immunoembolization, and radioembolization).
The patients in the second group lived longer after treatment of initial UM than the first group (5.1 years vs. 3.3 years, P < .001) and after the development of liver metastasis (16.4 months vs. 4.8 months, P < .001). A 2020 follow-up study reported similar findings and noted that a “combination of liver-directed and newly developed systemic treatments may further improve the survival of these patients.”5
At Thomas Jefferson Medical Center, liver-directed therapy includes radioembolization, chemomobilization, and microwave ablation, Dr. Seedor said. “Which one we choose is based on how big the tumors are.”
Treatments in development could make advances
Physicians are working on several fronts to develop new treatments. A 2021 review of clinical trials found numerous trials regarding checkpoint inhibition, one devoted to a vaccine, and several involving checkpoint inhibitors. The review author notes that “the low mutational burden and poor immunogenicity of UM tumors may underlie poor responses and resistance to [immune checkpoint inhibitors] alone.”6
Earlier this year, grant-funded researchers reported encouraging news on the G protein inhibitor front. Their study found that FR900359, a selective inhibitor of the Gq/11/14 subfamily of heterotrimeric G proteins, could hold promise for “treating UM and potentially other diseases caused by constitutively active Gq/11.”7
In another 2021 study, this one with no reported funding, researchers explored the tumor microenvironment of UM and reported that their findings “provided a robust gene-based prognostic signature for predicting prognosis of UM patients and proposed a potential targeted therapy for preventing UM metastasis.”8
Experimental drug may add months of life
Physicians often recommend that patients take part in clinical trials. Earlier this year, researchers reported that a drug called tebentafusp – a bispecific fusion protein – slightly boosted metastatic UM survival in an open-label, phase 3 clinical trial when used as a first-line treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to tebentafusp, 1 of 2 immunotherapy drugs (ipilimumab or pembrolizumab), or the chemotherapy drug dacarbazine. Those who took tebentafusp vs. the other options lived longer with an estimated 1-year overall rate of 73.2% (95% CI: 66.3-78.9) vs. 57.5% (95% CI: 47.0-66.6), respectively. Fewer than 4% of those on tebentafusp needed to stop it because of adverse effects, and no treatment-related deaths occurred.9
Dr. Orloff is one of the coauthors of this study.
The National Cancer Institute provided more details about the industry-funded research and noted that median overall survival for patients who received the drug was 21.7 months vs. 16 months for the control group.
Not every patient is eligible for this treatment, however. A coauthor told the American Association for Cancer Research that “the major limitation of tebentafusp is that it can only be used in patients who have a specific HLA [human leukocyte antigen] type.” Patients must be HLA-A*0201-positive.10
In August 2021, the FDA granted priority review for tebentafusp.11 And in September 2021, a company called TriSalus announced the first patient enrollment in a “clinical study evaluating the administration of SD-101, an investigational toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonist in adults with metastatic uveal melanoma.”12
According to the company, the research “is designed to evaluate the intravascular administration of SD-101 into uveal melanoma liver metastasis lesions in combination with checkpoint inhibitors using the novel Pressure-Enabled Drug Delivery (PEDD) approach.” This strategy is “designed to overcome the inherent intratumoral pressure of solid tumors,” the company said.
Dr. Materin serves on a scientific advisory board for Castle Biosciences. Dr. Orloff is a consultant for Immunocore, which funded the tebentafusp study, and serves on a scientific advisory board for TriSalus. Dr. Seedor reports no disclosures.
References
1.Kaliki S and Shields C. Eye. 2017 Feb;31:241-57.
2.Jochems A et al. Cancers. 2019 July;11(7):1007.
3.Xu LT et al. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2019;5:323-32.
4.Seedor RS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 May;36(15_suppl):9592.
5.Seedor RS et al. Cancers (Basel). 2020 Jan 1;12(1):117.
6.Orloff M. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2021 July;7:168-76.
7.Onken MD et al. J Biol Chem. 2021;296:100403.
8.Lei S and Zhang Y. Int Immunopharmacol. 2021 July;96:107816.
9.Piperno-Neumann S et al. Proceedings of the 112th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2021 April 10-15. Philadelphia (Pa.): AACR; 2021. Abstract nr 5133.
10.National Cancer Institute: https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2021/tebentafusp-uveal-melanoma-improves-survival
11.Immunocore press release: https://ir.immunocore.com/news-releases/news-release-details/immunocore-announces-us-food-and-drug-administration-and
12.Trisalus announcement: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trisalus-life-sciences-announces-first-130000215.html?guccounter=1
No one’s quite sure what causes uveal melanoma (UM). Unlike skin cancers, UM doesn’t seem to have any link to exposure to ultraviolet rays, although it’s most likely to strike people who are vulnerable to sun damage, like Caucasians and people with lighter eyes and lighter skin (but not lighter hair), and an inability to tan. Up to half of those affected by the disease will recover after treatment. In the other half, the cancer spreads from the eye – typically to the liver – and patient prognoses remain extremely poor despite extensive efforts to develop effective treatments.
“The median survival is probably about 2 years, and there are a number of papers out there that talk about life expectancy as short as 6 months,” said Marlana Orloff, MD, an associate professor of medical oncology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia.
But there is hope on the horizon, even if it’s not as near as patients would prefer. “Just over the last 5-10 years, we’ve gained a lot more knowledge about this disease as we try to understand how distinctly different it is, how mutations drive it, and how we can approach it using immunotherapy,” Dr. Orloff said. “I hope we’ll come up with better options for prolonging survival.”
Tracking uveal melanoma’s dangerous course
All melanomas, including UM, strike the melanocytes (cells) that provide pigment. According to a 2017 report1 in the journal Eye, “uveal melanoma is the most common primary intraocular tumor in adults with a mean age-adjusted incidence of 5.1 cases per million per year. Tumors are located either in the iris (4%), ciliary body (6%), or choroid (90%) . … As in many other cancer indications, both early detection and early treatment could be critical for a positive long-term survival outcome in uveal melanoma.”
The median age of diagnosis is 59-62 years, the report says, although non-Whites seem to develop the disease earlier.
The vast majority of patients receive treatment by plaque brachytherapy via radioactive seeds. “It’s like brachytherapy of the prostate,” said medical oncologist Rino S. Seedor, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. “If the eye tumor is too big or invasive, they’ll cut out the eye.”
As many as 50% of patients will develop metastasis, sometimes within 2-3 years in those who have large tumors and high genetic risk, said ophthalmologist and radiation oncologist Miguel Materin, MD, of Duke University Eye Center, Durham, N.C. “There’s probably micrometastasis early in the development of the tumor,” he said. “The metastasis might develop before we or the patient knows there’s a tumor.”
Some physicians question the value of prognostic testing in patients who don’t yet show signs of metastasis, Dr. Materin said, because the findings can be grim.
Unlike his more cautious colleagues, Dr. Materin prefers to pursue testing, he said. Most patients agree to it. “It’s up to them to decide if they want to know if they have a bad prognosis,” he said, and the findings can be helpful to physicians because they provide useful genetic information about tumors.
Monitoring for liver metastasis is key
UM metastases are most likely to strike the liver, and prognoses are especially poor when they do. According to a 2019 analysis of 175 patients with metastatic UM in the Netherlands, “the presence of liver metastases is negatively associated with survival (hazard ratio = 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-4.08). … In 154 (88%) patients, the liver was affected, and only 3 patients were reported to have brain metastases.”2
As a result, physicians recommend close monitoring in patients with UM. Thomas Jefferson University’s Dr. Orloff uses tumor stages and genetic risk profiles to guide surveillance. “Very large tumors and/or monosomy 3 and 8q amplification or a Class 2 gene signature would suggest a higher-risk tumor,” she said. “For these patients we recommend MRI of the abdomen every 3 months for 2 years, CT of the chest every 6 months for 2 years, labs every 3 months for 2 years, then MRI every 6 months until year 5 with chest imaging yearly, then at 5 years everything yearly. For lower- or intermediate-risk patients we recommend MRI of the abdomen every 6 months for 5 years, chest imaging yearly, labs every 6 months, then at 5 years everything yearly.”
In the United States, patients with metastatic disease are typically sent to referral centers at institutions such as Duke, Yale (New Haven, Conn.), and Thomas Jefferson universities.
Metastasis treatments offer limited relief
There are no FDA-approved treatments for metastatic MU, and the treatments that physicians do use don’t seem to have much of an effect on life span. A 2019 study examined 73 patients with MU metastasis to the liver who were treated from 2004 to 2011 and 2012 to 2016. Among both cohorts, those who had no treatment lived nearly as long (median of 15 months) as those treated with local therapy (median of 18.7 months). Median survival for the entire population was 15 months (95% CI: 11–18 months). There was no statistically significant difference between the periods.3
However, there are signs that a move away from first-line chemotherapy in recent decades has led to longer life spans. Dr. Seedor led a 2018 study4 that compared two cohorts of MU patients with liver metastasis at her university: 98 patients from 1971 to 1993 (81% received systemic chemotherapy as their initial therapy) and 574 from 2000 to 2017 (they received various liver-directed initial treatments such as chemoembolization, drug-eluting beads, immunoembolization, and radioembolization).
The patients in the second group lived longer after treatment of initial UM than the first group (5.1 years vs. 3.3 years, P < .001) and after the development of liver metastasis (16.4 months vs. 4.8 months, P < .001). A 2020 follow-up study reported similar findings and noted that a “combination of liver-directed and newly developed systemic treatments may further improve the survival of these patients.”5
At Thomas Jefferson Medical Center, liver-directed therapy includes radioembolization, chemomobilization, and microwave ablation, Dr. Seedor said. “Which one we choose is based on how big the tumors are.”
Treatments in development could make advances
Physicians are working on several fronts to develop new treatments. A 2021 review of clinical trials found numerous trials regarding checkpoint inhibition, one devoted to a vaccine, and several involving checkpoint inhibitors. The review author notes that “the low mutational burden and poor immunogenicity of UM tumors may underlie poor responses and resistance to [immune checkpoint inhibitors] alone.”6
Earlier this year, grant-funded researchers reported encouraging news on the G protein inhibitor front. Their study found that FR900359, a selective inhibitor of the Gq/11/14 subfamily of heterotrimeric G proteins, could hold promise for “treating UM and potentially other diseases caused by constitutively active Gq/11.”7
In another 2021 study, this one with no reported funding, researchers explored the tumor microenvironment of UM and reported that their findings “provided a robust gene-based prognostic signature for predicting prognosis of UM patients and proposed a potential targeted therapy for preventing UM metastasis.”8
Experimental drug may add months of life
Physicians often recommend that patients take part in clinical trials. Earlier this year, researchers reported that a drug called tebentafusp – a bispecific fusion protein – slightly boosted metastatic UM survival in an open-label, phase 3 clinical trial when used as a first-line treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to tebentafusp, 1 of 2 immunotherapy drugs (ipilimumab or pembrolizumab), or the chemotherapy drug dacarbazine. Those who took tebentafusp vs. the other options lived longer with an estimated 1-year overall rate of 73.2% (95% CI: 66.3-78.9) vs. 57.5% (95% CI: 47.0-66.6), respectively. Fewer than 4% of those on tebentafusp needed to stop it because of adverse effects, and no treatment-related deaths occurred.9
Dr. Orloff is one of the coauthors of this study.
The National Cancer Institute provided more details about the industry-funded research and noted that median overall survival for patients who received the drug was 21.7 months vs. 16 months for the control group.
Not every patient is eligible for this treatment, however. A coauthor told the American Association for Cancer Research that “the major limitation of tebentafusp is that it can only be used in patients who have a specific HLA [human leukocyte antigen] type.” Patients must be HLA-A*0201-positive.10
In August 2021, the FDA granted priority review for tebentafusp.11 And in September 2021, a company called TriSalus announced the first patient enrollment in a “clinical study evaluating the administration of SD-101, an investigational toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonist in adults with metastatic uveal melanoma.”12
According to the company, the research “is designed to evaluate the intravascular administration of SD-101 into uveal melanoma liver metastasis lesions in combination with checkpoint inhibitors using the novel Pressure-Enabled Drug Delivery (PEDD) approach.” This strategy is “designed to overcome the inherent intratumoral pressure of solid tumors,” the company said.
Dr. Materin serves on a scientific advisory board for Castle Biosciences. Dr. Orloff is a consultant for Immunocore, which funded the tebentafusp study, and serves on a scientific advisory board for TriSalus. Dr. Seedor reports no disclosures.
References
1.Kaliki S and Shields C. Eye. 2017 Feb;31:241-57.
2.Jochems A et al. Cancers. 2019 July;11(7):1007.
3.Xu LT et al. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2019;5:323-32.
4.Seedor RS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 May;36(15_suppl):9592.
5.Seedor RS et al. Cancers (Basel). 2020 Jan 1;12(1):117.
6.Orloff M. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2021 July;7:168-76.
7.Onken MD et al. J Biol Chem. 2021;296:100403.
8.Lei S and Zhang Y. Int Immunopharmacol. 2021 July;96:107816.
9.Piperno-Neumann S et al. Proceedings of the 112th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2021 April 10-15. Philadelphia (Pa.): AACR; 2021. Abstract nr 5133.
10.National Cancer Institute: https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2021/tebentafusp-uveal-melanoma-improves-survival
11.Immunocore press release: https://ir.immunocore.com/news-releases/news-release-details/immunocore-announces-us-food-and-drug-administration-and
12.Trisalus announcement: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trisalus-life-sciences-announces-first-130000215.html?guccounter=1
FDA expands pembrolizumab approval for advanced melanoma
The over age 12 years. The FDA also extended the approval to those with stage III disease.
The FDA approval on Dec. 3 was based on first interim findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled KEYNOTE-716 trial, which evaluated patients with stage IIB and IIC disease.
Since the anti-PD-1 therapy was approved in metastatic melanoma 7 years ago, “we have built on this foundation in melanoma and have expanded the use of KEYTRUDA into earlier stages of this disease,” said Scot Ebbinghaus, MD, vice president, clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories, in a press release. “With today’s approval, we can now offer health care providers and patients 12 years and older the opportunity to help prevent melanoma recurrence with Keytruda across resected stage IIB, stage IIC, and stage III melanoma.”
In KEYNOTE-716, patients with completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab, the pediatric dose 2 mg/kg (up to a maximum of 200 mg) every 3 weeks, or placebo for up to 1 year until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity.
After a median follow-up of 14.4 months, investigators reported a statistically significant 35% improvement in recurrence-free survival (RFS) in those treated with pembrolizumab, compared with those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65).
The most common adverse reactions reported in patients receiving pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-716 were fatigue, diarrhea, pruritus, and arthralgia, each occurring in at least 20% of patients.
“Early identification and management of immune-mediated adverse reactions are essential to ensure safe use of Keytruda,” according to Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The over age 12 years. The FDA also extended the approval to those with stage III disease.
The FDA approval on Dec. 3 was based on first interim findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled KEYNOTE-716 trial, which evaluated patients with stage IIB and IIC disease.
Since the anti-PD-1 therapy was approved in metastatic melanoma 7 years ago, “we have built on this foundation in melanoma and have expanded the use of KEYTRUDA into earlier stages of this disease,” said Scot Ebbinghaus, MD, vice president, clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories, in a press release. “With today’s approval, we can now offer health care providers and patients 12 years and older the opportunity to help prevent melanoma recurrence with Keytruda across resected stage IIB, stage IIC, and stage III melanoma.”
In KEYNOTE-716, patients with completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab, the pediatric dose 2 mg/kg (up to a maximum of 200 mg) every 3 weeks, or placebo for up to 1 year until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity.
After a median follow-up of 14.4 months, investigators reported a statistically significant 35% improvement in recurrence-free survival (RFS) in those treated with pembrolizumab, compared with those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65).
The most common adverse reactions reported in patients receiving pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-716 were fatigue, diarrhea, pruritus, and arthralgia, each occurring in at least 20% of patients.
“Early identification and management of immune-mediated adverse reactions are essential to ensure safe use of Keytruda,” according to Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The over age 12 years. The FDA also extended the approval to those with stage III disease.
The FDA approval on Dec. 3 was based on first interim findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled KEYNOTE-716 trial, which evaluated patients with stage IIB and IIC disease.
Since the anti-PD-1 therapy was approved in metastatic melanoma 7 years ago, “we have built on this foundation in melanoma and have expanded the use of KEYTRUDA into earlier stages of this disease,” said Scot Ebbinghaus, MD, vice president, clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories, in a press release. “With today’s approval, we can now offer health care providers and patients 12 years and older the opportunity to help prevent melanoma recurrence with Keytruda across resected stage IIB, stage IIC, and stage III melanoma.”
In KEYNOTE-716, patients with completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab, the pediatric dose 2 mg/kg (up to a maximum of 200 mg) every 3 weeks, or placebo for up to 1 year until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity.
After a median follow-up of 14.4 months, investigators reported a statistically significant 35% improvement in recurrence-free survival (RFS) in those treated with pembrolizumab, compared with those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65).
The most common adverse reactions reported in patients receiving pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-716 were fatigue, diarrhea, pruritus, and arthralgia, each occurring in at least 20% of patients.
“Early identification and management of immune-mediated adverse reactions are essential to ensure safe use of Keytruda,” according to Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Highest survival’ with combo immunotherapy in advanced melanoma
An researchers say.
Nearly half the patients treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were alive at 6½ years. Within this group, 77% had not received further systemic treatment after coming off the study drugs.
After a minimum follow-up of 77 months, median overall survival was 72.1 months in patients on the combination, which was more than three times longer than the 19.9 months with ipilimumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.64) and twice as long as the 36.9 months with nivolumab alone (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04).
The results represent the longest median overall survival seen in a phase 3 trial of advanced melanoma and are evidence of “a substantial development in the melanoma treatment landscape versus the standard median survival of 8 months a decade ago,” researchers wrote in a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
However, lead author Jedd D. Wolchok, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that the study was not designed to compare nivolumab alone with the combination. “It wasn’t powered for that. [But] what we can say is that the highest survival was in the combination group,” Dr. Wolchok told this news organization.
Dr. Wolchok cautioned that the combination therapy is not currently standard of care. “PD-1 blockade – either nivolumab or the combination – are both excellent options for care,” he added. “I can’t tell you that one of them is the standard of care because that’s too complex of a decision.”
For example, he explained, “for a patient who only has lung metastases, a single-agent PD-1 blockade might be sufficient. But if it has spread to other organs, such as the liver or bones, which are more difficult to treat, that’s when we often reach for the combination.”
Other factors that weigh into the therapeutic decision are the patient’s performance status and their so-called clinical reserve for tolerating side effects. “The likelihood of having a high-grade side effect with the combination is more than twice that of the single agent,” Dr. Wolchok said.
Until 2011, only two therapies were approved for metastatic melanoma: Chemotherapy with dacarbazine and immunotherapy with high-dose interleukin-2, neither of which was very effective at prolonging life. But patient survival changed with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. Some patients are now living for years, and as the current study shows, many have surpassed the 5-year mark and are treatment free.
The updated CheckMate 067 analysis included patients with previously untreated, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma who were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/ kg every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315).
The authors reported the 5-year overall survival rates from the trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019 – 52% with the combination, 44% with nivolumab alone, and 26% with ipilimumab alone.
In the updated study, overall survival at 6½ years had dropped slightly to 49%, 42%, and 23%, respectively. Patients with BRAF-mutant tumors had overall survival rates of 57%, 43%, and 25% versus 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF wild-type tumors.
Overall, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 11.5 months with the combination, 6.9 months with nivolumab alone, and 2.9 months with ipilimumab.
The new analysis also evaluated melanoma-specific survival (MSS), which removes competing causes of deaths from the long-term follow-up. The MSS was not reached in the combination group, and was 58.7 months in the nivolumab group and 21.9 months for ipilimumab, with MSS rates at 6.5 years of 56%, 48%, and 27%, respectively.
No new safety signals were detected, but there was more immune-mediated toxicity in the combination group, the researchers reported.
“The patients will continue to be followed,” said Dr. Wolchok, “And data are still being collected.”
The trial was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute for Health Research Royal Marsden–Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Wolchok and coauthors reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and other drugmakers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An researchers say.
Nearly half the patients treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were alive at 6½ years. Within this group, 77% had not received further systemic treatment after coming off the study drugs.
After a minimum follow-up of 77 months, median overall survival was 72.1 months in patients on the combination, which was more than three times longer than the 19.9 months with ipilimumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.64) and twice as long as the 36.9 months with nivolumab alone (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04).
The results represent the longest median overall survival seen in a phase 3 trial of advanced melanoma and are evidence of “a substantial development in the melanoma treatment landscape versus the standard median survival of 8 months a decade ago,” researchers wrote in a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
However, lead author Jedd D. Wolchok, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that the study was not designed to compare nivolumab alone with the combination. “It wasn’t powered for that. [But] what we can say is that the highest survival was in the combination group,” Dr. Wolchok told this news organization.
Dr. Wolchok cautioned that the combination therapy is not currently standard of care. “PD-1 blockade – either nivolumab or the combination – are both excellent options for care,” he added. “I can’t tell you that one of them is the standard of care because that’s too complex of a decision.”
For example, he explained, “for a patient who only has lung metastases, a single-agent PD-1 blockade might be sufficient. But if it has spread to other organs, such as the liver or bones, which are more difficult to treat, that’s when we often reach for the combination.”
Other factors that weigh into the therapeutic decision are the patient’s performance status and their so-called clinical reserve for tolerating side effects. “The likelihood of having a high-grade side effect with the combination is more than twice that of the single agent,” Dr. Wolchok said.
Until 2011, only two therapies were approved for metastatic melanoma: Chemotherapy with dacarbazine and immunotherapy with high-dose interleukin-2, neither of which was very effective at prolonging life. But patient survival changed with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. Some patients are now living for years, and as the current study shows, many have surpassed the 5-year mark and are treatment free.
The updated CheckMate 067 analysis included patients with previously untreated, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma who were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/ kg every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315).
The authors reported the 5-year overall survival rates from the trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019 – 52% with the combination, 44% with nivolumab alone, and 26% with ipilimumab alone.
In the updated study, overall survival at 6½ years had dropped slightly to 49%, 42%, and 23%, respectively. Patients with BRAF-mutant tumors had overall survival rates of 57%, 43%, and 25% versus 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF wild-type tumors.
Overall, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 11.5 months with the combination, 6.9 months with nivolumab alone, and 2.9 months with ipilimumab.
The new analysis also evaluated melanoma-specific survival (MSS), which removes competing causes of deaths from the long-term follow-up. The MSS was not reached in the combination group, and was 58.7 months in the nivolumab group and 21.9 months for ipilimumab, with MSS rates at 6.5 years of 56%, 48%, and 27%, respectively.
No new safety signals were detected, but there was more immune-mediated toxicity in the combination group, the researchers reported.
“The patients will continue to be followed,” said Dr. Wolchok, “And data are still being collected.”
The trial was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute for Health Research Royal Marsden–Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Wolchok and coauthors reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and other drugmakers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An researchers say.
Nearly half the patients treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were alive at 6½ years. Within this group, 77% had not received further systemic treatment after coming off the study drugs.
After a minimum follow-up of 77 months, median overall survival was 72.1 months in patients on the combination, which was more than three times longer than the 19.9 months with ipilimumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.64) and twice as long as the 36.9 months with nivolumab alone (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04).
The results represent the longest median overall survival seen in a phase 3 trial of advanced melanoma and are evidence of “a substantial development in the melanoma treatment landscape versus the standard median survival of 8 months a decade ago,” researchers wrote in a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
However, lead author Jedd D. Wolchok, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that the study was not designed to compare nivolumab alone with the combination. “It wasn’t powered for that. [But] what we can say is that the highest survival was in the combination group,” Dr. Wolchok told this news organization.
Dr. Wolchok cautioned that the combination therapy is not currently standard of care. “PD-1 blockade – either nivolumab or the combination – are both excellent options for care,” he added. “I can’t tell you that one of them is the standard of care because that’s too complex of a decision.”
For example, he explained, “for a patient who only has lung metastases, a single-agent PD-1 blockade might be sufficient. But if it has spread to other organs, such as the liver or bones, which are more difficult to treat, that’s when we often reach for the combination.”
Other factors that weigh into the therapeutic decision are the patient’s performance status and their so-called clinical reserve for tolerating side effects. “The likelihood of having a high-grade side effect with the combination is more than twice that of the single agent,” Dr. Wolchok said.
Until 2011, only two therapies were approved for metastatic melanoma: Chemotherapy with dacarbazine and immunotherapy with high-dose interleukin-2, neither of which was very effective at prolonging life. But patient survival changed with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. Some patients are now living for years, and as the current study shows, many have surpassed the 5-year mark and are treatment free.
The updated CheckMate 067 analysis included patients with previously untreated, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma who were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/ kg every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315).
The authors reported the 5-year overall survival rates from the trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019 – 52% with the combination, 44% with nivolumab alone, and 26% with ipilimumab alone.
In the updated study, overall survival at 6½ years had dropped slightly to 49%, 42%, and 23%, respectively. Patients with BRAF-mutant tumors had overall survival rates of 57%, 43%, and 25% versus 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF wild-type tumors.
Overall, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 11.5 months with the combination, 6.9 months with nivolumab alone, and 2.9 months with ipilimumab.
The new analysis also evaluated melanoma-specific survival (MSS), which removes competing causes of deaths from the long-term follow-up. The MSS was not reached in the combination group, and was 58.7 months in the nivolumab group and 21.9 months for ipilimumab, with MSS rates at 6.5 years of 56%, 48%, and 27%, respectively.
No new safety signals were detected, but there was more immune-mediated toxicity in the combination group, the researchers reported.
“The patients will continue to be followed,” said Dr. Wolchok, “And data are still being collected.”
The trial was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute for Health Research Royal Marsden–Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Wolchok and coauthors reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and other drugmakers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Differences in response to immunotherapy in men versus women
.
In a population-based cohort study, women with advanced melanoma and prior ipilimumab treatment who then received combination nivolumab and ipilimumab immunotherapy had a more than twofold increase in the risk for death in comparison with their male counterparts.
The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality among women versus men treated with the combination immunotherapy after prior ipilimumab treatment was 2.06 (P = .003). No such difference was observed among those receiving single-agent therapy with pembrolizumab or nivolumab (HR for mortality in women vs. men, 0.97; P = .85) or among patients without prior ipilimumab use (HR, 0.85; P = .16).
Women with prior ipilimumab use also had a nearly threefold increase in the risk for death with combination immunotherapy versus with single-agent anti–programmed cell death protein–1 (anti-PD-1) therapy (HR, 2.82), but no such difference was seen among the men in the study.
The findings were published online Dec. 2 in JAMA Network Open.
They come from an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEERS)–Medicare linked data for 982 men and 387 women with stage III or IV melanoma whose median age was 75 years.
The findings suggest that the patient’s sex should be considered in treatment planning to optimize outcomes, the authors noted.
“These novel findings suggest that, for women with a prior history of ipilimumab, treatment with anti-PD-1 therapy may be preferable to combination therapy, whereas for men, it is unclear which treatment is better,” they wrote.
In a press release, principal author Grace Lu-Yao, PhD, a professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, acknowledged that it remains unclear whether the increased risk for death in women is a result of treatment side effects or lack of efficacy, but she stressed that “this is a powerful signal in real-world data that we need to investigate further.
“This data is a wake-up call based on the experience of hundreds of patients on these drugs,” said Dr. Lu-Yao. “This real-world data demonstrates that the results derived from men might not be applicable to women and it is critical to design studies with sufficient power to evaluate treatment effectiveness by sex.”
Relevance for routine practice is unclear
The relevance of the findings for routine practice is unclear, given the median age of the cohort and a lack of data on whether excess mortality was cancer- or toxicity-related or due to another cause, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, told this news organization. Dr. Weber is a professor and deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University.
“The study is interesting and detailed, but it is a rather narrowly defined cohort that is over 65 and has a median of age 75, [which is] very different than most melanoma patient cohorts of patients treated with immunotherapy, whose median age is 10 years younger,” Dr. Weber said in an interview.
Furthermore, “in practice, almost no current patients will have been previously treated with ipilimumab and then receive combination immunotherapy,” he said. “Overall, these data would not impact on how I treat patients,” he said.
Gender differences in response
This study is not the first to show a gender-based difference in outcomes after immunotherapy. As previously reported by this news organization, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet Oncology in 2018 showed that immune checkpoint inhibitors are twice as effective as standard cancer therapies in men with advanced solid tumors, compared with their female counterparts.
However, sex-based differences remain under-assessed despite “accumulating evidence of the potential role played by sex in drug effectiveness owing to the biological differences between men and women,” wrote the authors of the latest study in melanoma.
“This lack of attention on the association of sex with the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)–based immunotherapy may have significant negative consequences, especially because these treatments are associated with high toxicity and high treatment cost. For future trials, it would be crucial to examine effect modification by sex,” they added.
The study was funded by the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center. Dr. Lu-Yao and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber is a regular contributor to Medscape. He reports relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech BioOncology, Merck & Co, Novartis, EMD Serono, Celldex, CytomX, Nektar, Roche, Altor, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Eli Lilly and is named on patents filed for biomarkers for ipilimumab and nivolumab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
.
In a population-based cohort study, women with advanced melanoma and prior ipilimumab treatment who then received combination nivolumab and ipilimumab immunotherapy had a more than twofold increase in the risk for death in comparison with their male counterparts.
The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality among women versus men treated with the combination immunotherapy after prior ipilimumab treatment was 2.06 (P = .003). No such difference was observed among those receiving single-agent therapy with pembrolizumab or nivolumab (HR for mortality in women vs. men, 0.97; P = .85) or among patients without prior ipilimumab use (HR, 0.85; P = .16).
Women with prior ipilimumab use also had a nearly threefold increase in the risk for death with combination immunotherapy versus with single-agent anti–programmed cell death protein–1 (anti-PD-1) therapy (HR, 2.82), but no such difference was seen among the men in the study.
The findings were published online Dec. 2 in JAMA Network Open.
They come from an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEERS)–Medicare linked data for 982 men and 387 women with stage III or IV melanoma whose median age was 75 years.
The findings suggest that the patient’s sex should be considered in treatment planning to optimize outcomes, the authors noted.
“These novel findings suggest that, for women with a prior history of ipilimumab, treatment with anti-PD-1 therapy may be preferable to combination therapy, whereas for men, it is unclear which treatment is better,” they wrote.
In a press release, principal author Grace Lu-Yao, PhD, a professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, acknowledged that it remains unclear whether the increased risk for death in women is a result of treatment side effects or lack of efficacy, but she stressed that “this is a powerful signal in real-world data that we need to investigate further.
“This data is a wake-up call based on the experience of hundreds of patients on these drugs,” said Dr. Lu-Yao. “This real-world data demonstrates that the results derived from men might not be applicable to women and it is critical to design studies with sufficient power to evaluate treatment effectiveness by sex.”
Relevance for routine practice is unclear
The relevance of the findings for routine practice is unclear, given the median age of the cohort and a lack of data on whether excess mortality was cancer- or toxicity-related or due to another cause, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, told this news organization. Dr. Weber is a professor and deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University.
“The study is interesting and detailed, but it is a rather narrowly defined cohort that is over 65 and has a median of age 75, [which is] very different than most melanoma patient cohorts of patients treated with immunotherapy, whose median age is 10 years younger,” Dr. Weber said in an interview.
Furthermore, “in practice, almost no current patients will have been previously treated with ipilimumab and then receive combination immunotherapy,” he said. “Overall, these data would not impact on how I treat patients,” he said.
Gender differences in response
This study is not the first to show a gender-based difference in outcomes after immunotherapy. As previously reported by this news organization, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet Oncology in 2018 showed that immune checkpoint inhibitors are twice as effective as standard cancer therapies in men with advanced solid tumors, compared with their female counterparts.
However, sex-based differences remain under-assessed despite “accumulating evidence of the potential role played by sex in drug effectiveness owing to the biological differences between men and women,” wrote the authors of the latest study in melanoma.
“This lack of attention on the association of sex with the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)–based immunotherapy may have significant negative consequences, especially because these treatments are associated with high toxicity and high treatment cost. For future trials, it would be crucial to examine effect modification by sex,” they added.
The study was funded by the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center. Dr. Lu-Yao and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber is a regular contributor to Medscape. He reports relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech BioOncology, Merck & Co, Novartis, EMD Serono, Celldex, CytomX, Nektar, Roche, Altor, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Eli Lilly and is named on patents filed for biomarkers for ipilimumab and nivolumab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
.
In a population-based cohort study, women with advanced melanoma and prior ipilimumab treatment who then received combination nivolumab and ipilimumab immunotherapy had a more than twofold increase in the risk for death in comparison with their male counterparts.
The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality among women versus men treated with the combination immunotherapy after prior ipilimumab treatment was 2.06 (P = .003). No such difference was observed among those receiving single-agent therapy with pembrolizumab or nivolumab (HR for mortality in women vs. men, 0.97; P = .85) or among patients without prior ipilimumab use (HR, 0.85; P = .16).
Women with prior ipilimumab use also had a nearly threefold increase in the risk for death with combination immunotherapy versus with single-agent anti–programmed cell death protein–1 (anti-PD-1) therapy (HR, 2.82), but no such difference was seen among the men in the study.
The findings were published online Dec. 2 in JAMA Network Open.
They come from an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEERS)–Medicare linked data for 982 men and 387 women with stage III or IV melanoma whose median age was 75 years.
The findings suggest that the patient’s sex should be considered in treatment planning to optimize outcomes, the authors noted.
“These novel findings suggest that, for women with a prior history of ipilimumab, treatment with anti-PD-1 therapy may be preferable to combination therapy, whereas for men, it is unclear which treatment is better,” they wrote.
In a press release, principal author Grace Lu-Yao, PhD, a professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, acknowledged that it remains unclear whether the increased risk for death in women is a result of treatment side effects or lack of efficacy, but she stressed that “this is a powerful signal in real-world data that we need to investigate further.
“This data is a wake-up call based on the experience of hundreds of patients on these drugs,” said Dr. Lu-Yao. “This real-world data demonstrates that the results derived from men might not be applicable to women and it is critical to design studies with sufficient power to evaluate treatment effectiveness by sex.”
Relevance for routine practice is unclear
The relevance of the findings for routine practice is unclear, given the median age of the cohort and a lack of data on whether excess mortality was cancer- or toxicity-related or due to another cause, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, told this news organization. Dr. Weber is a professor and deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University.
“The study is interesting and detailed, but it is a rather narrowly defined cohort that is over 65 and has a median of age 75, [which is] very different than most melanoma patient cohorts of patients treated with immunotherapy, whose median age is 10 years younger,” Dr. Weber said in an interview.
Furthermore, “in practice, almost no current patients will have been previously treated with ipilimumab and then receive combination immunotherapy,” he said. “Overall, these data would not impact on how I treat patients,” he said.
Gender differences in response
This study is not the first to show a gender-based difference in outcomes after immunotherapy. As previously reported by this news organization, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet Oncology in 2018 showed that immune checkpoint inhibitors are twice as effective as standard cancer therapies in men with advanced solid tumors, compared with their female counterparts.
However, sex-based differences remain under-assessed despite “accumulating evidence of the potential role played by sex in drug effectiveness owing to the biological differences between men and women,” wrote the authors of the latest study in melanoma.
“This lack of attention on the association of sex with the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)–based immunotherapy may have significant negative consequences, especially because these treatments are associated with high toxicity and high treatment cost. For future trials, it would be crucial to examine effect modification by sex,” they added.
The study was funded by the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center. Dr. Lu-Yao and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber is a regular contributor to Medscape. He reports relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech BioOncology, Merck & Co, Novartis, EMD Serono, Celldex, CytomX, Nektar, Roche, Altor, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Eli Lilly and is named on patents filed for biomarkers for ipilimumab and nivolumab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Improving statewide reporting of melanoma cases
For years, . I have audited my melanoma cases (biopsies and excisions sent to me) and discovered that of the 240 cases confirmed over the past 5 years, only 41 were reported to the Ohio state health department and are in that database. That amounts to 199 unreported cases – nearly 83% of the total.
This raises the question as to who is responsible for reporting these cases. Dermatology is unique in that our pathology specimens are not routinely passed through a hospital pathology laboratory. The big difference in reporting is that hospital labs have trained data registrars to report all reportable cancers to state health departments. Therefore, in my case, only patients sent to a hospital-based surgeon for sentinel node biopsies or exceptionally large excisions get reported. When I have spoken about this to my dermatology lab and biopsying physicians, the discussion rapidly turns into a finger pointing game of who is responsible. No one, except perhaps the dermatologist who did the biopsy, has all the data.
Unfortunately, these cases are tedious and time consuming to report. Despite state laws requiring reporting, even with penalties for nonreporters, many small dermatology practices do not report these cases and expect their dermatopathology labs to do so, but the labs expect the biopsying dermatologist to report the cases. This is a classic case of an unfunded mandate since small dermatology practices do not have the time or resources for reporting.
I have worked with the Ohio Department of Health to remove any unnecessary data fields and they have managed to reduce the reporting fields (to 59!). This is the minimum amount required to be included in the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) database. Many of these fields are not applicable to thin melanomas and after reviewing the 1-hour online training course, each patient can be entered (once the necessary data are collected) in about 15 minutes. This is still a formidable task for small offices, which cannot be blamed for ducking and hoping someone else reports.
While there is controversy regarding the relevance of thin melanomas to overall survival, more accurate reporting can only bolster either argument.
A solution to underreporting
I believe we have developed a unique solution to this conundrum. Our office is partnering with the local melanoma support group (Melanoma Know More) to train volunteers to help with the data collection and reporting of these thin melanomas. We have also discovered that the local community college has students who are majoring in pathology data registry reporting and are happy to gain a little experience before graduating.
We eventually hope to become a clearinghouse for the entire state of Ohio. The state health department has agreed not to apply punitive measures to physicians who are new reporters. It is our plan to obtain melanoma pathology reports, run these past the state database, identify unreported cases, and obtain further data as needed from the biopsying physicians, and then complete the reporting.
I think dermatologic oncologists in every state should view this as an opportunity for a significant quality improvement project, and as a terrific service to the general dermatology community.
The ramifications of more comprehensive reporting of melanomas are great. I would expect more attention to the disease by researchers, and much more clout with state and national legislators. Think about increased funding for melanoma research, allowing sunscreen use for school children, sunshades for playgrounds, and more responsible tanning bed restrictions.
Now, I must inform you that this is my last column, but I plan to continue writing. Over the past 6 years, I have been able to cover a wide range of topics ranging from human trafficking and the American Medical Association, to the many problems faced by small practices. I have enjoyed myself hugely. To quote Douglas Adams, from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, “So long and thanks for all the fish!” Keep in touch at [email protected].
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].
For years, . I have audited my melanoma cases (biopsies and excisions sent to me) and discovered that of the 240 cases confirmed over the past 5 years, only 41 were reported to the Ohio state health department and are in that database. That amounts to 199 unreported cases – nearly 83% of the total.
This raises the question as to who is responsible for reporting these cases. Dermatology is unique in that our pathology specimens are not routinely passed through a hospital pathology laboratory. The big difference in reporting is that hospital labs have trained data registrars to report all reportable cancers to state health departments. Therefore, in my case, only patients sent to a hospital-based surgeon for sentinel node biopsies or exceptionally large excisions get reported. When I have spoken about this to my dermatology lab and biopsying physicians, the discussion rapidly turns into a finger pointing game of who is responsible. No one, except perhaps the dermatologist who did the biopsy, has all the data.
Unfortunately, these cases are tedious and time consuming to report. Despite state laws requiring reporting, even with penalties for nonreporters, many small dermatology practices do not report these cases and expect their dermatopathology labs to do so, but the labs expect the biopsying dermatologist to report the cases. This is a classic case of an unfunded mandate since small dermatology practices do not have the time or resources for reporting.
I have worked with the Ohio Department of Health to remove any unnecessary data fields and they have managed to reduce the reporting fields (to 59!). This is the minimum amount required to be included in the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) database. Many of these fields are not applicable to thin melanomas and after reviewing the 1-hour online training course, each patient can be entered (once the necessary data are collected) in about 15 minutes. This is still a formidable task for small offices, which cannot be blamed for ducking and hoping someone else reports.
While there is controversy regarding the relevance of thin melanomas to overall survival, more accurate reporting can only bolster either argument.
A solution to underreporting
I believe we have developed a unique solution to this conundrum. Our office is partnering with the local melanoma support group (Melanoma Know More) to train volunteers to help with the data collection and reporting of these thin melanomas. We have also discovered that the local community college has students who are majoring in pathology data registry reporting and are happy to gain a little experience before graduating.
We eventually hope to become a clearinghouse for the entire state of Ohio. The state health department has agreed not to apply punitive measures to physicians who are new reporters. It is our plan to obtain melanoma pathology reports, run these past the state database, identify unreported cases, and obtain further data as needed from the biopsying physicians, and then complete the reporting.
I think dermatologic oncologists in every state should view this as an opportunity for a significant quality improvement project, and as a terrific service to the general dermatology community.
The ramifications of more comprehensive reporting of melanomas are great. I would expect more attention to the disease by researchers, and much more clout with state and national legislators. Think about increased funding for melanoma research, allowing sunscreen use for school children, sunshades for playgrounds, and more responsible tanning bed restrictions.
Now, I must inform you that this is my last column, but I plan to continue writing. Over the past 6 years, I have been able to cover a wide range of topics ranging from human trafficking and the American Medical Association, to the many problems faced by small practices. I have enjoyed myself hugely. To quote Douglas Adams, from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, “So long and thanks for all the fish!” Keep in touch at [email protected].
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].
For years, . I have audited my melanoma cases (biopsies and excisions sent to me) and discovered that of the 240 cases confirmed over the past 5 years, only 41 were reported to the Ohio state health department and are in that database. That amounts to 199 unreported cases – nearly 83% of the total.
This raises the question as to who is responsible for reporting these cases. Dermatology is unique in that our pathology specimens are not routinely passed through a hospital pathology laboratory. The big difference in reporting is that hospital labs have trained data registrars to report all reportable cancers to state health departments. Therefore, in my case, only patients sent to a hospital-based surgeon for sentinel node biopsies or exceptionally large excisions get reported. When I have spoken about this to my dermatology lab and biopsying physicians, the discussion rapidly turns into a finger pointing game of who is responsible. No one, except perhaps the dermatologist who did the biopsy, has all the data.
Unfortunately, these cases are tedious and time consuming to report. Despite state laws requiring reporting, even with penalties for nonreporters, many small dermatology practices do not report these cases and expect their dermatopathology labs to do so, but the labs expect the biopsying dermatologist to report the cases. This is a classic case of an unfunded mandate since small dermatology practices do not have the time or resources for reporting.
I have worked with the Ohio Department of Health to remove any unnecessary data fields and they have managed to reduce the reporting fields (to 59!). This is the minimum amount required to be included in the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) database. Many of these fields are not applicable to thin melanomas and after reviewing the 1-hour online training course, each patient can be entered (once the necessary data are collected) in about 15 minutes. This is still a formidable task for small offices, which cannot be blamed for ducking and hoping someone else reports.
While there is controversy regarding the relevance of thin melanomas to overall survival, more accurate reporting can only bolster either argument.
A solution to underreporting
I believe we have developed a unique solution to this conundrum. Our office is partnering with the local melanoma support group (Melanoma Know More) to train volunteers to help with the data collection and reporting of these thin melanomas. We have also discovered that the local community college has students who are majoring in pathology data registry reporting and are happy to gain a little experience before graduating.
We eventually hope to become a clearinghouse for the entire state of Ohio. The state health department has agreed not to apply punitive measures to physicians who are new reporters. It is our plan to obtain melanoma pathology reports, run these past the state database, identify unreported cases, and obtain further data as needed from the biopsying physicians, and then complete the reporting.
I think dermatologic oncologists in every state should view this as an opportunity for a significant quality improvement project, and as a terrific service to the general dermatology community.
The ramifications of more comprehensive reporting of melanomas are great. I would expect more attention to the disease by researchers, and much more clout with state and national legislators. Think about increased funding for melanoma research, allowing sunscreen use for school children, sunshades for playgrounds, and more responsible tanning bed restrictions.
Now, I must inform you that this is my last column, but I plan to continue writing. Over the past 6 years, I have been able to cover a wide range of topics ranging from human trafficking and the American Medical Association, to the many problems faced by small practices. I have enjoyed myself hugely. To quote Douglas Adams, from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, “So long and thanks for all the fish!” Keep in touch at [email protected].
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].