Melanoma

A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.

The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.

The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.

Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.

The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.

As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.

“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”

With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.

“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.

In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).

When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.

However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.

Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.

“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”

The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.

Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.

Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.

The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.

The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.

Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.

The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.

As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.

“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”

With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.

“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.

In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).

When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.

However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.

Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.

“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”

The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.

Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.

Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.

The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.

The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.

Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.

The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.

As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.

“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”

With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.

“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.

In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).

When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.

However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.

Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.

“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”

The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.

Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.

Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adjuvant pembrolizumab (Keytruda) following complete melanoma resection could soon move to an earlier stage in the management of high-risk disease, suggest results from KEYNOTE-716. However, the results raise many questions, says an expert invited to discuss the new data.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab is already approved in the United States for use in patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement following complete resection, having been shown to prolong both recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in stage 3 melanoma.

This latest trial involved patients with slightly earlier disease, those with resected stage 2B and 2C melanoma. These patients are at “high risk” of disease recurrence and have similar outcomes to stage 3A and 3B melanoma patients, explained study presenter Jason J. Luke, MD, director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutics Center at UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh.

Results from the KEYNOTE-716 trial showed that adjuvant pembrolizumab is also beneficial in this earlier stage disease: it improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) by 35% and improved distant metastasis-free survival by 40% compared with placebo.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab is an “effective treatment option with a favorable benefit-risk profile for patients with high-risk stage 2 melanoma,” Dr. Luke concluded.

The manufacturer, Merck, has said that these new results have already been accepted for priority review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, making it likely that the indication will be extended to include patients with earlier disease.  

Dr. Luke presented the results at the European Society of Medical Oncology 2021 annual meeting.

Invited discussant Omid Hamid, MD, chief of research/immuno-oncology, the Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, a Cedars-Sinai Affiliate, Los Angeles, said that Dr. Luke’s presentation was “amazing.”

However, these new results have “sabotaged how we think about how we treat our patients and how we’re going to think about what we do in the future.”

Dr. Hamid noted that the incidence of stage 2B and 2C melanoma is “equal” to that of stage 3 disease, “so with a proposed approval” of pembrolizumab in this earlier setting, “we will have a lot more patients” to treat earlier in their disease course.

Of course, this raises the inevitable question of how to treat these patients when they relapse, and how to treat these patients in the metastatic setting “having already exhausted single-agent PD-1 therapy,” he commented.

Dr. Hamid said that the current results also reveal the “current problem” with adjuvant therapy, which is that “we don’t know who benefits,” and there is a subset patients who “never recur” even if they are untreated.

So the questions are: “How come all get treated? What about the risks of toxicity? The costs? And where do we fit these patients into clinic?”

As with so many presentations of immunotherapy trial data, the need for biomarkers was raised, with Dr. Hamid emphasizing the need for predictive biomarkers that could exclude patients, and save them from toxicity.

He noted that there were data with another checkpoint inhibitor, nivolumab (Opdivo), in the adjuvant setting (from the CheckMate 238 trial) that suggested higher tumor mutation burden and tumor interferon-gamma levels could play a role, and he hopes that similar data may be available from this latest trial.

Also, there are ongoing and upcoming trials in patients with stage 2B and 2C melanoma that may answer some of the outstanding questions, including a study of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade before resection, and the DETECTION trial, which is exploring circulating tumor DNA-guided therapy postsurgery.

Then there is the NivoMela trial that will look at nivolumab in stage 2A as well as 2B and 2C disease, while the REFINE trial will assess whether giving immunotherapy less often to patients with advanced cancer, including those with melanoma, results in fewer side effects while continuing to be effective.

The current results also raise the question of whether to go “earlier and earlier” with adjuvant immunotherapy into “poor risk” stage 1 melanoma, which is already being tried in the United States, although there is “no clear understanding of what to do for those patients.”

Overall, Dr. Hamid said that the results of KEYNOTE-716 have “created more questions than answers,” including its impact on the inclusion criteria for phase 3/4 clinical trials, “which now exclude patients who have received adjuvant therapy within 6 months.”

“That will have to change,” he suggested.

Some of the questions raised by Dr. Hamid were discussed on social media, sparking a lively Twitter debate on how best to take the results forward and into the clinic.

Florentia Dimitriou, MD, a dermatology consultant in the Skin Cancer Clinic, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, said the data were “great” but she was “still unclear” over who needs adjuvant immunotherapy in this setting.

She also emphasized that, for her, the greater RFS benefit seen in T3b than in T4b disease “doesn’t make sense,” and she also highlighted the finding of long-term toxicity in approximately 18% of patients.

Dr. Luke replied that he agrees that the T3b/T4b results are puzzling but he said the event rate was “low” and the data are “immature,” and that he hopes to have “more info soon.”

He acknowledged that around 18% of patients taking pembrolizumab went on to receive hormone therapy for adverse events, including 13.9% due to hypothyroidism, and others including hypophysitis, adrenal sufficiency, and type 1 diabetes. However, he also pointed out that about 5% of patients in this study had background thyroid issues. The risks and benefits of treatment need to be discussed with patients, he added.

Over a series of tweets, Rebecca J. Lee, PhD, NIHR clinical lecturer in medical oncology at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, said, “we need to know more” about the distant metastasis-free survival results, and that results for overall survival are “really” needed.

She also emphasized the need for biomarkers to identify those patients who are likely to benefit, and whether benefit can be upfront or early on in treatment. Dr. Lee added that, as endocrine thyroid toxicity occurs after a median of 3.3 months, “pretreatment biomarkers will be more important than on-treatment biomarkers in this setting.”

Details of the results in earlier stage disease

The KEYNOTE-716 trial enrolled patients with newly diagnosed, resected, high-risk stage 2 melanoma aged ≥ 12 years and a good performance status. The majority (~64%) had stage 2B melanoma, and the rest had stage 2C. T3b disease was present in 41% of patients, 23% had T4a disease, and 35% had T4b disease.

Patients were randomized to receive pembrolizumab or placebo.

In a subsequent part of the study, patients with recurrence will be unblended, with either crossover from the placebo to active treatment group or rechallenge with pembrolizumab for up to 2 years.

Presenting the first part, Dr. Luke said that, of 487 patients assigned to pembrolizumab, 483 started treatment, of whom 206 have completed treatment, 133 are still on therapy, and 144 have discontinued.

In the placebo group, 489 patients were assigned and 486 began treatment. Of those, 229 completed treatment, 152 are still ongoing, and 105 discontinued.

The two groups were well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics. The median age was approximately 60 years, with only one patient enrolled who was aged 12-17 years.

At 12 months, the study met its primary endpoint.

Relapse-fee survival was 90.5% in patients treated with pembrolizumab versus 83.1% in the placebo group, at a hazard ratio for recurrence of 0.65 (P = .00658).

“Despite this trial hitting this primary endpoint very early, there are a number of patients who are censored later in the curves,” Dr. Luke said, adding that “we will continue to see these data mature.”

“In fact, it’s our full expectation that curves will continue to separate over time.”

When looking at key subgroups, Dr. Luke showed that the results favored pembrolizumab when stratifying patients by age, gender, race, and performance status.

Interestingly, patients with T3b disease did a lot better on pembrolizumab compared with those who had T4b disease, at a hazard ratio for recurrence of 0.44 versus 0.94.

Data on recurrence patterns revealed that 11.1% of patients taking pembrolizumab had an event, with 6.4% experiencing skin and/or lymph node regional recurrence and 4.7% distant recurrence.

In the placebo group, 16.8% of patients had a recurrence event, with 8.4% having a loco-regional recurrence and 7.8% a distant recurrence.

Dr. Luke explained that this equates to an approximate 40% reduction in distant recurrence with pembrolizumab over placebo.

Finally, the researchers examined change in global health status on the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life score. Examining mean change over time, they found that there were no clinically meaningful changes, and the scores in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups tracked each other during the course of follow-up.

Quality of life was, therefore, “only minimally changed,” Dr. Luke said.

The study was funded by MSD. Dr. Luke and Dr. Hamid have declared relationships with multiple companies.

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

Adjuvant pembrolizumab (Keytruda) following complete melanoma resection could soon move to an earlier stage in the management of high-risk disease, suggest results from KEYNOTE-716. However, the results raise many questions, says an expert invited to discuss the new data.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab is already approved in the United States for use in patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement following complete resection, having been shown to prolong both recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in stage 3 melanoma.

This latest trial involved patients with slightly earlier disease, those with resected stage 2B and 2C melanoma. These patients are at “high risk” of disease recurrence and have similar outcomes to stage 3A and 3B melanoma patients, explained study presenter Jason J. Luke, MD, director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutics Center at UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh.

Results from the KEYNOTE-716 trial showed that adjuvant pembrolizumab is also beneficial in this earlier stage disease: it improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) by 35% and improved distant metastasis-free survival by 40% compared with placebo.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab is an “effective treatment option with a favorable benefit-risk profile for patients with high-risk stage 2 melanoma,” Dr. Luke concluded.

The manufacturer, Merck, has said that these new results have already been accepted for priority review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, making it likely that the indication will be extended to include patients with earlier disease.  

Dr. Luke presented the results at the European Society of Medical Oncology 2021 annual meeting.

Invited discussant Omid Hamid, MD, chief of research/immuno-oncology, the Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, a Cedars-Sinai Affiliate, Los Angeles, said that Dr. Luke’s presentation was “amazing.”

However, these new results have “sabotaged how we think about how we treat our patients and how we’re going to think about what we do in the future.”

Dr. Hamid noted that the incidence of stage 2B and 2C melanoma is “equal” to that of stage 3 disease, “so with a proposed approval” of pembrolizumab in this earlier setting, “we will have a lot more patients” to treat earlier in their disease course.

Of course, this raises the inevitable question of how to treat these patients when they relapse, and how to treat these patients in the metastatic setting “having already exhausted single-agent PD-1 therapy,” he commented.

Dr. Hamid said that the current results also reveal the “current problem” with adjuvant therapy, which is that “we don’t know who benefits,” and there is a subset patients who “never recur” even if they are untreated.

So the questions are: “How come all get treated? What about the risks of toxicity? The costs? And where do we fit these patients into clinic?”

As with so many presentations of immunotherapy trial data, the need for biomarkers was raised, with Dr. Hamid emphasizing the need for predictive biomarkers that could exclude patients, and save them from toxicity.

He noted that there were data with another checkpoint inhibitor, nivolumab (Opdivo), in the adjuvant setting (from the CheckMate 238 trial) that suggested higher tumor mutation burden and tumor interferon-gamma levels could play a role, and he hopes that similar data may be available from this latest trial.

Also, there are ongoing and upcoming trials in patients with stage 2B and 2C melanoma that may answer some of the outstanding questions, including a study of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade before resection, and the DETECTION trial, which is exploring circulating tumor DNA-guided therapy postsurgery.

Then there is the NivoMela trial that will look at nivolumab in stage 2A as well as 2B and 2C disease, while the REFINE trial will assess whether giving immunotherapy less often to patients with advanced cancer, including those with melanoma, results in fewer side effects while continuing to be effective.

The current results also raise the question of whether to go “earlier and earlier” with adjuvant immunotherapy into “poor risk” stage 1 melanoma, which is already being tried in the United States, although there is “no clear understanding of what to do for those patients.”

Overall, Dr. Hamid said that the results of KEYNOTE-716 have “created more questions than answers,” including its impact on the inclusion criteria for phase 3/4 clinical trials, “which now exclude patients who have received adjuvant therapy within 6 months.”

“That will have to change,” he suggested.

Some of the questions raised by Dr. Hamid were discussed on social media, sparking a lively Twitter debate on how best to take the results forward and into the clinic.

Florentia Dimitriou, MD, a dermatology consultant in the Skin Cancer Clinic, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, said the data were “great” but she was “still unclear” over who needs adjuvant immunotherapy in this setting.

She also emphasized that, for her, the greater RFS benefit seen in T3b than in T4b disease “doesn’t make sense,” and she also highlighted the finding of long-term toxicity in approximately 18% of patients.

Dr. Luke replied that he agrees that the T3b/T4b results are puzzling but he said the event rate was “low” and the data are “immature,” and that he hopes to have “more info soon.”

He acknowledged that around 18% of patients taking pembrolizumab went on to receive hormone therapy for adverse events, including 13.9% due to hypothyroidism, and others including hypophysitis, adrenal sufficiency, and type 1 diabetes. However, he also pointed out that about 5% of patients in this study had background thyroid issues. The risks and benefits of treatment need to be discussed with patients, he added.

Over a series of tweets, Rebecca J. Lee, PhD, NIHR clinical lecturer in medical oncology at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, said, “we need to know more” about the distant metastasis-free survival results, and that results for overall survival are “really” needed.

She also emphasized the need for biomarkers to identify those patients who are likely to benefit, and whether benefit can be upfront or early on in treatment. Dr. Lee added that, as endocrine thyroid toxicity occurs after a median of 3.3 months, “pretreatment biomarkers will be more important than on-treatment biomarkers in this setting.”

Details of the results in earlier stage disease

The KEYNOTE-716 trial enrolled patients with newly diagnosed, resected, high-risk stage 2 melanoma aged ≥ 12 years and a good performance status. The majority (~64%) had stage 2B melanoma, and the rest had stage 2C. T3b disease was present in 41% of patients, 23% had T4a disease, and 35% had T4b disease.

Patients were randomized to receive pembrolizumab or placebo.

In a subsequent part of the study, patients with recurrence will be unblended, with either crossover from the placebo to active treatment group or rechallenge with pembrolizumab for up to 2 years.

Presenting the first part, Dr. Luke said that, of 487 patients assigned to pembrolizumab, 483 started treatment, of whom 206 have completed treatment, 133 are still on therapy, and 144 have discontinued.

In the placebo group, 489 patients were assigned and 486 began treatment. Of those, 229 completed treatment, 152 are still ongoing, and 105 discontinued.

The two groups were well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics. The median age was approximately 60 years, with only one patient enrolled who was aged 12-17 years.

At 12 months, the study met its primary endpoint.

Relapse-fee survival was 90.5% in patients treated with pembrolizumab versus 83.1% in the placebo group, at a hazard ratio for recurrence of 0.65 (P = .00658).

“Despite this trial hitting this primary endpoint very early, there are a number of patients who are censored later in the curves,” Dr. Luke said, adding that “we will continue to see these data mature.”

“In fact, it’s our full expectation that curves will continue to separate over time.”

When looking at key subgroups, Dr. Luke showed that the results favored pembrolizumab when stratifying patients by age, gender, race, and performance status.

Interestingly, patients with T3b disease did a lot better on pembrolizumab compared with those who had T4b disease, at a hazard ratio for recurrence of 0.44 versus 0.94.

Data on recurrence patterns revealed that 11.1% of patients taking pembrolizumab had an event, with 6.4% experiencing skin and/or lymph node regional recurrence and 4.7% distant recurrence.

In the placebo group, 16.8% of patients had a recurrence event, with 8.4% having a loco-regional recurrence and 7.8% a distant recurrence.

Dr. Luke explained that this equates to an approximate 40% reduction in distant recurrence with pembrolizumab over placebo.

Finally, the researchers examined change in global health status on the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life score. Examining mean change over time, they found that there were no clinically meaningful changes, and the scores in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups tracked each other during the course of follow-up.

Quality of life was, therefore, “only minimally changed,” Dr. Luke said.

The study was funded by MSD. Dr. Luke and Dr. Hamid have declared relationships with multiple companies.

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

Adjuvant pembrolizumab (Keytruda) following complete melanoma resection could soon move to an earlier stage in the management of high-risk disease, suggest results from KEYNOTE-716. However, the results raise many questions, says an expert invited to discuss the new data.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab is already approved in the United States for use in patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement following complete resection, having been shown to prolong both recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in stage 3 melanoma.

This latest trial involved patients with slightly earlier disease, those with resected stage 2B and 2C melanoma. These patients are at “high risk” of disease recurrence and have similar outcomes to stage 3A and 3B melanoma patients, explained study presenter Jason J. Luke, MD, director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutics Center at UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh.

Results from the KEYNOTE-716 trial showed that adjuvant pembrolizumab is also beneficial in this earlier stage disease: it improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) by 35% and improved distant metastasis-free survival by 40% compared with placebo.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab is an “effective treatment option with a favorable benefit-risk profile for patients with high-risk stage 2 melanoma,” Dr. Luke concluded.

The manufacturer, Merck, has said that these new results have already been accepted for priority review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, making it likely that the indication will be extended to include patients with earlier disease.  

Dr. Luke presented the results at the European Society of Medical Oncology 2021 annual meeting.

Invited discussant Omid Hamid, MD, chief of research/immuno-oncology, the Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, a Cedars-Sinai Affiliate, Los Angeles, said that Dr. Luke’s presentation was “amazing.”

However, these new results have “sabotaged how we think about how we treat our patients and how we’re going to think about what we do in the future.”

Dr. Hamid noted that the incidence of stage 2B and 2C melanoma is “equal” to that of stage 3 disease, “so with a proposed approval” of pembrolizumab in this earlier setting, “we will have a lot more patients” to treat earlier in their disease course.

Of course, this raises the inevitable question of how to treat these patients when they relapse, and how to treat these patients in the metastatic setting “having already exhausted single-agent PD-1 therapy,” he commented.

Dr. Hamid said that the current results also reveal the “current problem” with adjuvant therapy, which is that “we don’t know who benefits,” and there is a subset patients who “never recur” even if they are untreated.

So the questions are: “How come all get treated? What about the risks of toxicity? The costs? And where do we fit these patients into clinic?”

As with so many presentations of immunotherapy trial data, the need for biomarkers was raised, with Dr. Hamid emphasizing the need for predictive biomarkers that could exclude patients, and save them from toxicity.

He noted that there were data with another checkpoint inhibitor, nivolumab (Opdivo), in the adjuvant setting (from the CheckMate 238 trial) that suggested higher tumor mutation burden and tumor interferon-gamma levels could play a role, and he hopes that similar data may be available from this latest trial.

Also, there are ongoing and upcoming trials in patients with stage 2B and 2C melanoma that may answer some of the outstanding questions, including a study of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade before resection, and the DETECTION trial, which is exploring circulating tumor DNA-guided therapy postsurgery.

Then there is the NivoMela trial that will look at nivolumab in stage 2A as well as 2B and 2C disease, while the REFINE trial will assess whether giving immunotherapy less often to patients with advanced cancer, including those with melanoma, results in fewer side effects while continuing to be effective.

The current results also raise the question of whether to go “earlier and earlier” with adjuvant immunotherapy into “poor risk” stage 1 melanoma, which is already being tried in the United States, although there is “no clear understanding of what to do for those patients.”

Overall, Dr. Hamid said that the results of KEYNOTE-716 have “created more questions than answers,” including its impact on the inclusion criteria for phase 3/4 clinical trials, “which now exclude patients who have received adjuvant therapy within 6 months.”

“That will have to change,” he suggested.

Some of the questions raised by Dr. Hamid were discussed on social media, sparking a lively Twitter debate on how best to take the results forward and into the clinic.

Florentia Dimitriou, MD, a dermatology consultant in the Skin Cancer Clinic, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, said the data were “great” but she was “still unclear” over who needs adjuvant immunotherapy in this setting.

She also emphasized that, for her, the greater RFS benefit seen in T3b than in T4b disease “doesn’t make sense,” and she also highlighted the finding of long-term toxicity in approximately 18% of patients.

Dr. Luke replied that he agrees that the T3b/T4b results are puzzling but he said the event rate was “low” and the data are “immature,” and that he hopes to have “more info soon.”

He acknowledged that around 18% of patients taking pembrolizumab went on to receive hormone therapy for adverse events, including 13.9% due to hypothyroidism, and others including hypophysitis, adrenal sufficiency, and type 1 diabetes. However, he also pointed out that about 5% of patients in this study had background thyroid issues. The risks and benefits of treatment need to be discussed with patients, he added.

Over a series of tweets, Rebecca J. Lee, PhD, NIHR clinical lecturer in medical oncology at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, said, “we need to know more” about the distant metastasis-free survival results, and that results for overall survival are “really” needed.

She also emphasized the need for biomarkers to identify those patients who are likely to benefit, and whether benefit can be upfront or early on in treatment. Dr. Lee added that, as endocrine thyroid toxicity occurs after a median of 3.3 months, “pretreatment biomarkers will be more important than on-treatment biomarkers in this setting.”

Details of the results in earlier stage disease

The KEYNOTE-716 trial enrolled patients with newly diagnosed, resected, high-risk stage 2 melanoma aged ≥ 12 years and a good performance status. The majority (~64%) had stage 2B melanoma, and the rest had stage 2C. T3b disease was present in 41% of patients, 23% had T4a disease, and 35% had T4b disease.

Patients were randomized to receive pembrolizumab or placebo.

In a subsequent part of the study, patients with recurrence will be unblended, with either crossover from the placebo to active treatment group or rechallenge with pembrolizumab for up to 2 years.

Presenting the first part, Dr. Luke said that, of 487 patients assigned to pembrolizumab, 483 started treatment, of whom 206 have completed treatment, 133 are still on therapy, and 144 have discontinued.

In the placebo group, 489 patients were assigned and 486 began treatment. Of those, 229 completed treatment, 152 are still ongoing, and 105 discontinued.

The two groups were well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics. The median age was approximately 60 years, with only one patient enrolled who was aged 12-17 years.

At 12 months, the study met its primary endpoint.

Relapse-fee survival was 90.5% in patients treated with pembrolizumab versus 83.1% in the placebo group, at a hazard ratio for recurrence of 0.65 (P = .00658).

“Despite this trial hitting this primary endpoint very early, there are a number of patients who are censored later in the curves,” Dr. Luke said, adding that “we will continue to see these data mature.”

“In fact, it’s our full expectation that curves will continue to separate over time.”

When looking at key subgroups, Dr. Luke showed that the results favored pembrolizumab when stratifying patients by age, gender, race, and performance status.

Interestingly, patients with T3b disease did a lot better on pembrolizumab compared with those who had T4b disease, at a hazard ratio for recurrence of 0.44 versus 0.94.

Data on recurrence patterns revealed that 11.1% of patients taking pembrolizumab had an event, with 6.4% experiencing skin and/or lymph node regional recurrence and 4.7% distant recurrence.

In the placebo group, 16.8% of patients had a recurrence event, with 8.4% having a loco-regional recurrence and 7.8% a distant recurrence.

Dr. Luke explained that this equates to an approximate 40% reduction in distant recurrence with pembrolizumab over placebo.

Finally, the researchers examined change in global health status on the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life score. Examining mean change over time, they found that there were no clinically meaningful changes, and the scores in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups tracked each other during the course of follow-up.

Quality of life was, therefore, “only minimally changed,” Dr. Luke said.

The study was funded by MSD. Dr. Luke and Dr. Hamid have declared relationships with multiple companies.

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

WASHINGTON – Those who self-identify as Hispanic or Black have a lower self-perceived risk of melanoma. In fact, people of color receive little to no information concerning skin cancer risks and prevention strategies and experience a longer time from diagnosis to definitive surgery, resulting in far worse outcomes, compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

This disparity is reflected in statistics showing that the average 5-year survival rate for melanoma is 92% in White patients but drops down to 67% in Black patients. Low income is also a contributing factor: Patients with lower incomes experience greater difficulty accessing health care and have greater time to diagnosis and a worse prognosis and survival time with melanoma. Despite economic advancements, Black Americans are still economically deprived when compared with White Americans.

This reality is what led Sarah Millan, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington, to focus on the Ward 8 community in Washington – one of the poorest regions in our nation’s capital – well known for limited access to medical care and referred to as a health care desert. “Ward 8 has a population that is 92% Black and does not have a single dermatology clinic in the vicinity – my vision was to bring together the community through an enjoyable attraction conducive to the delivery of quality dermatologic care and education to a community that has none,” said Ms. Millan.

This low-resource population that is socioeconomically and geographically isolated is likely unaware of skin cancer risks, prevention strategies, and signs or symptoms that would warrant a visit to the dermatologist.

In light of these inequalities, “Learn2Derm: Skin Cancer Prevention Fair” was born – an attempt to close this disparity through educational interventions focused on skin cancer presentation, prevention, and early detection, while also exploring the attitudes and behaviors around skin cancer and sunscreen use in the community through data collected from optional surveys.

On Saturday, July 10, 2021, dermatologists from George Washington University, department of dermatology and medical students from George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences and Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, transformed Martha’s Outfitters in Ward 8 into a decorated, music-filled venue. Part of the Ward 8 council member’s 40 Days of Peace initiative, the Learn2Derm fair provided free skin cancer screenings by dermatologists, while students staffed various stations, delivering fun and interactive educational lessons organized by Ms. Millan under the mentorship of Adam Friedman, MD, chair of dermatology at George Washington University.

1: Harvey VM et al. Cancer Control. 2014 Oct;21(4):343-9.

2: Tripathi R et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Sep;83(3):854-9.

3. Beyer Don. “The Economic State of Black America in 2020” U.S. Congress: Joint Economic Committee.

4. Culp MaryBeth B and Lunsford Natasha Buchanan. “Melanoma Among Non-Hispanic Black Americans” Prev Chronic Dis;16. 2019 Jun 20. doi: 10.5888/pcd16.180640.

5. “Ask the Expert: Is There a Skin Cancer Crisis in People of Color?” The Skin Cancer Foundation. 2020 Jul 5.

6. Salvaggio C et al. Oncology. 2016;90(2):79-87.
 

WASHINGTON – Those who self-identify as Hispanic or Black have a lower self-perceived risk of melanoma. In fact, people of color receive little to no information concerning skin cancer risks and prevention strategies and experience a longer time from diagnosis to definitive surgery, resulting in far worse outcomes, compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

This disparity is reflected in statistics showing that the average 5-year survival rate for melanoma is 92% in White patients but drops down to 67% in Black patients. Low income is also a contributing factor: Patients with lower incomes experience greater difficulty accessing health care and have greater time to diagnosis and a worse prognosis and survival time with melanoma. Despite economic advancements, Black Americans are still economically deprived when compared with White Americans.

This reality is what led Sarah Millan, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington, to focus on the Ward 8 community in Washington – one of the poorest regions in our nation’s capital – well known for limited access to medical care and referred to as a health care desert. “Ward 8 has a population that is 92% Black and does not have a single dermatology clinic in the vicinity – my vision was to bring together the community through an enjoyable attraction conducive to the delivery of quality dermatologic care and education to a community that has none,” said Ms. Millan.

This low-resource population that is socioeconomically and geographically isolated is likely unaware of skin cancer risks, prevention strategies, and signs or symptoms that would warrant a visit to the dermatologist.

In light of these inequalities, “Learn2Derm: Skin Cancer Prevention Fair” was born – an attempt to close this disparity through educational interventions focused on skin cancer presentation, prevention, and early detection, while also exploring the attitudes and behaviors around skin cancer and sunscreen use in the community through data collected from optional surveys.

On Saturday, July 10, 2021, dermatologists from George Washington University, department of dermatology and medical students from George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences and Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, transformed Martha’s Outfitters in Ward 8 into a decorated, music-filled venue. Part of the Ward 8 council member’s 40 Days of Peace initiative, the Learn2Derm fair provided free skin cancer screenings by dermatologists, while students staffed various stations, delivering fun and interactive educational lessons organized by Ms. Millan under the mentorship of Adam Friedman, MD, chair of dermatology at George Washington University.

1: Harvey VM et al. Cancer Control. 2014 Oct;21(4):343-9.

2: Tripathi R et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Sep;83(3):854-9.

3. Beyer Don. “The Economic State of Black America in 2020” U.S. Congress: Joint Economic Committee.

4. Culp MaryBeth B and Lunsford Natasha Buchanan. “Melanoma Among Non-Hispanic Black Americans” Prev Chronic Dis;16. 2019 Jun 20. doi: 10.5888/pcd16.180640.

5. “Ask the Expert: Is There a Skin Cancer Crisis in People of Color?” The Skin Cancer Foundation. 2020 Jul 5.

6. Salvaggio C et al. Oncology. 2016;90(2):79-87.
 

WASHINGTON – Those who self-identify as Hispanic or Black have a lower self-perceived risk of melanoma. In fact, people of color receive little to no information concerning skin cancer risks and prevention strategies and experience a longer time from diagnosis to definitive surgery, resulting in far worse outcomes, compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

This disparity is reflected in statistics showing that the average 5-year survival rate for melanoma is 92% in White patients but drops down to 67% in Black patients. Low income is also a contributing factor: Patients with lower incomes experience greater difficulty accessing health care and have greater time to diagnosis and a worse prognosis and survival time with melanoma. Despite economic advancements, Black Americans are still economically deprived when compared with White Americans.

This reality is what led Sarah Millan, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington, to focus on the Ward 8 community in Washington – one of the poorest regions in our nation’s capital – well known for limited access to medical care and referred to as a health care desert. “Ward 8 has a population that is 92% Black and does not have a single dermatology clinic in the vicinity – my vision was to bring together the community through an enjoyable attraction conducive to the delivery of quality dermatologic care and education to a community that has none,” said Ms. Millan.

This low-resource population that is socioeconomically and geographically isolated is likely unaware of skin cancer risks, prevention strategies, and signs or symptoms that would warrant a visit to the dermatologist.

In light of these inequalities, “Learn2Derm: Skin Cancer Prevention Fair” was born – an attempt to close this disparity through educational interventions focused on skin cancer presentation, prevention, and early detection, while also exploring the attitudes and behaviors around skin cancer and sunscreen use in the community through data collected from optional surveys.

On Saturday, July 10, 2021, dermatologists from George Washington University, department of dermatology and medical students from George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences and Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, transformed Martha’s Outfitters in Ward 8 into a decorated, music-filled venue. Part of the Ward 8 council member’s 40 Days of Peace initiative, the Learn2Derm fair provided free skin cancer screenings by dermatologists, while students staffed various stations, delivering fun and interactive educational lessons organized by Ms. Millan under the mentorship of Adam Friedman, MD, chair of dermatology at George Washington University.

1: Harvey VM et al. Cancer Control. 2014 Oct;21(4):343-9.

2: Tripathi R et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Sep;83(3):854-9.

3. Beyer Don. “The Economic State of Black America in 2020” U.S. Congress: Joint Economic Committee.

4. Culp MaryBeth B and Lunsford Natasha Buchanan. “Melanoma Among Non-Hispanic Black Americans” Prev Chronic Dis;16. 2019 Jun 20. doi: 10.5888/pcd16.180640.

5. “Ask the Expert: Is There a Skin Cancer Crisis in People of Color?” The Skin Cancer Foundation. 2020 Jul 5.

6. Salvaggio C et al. Oncology. 2016;90(2):79-87.
 

Among patients from a single dermatology practice who were diagnosed with two or more melanomas over an 8-year period, 45% lived more than 20 miles away from the practice, and almost 60% were 70 years of age and older, results from single-center study showed.

“Dermatologists have known that many people are underdiagnosed for melanoma, but now our research supports that the problem is especially concentrated among older patients living in remote areas,” corresponding author Rose Parisi, MBA, said in an interview. “With this information, dermatologists should consider identifying and reaching out to their patients in this at-risk subpopulation, increasing the frequency of full-body skin exams, and collaborating with primary care physicians to educate them about melanoma’s dangers.”

In a study published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Parisi of Albany Medical College, New York, and colleagues drew from the electronic medical records of a single-specialty private dermatology practice that serves urban, suburban, and rural patient populations to identify 346 melanoma pathology reports from patients cared for between 2012 and 2020. They limited their investigation to those diagnosed with biopsy-confirmed melanoma and analyzed the number of melanomas, Breslow depth, follow-up full-body skin exams, family history of melanoma, gender, insurance, and age (categorized as younger than 70 years and 70 years or older). To determine patient travel distance, they calculated the miles between the ZIP codes of the patient’s residence and the dermatology practice.

Regression analysis revealed that the travel distance of patients and their age were significantly associated with the number of melanomas diagnosed. Specifically, among patients diagnosed with two or more melanomas, 45.0% lived more than 20 miles away and 21.3% lived less than 15 miles away; 59.6% were age 70 and older, while 40.4% were younger than age 70 (P less than .01).

No statistically significant association was observed between travel distance and Breslow depth or follow-up full-body skin exams within 1 year following diagnosis.

In other findings, among patients who lived more than 20 miles from the practice, those aged 70 and older were diagnosed with 0.56 more melanomas than patients between the ages of 58 and 70 (P = .00003), and 0.31 more melanomas than patients who lived 15-20 miles away (P = .014). No statistically significant differences in the number of melanomas diagnosed were observed between patients in either age group who lived fewer than 15 miles from the office.

“We were surprised that the combination of age and patient distance to diagnosing dermatology provider was such a powerful predictor of the number of diagnosed melanomas,” Ms. Parisi said. “It’s probably due to less mobility among older patients living in more remote areas, and it puts them at higher risk of multiple melanomas. This was something we haven’t seen in the dermatology literature.”

She and her coauthors acknowledged that the limited sampling of patients from a single practice “may not generalize across all urban and rural settings, and results must be considered preliminary,” they wrote. However, “our findings reveal an important vulnerability among older patients in nonurban areas, and efforts to improve access to melanoma diagnosis should be concentrated on this geodemographic segment.”

Nikolai Klebanov, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, described what was addressed in the study as a “timely and an important topic.”

In an interview, he said, “there is less access to dermatologists and other medical specialists outside of large metropolitan and suburban areas,” and there are other health disparities affecting people living in rural or more underserved areas, which, he added, “also became exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

For future studies on this topic, Dr. Klebanov said that he would be interested to see diagnoses measured per person-year rather than the total number of melanomas diagnosed. “More elderly patients may also be those who have ‘stuck with the practice’ for longer, and had a longer follow-up that gives more time to catch more melanomas,” he said.

“Adjusting for median income using ZIP codes could also help adjust for socioeconomic status, which would help with external validity of the study. Income relationships to geography are not the same in all cities; some have wealthy suburbs within 20 miles, while some have more underserved and rural areas at that distance.”

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

[email protected]

Among patients from a single dermatology practice who were diagnosed with two or more melanomas over an 8-year period, 45% lived more than 20 miles away from the practice, and almost 60% were 70 years of age and older, results from single-center study showed.

“Dermatologists have known that many people are underdiagnosed for melanoma, but now our research supports that the problem is especially concentrated among older patients living in remote areas,” corresponding author Rose Parisi, MBA, said in an interview. “With this information, dermatologists should consider identifying and reaching out to their patients in this at-risk subpopulation, increasing the frequency of full-body skin exams, and collaborating with primary care physicians to educate them about melanoma’s dangers.”

In a study published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Parisi of Albany Medical College, New York, and colleagues drew from the electronic medical records of a single-specialty private dermatology practice that serves urban, suburban, and rural patient populations to identify 346 melanoma pathology reports from patients cared for between 2012 and 2020. They limited their investigation to those diagnosed with biopsy-confirmed melanoma and analyzed the number of melanomas, Breslow depth, follow-up full-body skin exams, family history of melanoma, gender, insurance, and age (categorized as younger than 70 years and 70 years or older). To determine patient travel distance, they calculated the miles between the ZIP codes of the patient’s residence and the dermatology practice.

Regression analysis revealed that the travel distance of patients and their age were significantly associated with the number of melanomas diagnosed. Specifically, among patients diagnosed with two or more melanomas, 45.0% lived more than 20 miles away and 21.3% lived less than 15 miles away; 59.6% were age 70 and older, while 40.4% were younger than age 70 (P less than .01).

No statistically significant association was observed between travel distance and Breslow depth or follow-up full-body skin exams within 1 year following diagnosis.

In other findings, among patients who lived more than 20 miles from the practice, those aged 70 and older were diagnosed with 0.56 more melanomas than patients between the ages of 58 and 70 (P = .00003), and 0.31 more melanomas than patients who lived 15-20 miles away (P = .014). No statistically significant differences in the number of melanomas diagnosed were observed between patients in either age group who lived fewer than 15 miles from the office.

“We were surprised that the combination of age and patient distance to diagnosing dermatology provider was such a powerful predictor of the number of diagnosed melanomas,” Ms. Parisi said. “It’s probably due to less mobility among older patients living in more remote areas, and it puts them at higher risk of multiple melanomas. This was something we haven’t seen in the dermatology literature.”

She and her coauthors acknowledged that the limited sampling of patients from a single practice “may not generalize across all urban and rural settings, and results must be considered preliminary,” they wrote. However, “our findings reveal an important vulnerability among older patients in nonurban areas, and efforts to improve access to melanoma diagnosis should be concentrated on this geodemographic segment.”

Nikolai Klebanov, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, described what was addressed in the study as a “timely and an important topic.”

In an interview, he said, “there is less access to dermatologists and other medical specialists outside of large metropolitan and suburban areas,” and there are other health disparities affecting people living in rural or more underserved areas, which, he added, “also became exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

For future studies on this topic, Dr. Klebanov said that he would be interested to see diagnoses measured per person-year rather than the total number of melanomas diagnosed. “More elderly patients may also be those who have ‘stuck with the practice’ for longer, and had a longer follow-up that gives more time to catch more melanomas,” he said.

“Adjusting for median income using ZIP codes could also help adjust for socioeconomic status, which would help with external validity of the study. Income relationships to geography are not the same in all cities; some have wealthy suburbs within 20 miles, while some have more underserved and rural areas at that distance.”

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

[email protected]

Among patients from a single dermatology practice who were diagnosed with two or more melanomas over an 8-year period, 45% lived more than 20 miles away from the practice, and almost 60% were 70 years of age and older, results from single-center study showed.

“Dermatologists have known that many people are underdiagnosed for melanoma, but now our research supports that the problem is especially concentrated among older patients living in remote areas,” corresponding author Rose Parisi, MBA, said in an interview. “With this information, dermatologists should consider identifying and reaching out to their patients in this at-risk subpopulation, increasing the frequency of full-body skin exams, and collaborating with primary care physicians to educate them about melanoma’s dangers.”

In a study published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Parisi of Albany Medical College, New York, and colleagues drew from the electronic medical records of a single-specialty private dermatology practice that serves urban, suburban, and rural patient populations to identify 346 melanoma pathology reports from patients cared for between 2012 and 2020. They limited their investigation to those diagnosed with biopsy-confirmed melanoma and analyzed the number of melanomas, Breslow depth, follow-up full-body skin exams, family history of melanoma, gender, insurance, and age (categorized as younger than 70 years and 70 years or older). To determine patient travel distance, they calculated the miles between the ZIP codes of the patient’s residence and the dermatology practice.

Regression analysis revealed that the travel distance of patients and their age were significantly associated with the number of melanomas diagnosed. Specifically, among patients diagnosed with two or more melanomas, 45.0% lived more than 20 miles away and 21.3% lived less than 15 miles away; 59.6% were age 70 and older, while 40.4% were younger than age 70 (P less than .01).

No statistically significant association was observed between travel distance and Breslow depth or follow-up full-body skin exams within 1 year following diagnosis.

In other findings, among patients who lived more than 20 miles from the practice, those aged 70 and older were diagnosed with 0.56 more melanomas than patients between the ages of 58 and 70 (P = .00003), and 0.31 more melanomas than patients who lived 15-20 miles away (P = .014). No statistically significant differences in the number of melanomas diagnosed were observed between patients in either age group who lived fewer than 15 miles from the office.

“We were surprised that the combination of age and patient distance to diagnosing dermatology provider was such a powerful predictor of the number of diagnosed melanomas,” Ms. Parisi said. “It’s probably due to less mobility among older patients living in more remote areas, and it puts them at higher risk of multiple melanomas. This was something we haven’t seen in the dermatology literature.”

She and her coauthors acknowledged that the limited sampling of patients from a single practice “may not generalize across all urban and rural settings, and results must be considered preliminary,” they wrote. However, “our findings reveal an important vulnerability among older patients in nonurban areas, and efforts to improve access to melanoma diagnosis should be concentrated on this geodemographic segment.”

Nikolai Klebanov, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, described what was addressed in the study as a “timely and an important topic.”

In an interview, he said, “there is less access to dermatologists and other medical specialists outside of large metropolitan and suburban areas,” and there are other health disparities affecting people living in rural or more underserved areas, which, he added, “also became exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

For future studies on this topic, Dr. Klebanov said that he would be interested to see diagnoses measured per person-year rather than the total number of melanomas diagnosed. “More elderly patients may also be those who have ‘stuck with the practice’ for longer, and had a longer follow-up that gives more time to catch more melanomas,” he said.

“Adjusting for median income using ZIP codes could also help adjust for socioeconomic status, which would help with external validity of the study. Income relationships to geography are not the same in all cities; some have wealthy suburbs within 20 miles, while some have more underserved and rural areas at that distance.”

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

[email protected]

With the need to adapt to the given challenges associated with COVID-19, artificial intelligence (AI) serves as a potential tool in providing access to medical-based diagnosis in a novel way. Artificial intelligence is defined as intelligence harnessed by machines that have the ability to perform what is called cognitive thinking and to mimic the problem-solving abilities of the human mind. Virtual AI in dermatology entails neural network–based guidance that includes developing algorithms to detect skin pathology through photographs.¹ To use AI in dermatology, recognition of visual patterns must be established to give diagnoses. These neural networks have been used to classify skin diseases, including cancer, actinic keratosis, and warts.²

AI for Skin Cancer

The use of AI to classify melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer has been studied extensively, including the following 2 research projects.

Convolutional Neural Network
In 2017, Stanford University published a study in which a deep-learning algorithm known as a convolutional neural network was used to classify skin lesions.³ The network was trained using a dataset of 129,450 clinical images of 2032 diseases. Its performance was compared to that of 21 board-certified dermatologists on biopsy-proven clinical images with 2 classifications of cases: (1) keratinocyte carcinoma as opposed to benign seborrheic keratosis and (2) malignant melanoma as opposed to benign nevi—the first representing the most common skin cancers, and the second, the deadliest skin cancers. The study showed that the machine could accurately identify and classify skin cancers compared to the work of board-certified dermatologists. The study did not include demographic information, which limits its external validity.³

Dermoscopic Image Classification
A 2019 study by Brinker and colleagues⁴ showed the superiority of automated dermoscopic melanoma image classifications compared to the work of board-certified dermatologists. For the study, 804 biopsy-proven images of melanoma and nevi (1:1 ratio) were randomly presented to dermatologists for their evaluation and recommended treatment (yielding 19,296 recommendations). The dermatologists classified the lesions with a sensitivity of 67.2% and specificity of 62.2%; the trained convolutional neural network attained both higher sensitivity (82.3%) and higher specificity (77.9%).⁴

Smartphone Diagnosis of Melanoma

An application of AI has been to use smartphone apps for the diagnosis of melanoma. The most utilized and novel algorithm-based smartphone app that assesses skin lesions for malignancy characteristics is SkinVision. With a simple download from Apple’s App Store, this technology allows a person to check their skin spots by taking a photograph and receiving algorithmic risk-assessment feedback. This inexpensive software ($51.78 a year) also allows a patient’s physician to assess the photograph and then validate their assessment by comparing it with the algorithmic analysis that the program provides.⁵

A review of SkinVision conducted by Thissen and colleagues⁶ found that, in a hypothetical population of 1000 adults of whom 3% actually had melanoma, 4 of those 30 people would not have been flagged as at “high risk” by SkinVision. There also was a high false-positive rate with the app, with more than 200 people flagged as at high risk. The analysis pegged SkinVision as having a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 79%.⁶

In summary, systematic review of diagnostic accuracy has shown that, although there is accuracy in AI analyses, it should be used only as a guide for health care advice due to variability in algorithm performance.⁷

Utility of AI in Telehealth

Artificial intelligence algorithms could be created to ensure telehealth image accuracy, stratify risk, and track patient progress. With teledermatology visits on the rise during the COVID-19 pandemic, AI algorithms could ensure that photographs of appropriate quality are taken. Also, patients could be organized by risk factors with such algorithms, allowing physicians to save time on triage and stratification. Algorithms also could be used to track a telehealth patient’s treatment and progress.⁸

Furthermore, there is a need for an algorithm that has the ability to detect, quantify, and monitor changes in dermatologic conditions using images that patients have uploaded. This capability will lead to creation of a standardized quantification scale that will allow physicians to virtually track the progression of visible skin pathologies.

Hazards of Racial Bias in AI

Artificial intelligence is limited by racial disparity bias seen in computerized medicine. For years, the majority of dermatology research, especially in skin cancer, has been conducted on fairer-skinned populations. This bias has existed at the expense of darker-skinned patients, whose skin conditions and symptoms present differently,⁹ and reflects directly in available data sets that can be used to develop AI algorithms. Because these data are inadequate to the task, AI might misdiagnose skin cancer in people of color or miss an existing condition entirely.¹⁰ Consequently, the higher rate of skin cancer mortality that is reported in people of color is likely to persist with the rise of AI in dermatology.¹¹ A more representative database of imaged skin lesions needs to be utilized to create a diversely representative and applicable data set for AI algorithms.¹²

Benefits of Conversational Agents

Another method by which AI could be incorporated into dermatology is through what is known as a conversational agent (CA)—AI software that engages in a dialogue with users by interpreting their voice and replying to them through text, image, or voice.¹³ Conversational agents facilitate remote patient management, allow clinicians to focus on other functions, and aid in data collection.¹⁴ A 2014 study showed that patients were significantly more likely to disclose history and emotions when informed they were interacting with a CA than with a human clinician (P=.007).¹⁵ Such benefits could be invaluable in dermatology, where emotions and patient perceptions of skin conditions play into the treatment process.

However, some evidence showed that CAs cannot respond to patients’ statements in all circumstances.¹⁶ It also is unclear how well CAs recognize nuanced statements that might signal potential harm. This fits into the greater theme of a major problem with AI: the lack of a reliable response in all circumstances.¹³

Final Thoughts

The practical implementations of AI in dermatology are still being explored. Given the uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the future of patient care, AI might serve as an important asset in assisting with the diagnosis and treatment of dermatologic conditions, physician productivity, and patient monitoring.

With the need to adapt to the given challenges associated with COVID-19, artificial intelligence (AI) serves as a potential tool in providing access to medical-based diagnosis in a novel way. Artificial intelligence is defined as intelligence harnessed by machines that have the ability to perform what is called cognitive thinking and to mimic the problem-solving abilities of the human mind. Virtual AI in dermatology entails neural network–based guidance that includes developing algorithms to detect skin pathology through photographs.¹ To use AI in dermatology, recognition of visual patterns must be established to give diagnoses. These neural networks have been used to classify skin diseases, including cancer, actinic keratosis, and warts.²

AI for Skin Cancer

The use of AI to classify melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer has been studied extensively, including the following 2 research projects.

Convolutional Neural Network
In 2017, Stanford University published a study in which a deep-learning algorithm known as a convolutional neural network was used to classify skin lesions.³ The network was trained using a dataset of 129,450 clinical images of 2032 diseases. Its performance was compared to that of 21 board-certified dermatologists on biopsy-proven clinical images with 2 classifications of cases: (1) keratinocyte carcinoma as opposed to benign seborrheic keratosis and (2) malignant melanoma as opposed to benign nevi—the first representing the most common skin cancers, and the second, the deadliest skin cancers. The study showed that the machine could accurately identify and classify skin cancers compared to the work of board-certified dermatologists. The study did not include demographic information, which limits its external validity.³

Dermoscopic Image Classification
A 2019 study by Brinker and colleagues⁴ showed the superiority of automated dermoscopic melanoma image classifications compared to the work of board-certified dermatologists. For the study, 804 biopsy-proven images of melanoma and nevi (1:1 ratio) were randomly presented to dermatologists for their evaluation and recommended treatment (yielding 19,296 recommendations). The dermatologists classified the lesions with a sensitivity of 67.2% and specificity of 62.2%; the trained convolutional neural network attained both higher sensitivity (82.3%) and higher specificity (77.9%).⁴

Smartphone Diagnosis of Melanoma

An application of AI has been to use smartphone apps for the diagnosis of melanoma. The most utilized and novel algorithm-based smartphone app that assesses skin lesions for malignancy characteristics is SkinVision. With a simple download from Apple’s App Store, this technology allows a person to check their skin spots by taking a photograph and receiving algorithmic risk-assessment feedback. This inexpensive software ($51.78 a year) also allows a patient’s physician to assess the photograph and then validate their assessment by comparing it with the algorithmic analysis that the program provides.⁵

A review of SkinVision conducted by Thissen and colleagues⁶ found that, in a hypothetical population of 1000 adults of whom 3% actually had melanoma, 4 of those 30 people would not have been flagged as at “high risk” by SkinVision. There also was a high false-positive rate with the app, with more than 200 people flagged as at high risk. The analysis pegged SkinVision as having a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 79%.⁶

In summary, systematic review of diagnostic accuracy has shown that, although there is accuracy in AI analyses, it should be used only as a guide for health care advice due to variability in algorithm performance.⁷

Utility of AI in Telehealth

Artificial intelligence algorithms could be created to ensure telehealth image accuracy, stratify risk, and track patient progress. With teledermatology visits on the rise during the COVID-19 pandemic, AI algorithms could ensure that photographs of appropriate quality are taken. Also, patients could be organized by risk factors with such algorithms, allowing physicians to save time on triage and stratification. Algorithms also could be used to track a telehealth patient’s treatment and progress.⁸

Furthermore, there is a need for an algorithm that has the ability to detect, quantify, and monitor changes in dermatologic conditions using images that patients have uploaded. This capability will lead to creation of a standardized quantification scale that will allow physicians to virtually track the progression of visible skin pathologies.

Hazards of Racial Bias in AI

Artificial intelligence is limited by racial disparity bias seen in computerized medicine. For years, the majority of dermatology research, especially in skin cancer, has been conducted on fairer-skinned populations. This bias has existed at the expense of darker-skinned patients, whose skin conditions and symptoms present differently,⁹ and reflects directly in available data sets that can be used to develop AI algorithms. Because these data are inadequate to the task, AI might misdiagnose skin cancer in people of color or miss an existing condition entirely.¹⁰ Consequently, the higher rate of skin cancer mortality that is reported in people of color is likely to persist with the rise of AI in dermatology.¹¹ A more representative database of imaged skin lesions needs to be utilized to create a diversely representative and applicable data set for AI algorithms.¹²

Benefits of Conversational Agents

Another method by which AI could be incorporated into dermatology is through what is known as a conversational agent (CA)—AI software that engages in a dialogue with users by interpreting their voice and replying to them through text, image, or voice.¹³ Conversational agents facilitate remote patient management, allow clinicians to focus on other functions, and aid in data collection.¹⁴ A 2014 study showed that patients were significantly more likely to disclose history and emotions when informed they were interacting with a CA than with a human clinician (P=.007).¹⁵ Such benefits could be invaluable in dermatology, where emotions and patient perceptions of skin conditions play into the treatment process.

However, some evidence showed that CAs cannot respond to patients’ statements in all circumstances.¹⁶ It also is unclear how well CAs recognize nuanced statements that might signal potential harm. This fits into the greater theme of a major problem with AI: the lack of a reliable response in all circumstances.¹³

Final Thoughts

The practical implementations of AI in dermatology are still being explored. Given the uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the future of patient care, AI might serve as an important asset in assisting with the diagnosis and treatment of dermatologic conditions, physician productivity, and patient monitoring.

With the need to adapt to the given challenges associated with COVID-19, artificial intelligence (AI) serves as a potential tool in providing access to medical-based diagnosis in a novel way. Artificial intelligence is defined as intelligence harnessed by machines that have the ability to perform what is called cognitive thinking and to mimic the problem-solving abilities of the human mind. Virtual AI in dermatology entails neural network–based guidance that includes developing algorithms to detect skin pathology through photographs.¹ To use AI in dermatology, recognition of visual patterns must be established to give diagnoses. These neural networks have been used to classify skin diseases, including cancer, actinic keratosis, and warts.²

AI for Skin Cancer

The use of AI to classify melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer has been studied extensively, including the following 2 research projects.

Convolutional Neural Network
In 2017, Stanford University published a study in which a deep-learning algorithm known as a convolutional neural network was used to classify skin lesions.³ The network was trained using a dataset of 129,450 clinical images of 2032 diseases. Its performance was compared to that of 21 board-certified dermatologists on biopsy-proven clinical images with 2 classifications of cases: (1) keratinocyte carcinoma as opposed to benign seborrheic keratosis and (2) malignant melanoma as opposed to benign nevi—the first representing the most common skin cancers, and the second, the deadliest skin cancers. The study showed that the machine could accurately identify and classify skin cancers compared to the work of board-certified dermatologists. The study did not include demographic information, which limits its external validity.³

Dermoscopic Image Classification
A 2019 study by Brinker and colleagues⁴ showed the superiority of automated dermoscopic melanoma image classifications compared to the work of board-certified dermatologists. For the study, 804 biopsy-proven images of melanoma and nevi (1:1 ratio) were randomly presented to dermatologists for their evaluation and recommended treatment (yielding 19,296 recommendations). The dermatologists classified the lesions with a sensitivity of 67.2% and specificity of 62.2%; the trained convolutional neural network attained both higher sensitivity (82.3%) and higher specificity (77.9%).⁴

Smartphone Diagnosis of Melanoma

An application of AI has been to use smartphone apps for the diagnosis of melanoma. The most utilized and novel algorithm-based smartphone app that assesses skin lesions for malignancy characteristics is SkinVision. With a simple download from Apple’s App Store, this technology allows a person to check their skin spots by taking a photograph and receiving algorithmic risk-assessment feedback. This inexpensive software ($51.78 a year) also allows a patient’s physician to assess the photograph and then validate their assessment by comparing it with the algorithmic analysis that the program provides.⁵

A review of SkinVision conducted by Thissen and colleagues⁶ found that, in a hypothetical population of 1000 adults of whom 3% actually had melanoma, 4 of those 30 people would not have been flagged as at “high risk” by SkinVision. There also was a high false-positive rate with the app, with more than 200 people flagged as at high risk. The analysis pegged SkinVision as having a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 79%.⁶

In summary, systematic review of diagnostic accuracy has shown that, although there is accuracy in AI analyses, it should be used only as a guide for health care advice due to variability in algorithm performance.⁷

Utility of AI in Telehealth

Artificial intelligence algorithms could be created to ensure telehealth image accuracy, stratify risk, and track patient progress. With teledermatology visits on the rise during the COVID-19 pandemic, AI algorithms could ensure that photographs of appropriate quality are taken. Also, patients could be organized by risk factors with such algorithms, allowing physicians to save time on triage and stratification. Algorithms also could be used to track a telehealth patient’s treatment and progress.⁸

Furthermore, there is a need for an algorithm that has the ability to detect, quantify, and monitor changes in dermatologic conditions using images that patients have uploaded. This capability will lead to creation of a standardized quantification scale that will allow physicians to virtually track the progression of visible skin pathologies.

Hazards of Racial Bias in AI

Artificial intelligence is limited by racial disparity bias seen in computerized medicine. For years, the majority of dermatology research, especially in skin cancer, has been conducted on fairer-skinned populations. This bias has existed at the expense of darker-skinned patients, whose skin conditions and symptoms present differently,⁹ and reflects directly in available data sets that can be used to develop AI algorithms. Because these data are inadequate to the task, AI might misdiagnose skin cancer in people of color or miss an existing condition entirely.¹⁰ Consequently, the higher rate of skin cancer mortality that is reported in people of color is likely to persist with the rise of AI in dermatology.¹¹ A more representative database of imaged skin lesions needs to be utilized to create a diversely representative and applicable data set for AI algorithms.¹²

Benefits of Conversational Agents

Another method by which AI could be incorporated into dermatology is through what is known as a conversational agent (CA)—AI software that engages in a dialogue with users by interpreting their voice and replying to them through text, image, or voice.¹³ Conversational agents facilitate remote patient management, allow clinicians to focus on other functions, and aid in data collection.¹⁴ A 2014 study showed that patients were significantly more likely to disclose history and emotions when informed they were interacting with a CA than with a human clinician (P=.007).¹⁵ Such benefits could be invaluable in dermatology, where emotions and patient perceptions of skin conditions play into the treatment process.

However, some evidence showed that CAs cannot respond to patients’ statements in all circumstances.¹⁶ It also is unclear how well CAs recognize nuanced statements that might signal potential harm. This fits into the greater theme of a major problem with AI: the lack of a reliable response in all circumstances.¹³

Final Thoughts

The practical implementations of AI in dermatology are still being explored. Given the uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the future of patient care, AI might serve as an important asset in assisting with the diagnosis and treatment of dermatologic conditions, physician productivity, and patient monitoring.

One in three of the most popular news and feature articles on social media about the treatment of the four leading cancers in the United States contains misinformation, and the majority of those have the potential to harm patients, according to a new analysis.

Of the 200 most popular articles (50 each for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer), about a third (32.5%, n = 65) contained misinformation.

Among these articles containing misinformation, 76.9% (50/65) contained harmful information.

“The Internet is a leading source of health misinformation,” the study authors wrote. This is “particularly true for social media, where false information spreads faster and more broadly than fact-checked information,” they said, citing other research.

“We need to address these issues head on,” said lead author Skyler Johnson, MD, of the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City.

“As a medical community, we can’t ignore the problem of cancer misinformation on social media or ask our patients to ignore it. We must empathize with our patients and help them when they encounter this type of information,” he said in a statement. “My goal is to help answer their questions, and provide cancer patients with accurate information that will give them the best chance for the best outcome.”

The study was published online July 22 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The study period ran from 2018 to 2019, and looked at articles posted on social media platforms Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, or Pinterest. Popularity was measured by engagement with readers, such as upvotes, comments, reactions, and shares.

Some of the articles came from long-established news entities such as CBS News, The New York Times, and medical journals, while others came from fleeting crowdfunding web pages and fledging nontraditional news sites.

One example of popular and harmful misinformation highlighted by Dr. Johnson in an interview was titled, “44-Year-Old Mother Claims CBD Oil Cured Her of Breast Cancer within 5 Months.” Posted on truththeory.com in February 2018, the article is tagged as “opinion” by the publisher and in turn links to another news story about the same woman in the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper.

The ideas and claims in such articles can be very influential, Jennifer L. Lycette, MD, suggested in a recent blog post.

“After 18 years as a cancer doctor, it sadly doesn’t come as a surprise anymore when a patient declines treatment recommendations and instead opts for ‘alternative’ treatment,” she wrote.

Sometimes, misinformation is not sensational but is still effective via clever wording and presentation, observed Brian G. Southwell, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who has studied patients and misinformation.

“It isn’t the falsehood that is somehow magically attractive, per se, but the way that misinformation is often framed that can make it attractive,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Southwell recommends that clinicians be proactive about medical misinformation.

“Rather than expect patients to raise concerns without prompting, health care providers should invite conversations about potential misinformation with their patients,” he wrote in a recent essay in the American Journal of Public Health.

In short, ask patients what they know about the treatment of their cancer, he suggests.

“Patients don’t typically know that the misinformation they are encountering is misinformation,” said Dr. Southwell. “Approaching patients with compassion and empathy is a good first step.”
 

Study details

For the study, reported by Johnson et al., two National Comprehensive Cancer Network panel members were selected as content experts for each of the four cancers and were tasked with reviewing the primary medical claims in each article. The experts then completed a set of ratings to arrive at the proportion of misinformation and potential for harm in each article.

Of the 200 articles, 41.5% were from nontraditional news (digital only), 37.5% were from traditional news sources (online versions of print and/or broadcast media), 17% were from medical journals, 3% were from a crowdfunding site, and 1% were from personal blogs.

This expert review concluded that nearly one-third of the articles contained misinformation, as noted above. The misinformation was described as misleading (title not supported by text or statistics/data do not support conclusion, 28.8%), strength of the evidence mischaracterized (weak evidence portrayed as strong or vice versa, 27.7%) and unproven therapies (not studied or insufficient evidence, 26.7%).

Notably, the median number of engagements, such as likes on Twitter, for articles with misinformation was greater than that of factual articles (median, 2,300 vs. 1,600; P = .05).

In total, 30.5% of all 200 articles contained harmful information. This was described as harmful inaction (could lead to delay or not seeking medical attention for treatable/curable condition, 31.0%), economic harm (out-of-pocket financial costs associated with treatment/travel, 27.7%), harmful action (potentially toxic effects of the suggested test/treatment, 17.0%), and harmful interactions (known/unknown medical interactions with curative therapies, 16.2%).

The median number of engagements for articles with harmful information was statistically significantly greater than that of articles with correct information (median, 2,300 vs. 1,500; P = .007).

A limitation of the study is that it included only the most popular English language cancer articles.

This study was funded in part by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Lycette, and Dr. Southwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Some study authors have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

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

One in three of the most popular news and feature articles on social media about the treatment of the four leading cancers in the United States contains misinformation, and the majority of those have the potential to harm patients, according to a new analysis.

Of the 200 most popular articles (50 each for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer), about a third (32.5%, n = 65) contained misinformation.

Among these articles containing misinformation, 76.9% (50/65) contained harmful information.

“The Internet is a leading source of health misinformation,” the study authors wrote. This is “particularly true for social media, where false information spreads faster and more broadly than fact-checked information,” they said, citing other research.

“We need to address these issues head on,” said lead author Skyler Johnson, MD, of the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City.

“As a medical community, we can’t ignore the problem of cancer misinformation on social media or ask our patients to ignore it. We must empathize with our patients and help them when they encounter this type of information,” he said in a statement. “My goal is to help answer their questions, and provide cancer patients with accurate information that will give them the best chance for the best outcome.”

The study was published online July 22 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The study period ran from 2018 to 2019, and looked at articles posted on social media platforms Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, or Pinterest. Popularity was measured by engagement with readers, such as upvotes, comments, reactions, and shares.

Some of the articles came from long-established news entities such as CBS News, The New York Times, and medical journals, while others came from fleeting crowdfunding web pages and fledging nontraditional news sites.

One example of popular and harmful misinformation highlighted by Dr. Johnson in an interview was titled, “44-Year-Old Mother Claims CBD Oil Cured Her of Breast Cancer within 5 Months.” Posted on truththeory.com in February 2018, the article is tagged as “opinion” by the publisher and in turn links to another news story about the same woman in the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper.

The ideas and claims in such articles can be very influential, Jennifer L. Lycette, MD, suggested in a recent blog post.

“After 18 years as a cancer doctor, it sadly doesn’t come as a surprise anymore when a patient declines treatment recommendations and instead opts for ‘alternative’ treatment,” she wrote.

Sometimes, misinformation is not sensational but is still effective via clever wording and presentation, observed Brian G. Southwell, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who has studied patients and misinformation.

“It isn’t the falsehood that is somehow magically attractive, per se, but the way that misinformation is often framed that can make it attractive,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Southwell recommends that clinicians be proactive about medical misinformation.

“Rather than expect patients to raise concerns without prompting, health care providers should invite conversations about potential misinformation with their patients,” he wrote in a recent essay in the American Journal of Public Health.

In short, ask patients what they know about the treatment of their cancer, he suggests.

“Patients don’t typically know that the misinformation they are encountering is misinformation,” said Dr. Southwell. “Approaching patients with compassion and empathy is a good first step.”
 

Study details

For the study, reported by Johnson et al., two National Comprehensive Cancer Network panel members were selected as content experts for each of the four cancers and were tasked with reviewing the primary medical claims in each article. The experts then completed a set of ratings to arrive at the proportion of misinformation and potential for harm in each article.

Of the 200 articles, 41.5% were from nontraditional news (digital only), 37.5% were from traditional news sources (online versions of print and/or broadcast media), 17% were from medical journals, 3% were from a crowdfunding site, and 1% were from personal blogs.

This expert review concluded that nearly one-third of the articles contained misinformation, as noted above. The misinformation was described as misleading (title not supported by text or statistics/data do not support conclusion, 28.8%), strength of the evidence mischaracterized (weak evidence portrayed as strong or vice versa, 27.7%) and unproven therapies (not studied or insufficient evidence, 26.7%).

Notably, the median number of engagements, such as likes on Twitter, for articles with misinformation was greater than that of factual articles (median, 2,300 vs. 1,600; P = .05).

In total, 30.5% of all 200 articles contained harmful information. This was described as harmful inaction (could lead to delay or not seeking medical attention for treatable/curable condition, 31.0%), economic harm (out-of-pocket financial costs associated with treatment/travel, 27.7%), harmful action (potentially toxic effects of the suggested test/treatment, 17.0%), and harmful interactions (known/unknown medical interactions with curative therapies, 16.2%).

The median number of engagements for articles with harmful information was statistically significantly greater than that of articles with correct information (median, 2,300 vs. 1,500; P = .007).

A limitation of the study is that it included only the most popular English language cancer articles.

This study was funded in part by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Lycette, and Dr. Southwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Some study authors have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

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

One in three of the most popular news and feature articles on social media about the treatment of the four leading cancers in the United States contains misinformation, and the majority of those have the potential to harm patients, according to a new analysis.

Of the 200 most popular articles (50 each for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer), about a third (32.5%, n = 65) contained misinformation.

Among these articles containing misinformation, 76.9% (50/65) contained harmful information.

“The Internet is a leading source of health misinformation,” the study authors wrote. This is “particularly true for social media, where false information spreads faster and more broadly than fact-checked information,” they said, citing other research.

“We need to address these issues head on,” said lead author Skyler Johnson, MD, of the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City.

“As a medical community, we can’t ignore the problem of cancer misinformation on social media or ask our patients to ignore it. We must empathize with our patients and help them when they encounter this type of information,” he said in a statement. “My goal is to help answer their questions, and provide cancer patients with accurate information that will give them the best chance for the best outcome.”

The study was published online July 22 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The study period ran from 2018 to 2019, and looked at articles posted on social media platforms Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, or Pinterest. Popularity was measured by engagement with readers, such as upvotes, comments, reactions, and shares.

Some of the articles came from long-established news entities such as CBS News, The New York Times, and medical journals, while others came from fleeting crowdfunding web pages and fledging nontraditional news sites.

One example of popular and harmful misinformation highlighted by Dr. Johnson in an interview was titled, “44-Year-Old Mother Claims CBD Oil Cured Her of Breast Cancer within 5 Months.” Posted on truththeory.com in February 2018, the article is tagged as “opinion” by the publisher and in turn links to another news story about the same woman in the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper.

The ideas and claims in such articles can be very influential, Jennifer L. Lycette, MD, suggested in a recent blog post.

“After 18 years as a cancer doctor, it sadly doesn’t come as a surprise anymore when a patient declines treatment recommendations and instead opts for ‘alternative’ treatment,” she wrote.

Sometimes, misinformation is not sensational but is still effective via clever wording and presentation, observed Brian G. Southwell, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who has studied patients and misinformation.

“It isn’t the falsehood that is somehow magically attractive, per se, but the way that misinformation is often framed that can make it attractive,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Southwell recommends that clinicians be proactive about medical misinformation.

“Rather than expect patients to raise concerns without prompting, health care providers should invite conversations about potential misinformation with their patients,” he wrote in a recent essay in the American Journal of Public Health.

In short, ask patients what they know about the treatment of their cancer, he suggests.

“Patients don’t typically know that the misinformation they are encountering is misinformation,” said Dr. Southwell. “Approaching patients with compassion and empathy is a good first step.”
 

Study details

For the study, reported by Johnson et al., two National Comprehensive Cancer Network panel members were selected as content experts for each of the four cancers and were tasked with reviewing the primary medical claims in each article. The experts then completed a set of ratings to arrive at the proportion of misinformation and potential for harm in each article.

Of the 200 articles, 41.5% were from nontraditional news (digital only), 37.5% were from traditional news sources (online versions of print and/or broadcast media), 17% were from medical journals, 3% were from a crowdfunding site, and 1% were from personal blogs.

This expert review concluded that nearly one-third of the articles contained misinformation, as noted above. The misinformation was described as misleading (title not supported by text or statistics/data do not support conclusion, 28.8%), strength of the evidence mischaracterized (weak evidence portrayed as strong or vice versa, 27.7%) and unproven therapies (not studied or insufficient evidence, 26.7%).

Notably, the median number of engagements, such as likes on Twitter, for articles with misinformation was greater than that of factual articles (median, 2,300 vs. 1,600; P = .05).

In total, 30.5% of all 200 articles contained harmful information. This was described as harmful inaction (could lead to delay or not seeking medical attention for treatable/curable condition, 31.0%), economic harm (out-of-pocket financial costs associated with treatment/travel, 27.7%), harmful action (potentially toxic effects of the suggested test/treatment, 17.0%), and harmful interactions (known/unknown medical interactions with curative therapies, 16.2%).

The median number of engagements for articles with harmful information was statistically significantly greater than that of articles with correct information (median, 2,300 vs. 1,500; P = .007).

A limitation of the study is that it included only the most popular English language cancer articles.

This study was funded in part by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Lycette, and Dr. Southwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Some study authors have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

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

When used for appropriate patients, MRI imaging is helpful in congenital melanocytic nevus (CMN) management and may help predict neurologic outcomes or drive neurosurgical intervention, results from a small multi-institutional study showed.

“The majority of congenital nevi are considered low risk for cutaneous and/or systemic complications,” Holly Neale said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “However, a subset of children born with higher-risk congenital nevi require close monitoring, as some features of congenital nevi have been associated with cutaneous melanoma, central nervous system melanoma, melanin in the brain or spine, and structural irregularities in the brain or spine. It’s important to understand which congenital nevi are considered higher risk in order to guide management and counseling decisions.”

One major management decision is to do a screening magnetic resonance image of the CNS to evaluate for neurologic involvement, said Ms. Neale, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. Prior studies have shown that congenital nevi that are bigger than 20 cm, posterior axial location, and having more than one congenital nevus may predict CNS abnormalities, while recent guidelines from experts in the field suggest that any child with more than one congenital nevus at birth undergo screening MRI.

“However, guidelines are evolving, and more data is required to better understand the CNS abnormalities and patient outcomes for children with congenital nevi,” said Ms. Neale, who spent the past year as a pediatric dermatology research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

To address this knowledge gap, she and colleagues at the University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Boston Children’s Hospital performed a retrospective chart review between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2019, of individuals ages 18 and younger who had an MRI of the brain or spine with at least one dermatologist-diagnosed nevus as identified via key words in the medical record. Of the 909 patients screened, 46 met inclusion criteria, evenly split between males and females.

The most common location of the largest nevus was the trunk (in 41% of patients), followed by lesions that spanned multiple regions. More than one-third of patients had giant nevi (greater than 40 cm).

“The majority of images were considered nonconcerning, which includes normal, benign, or other findings such as trauma related, infectious, or orthopedic, which we did not classify as abnormal as it did not guide our study question,” Ms. Neale said. Specifically, 8% of spine images and 27% of brain images were considered “concerning,” defined as any finding that prompted further workup or monitoring, which includes findings concerning for melanin.

The most common brain finding was melanin (in eight children), and one child with brain melanin also had findings suggestive of melanin in the thoracic spine. The most common finding in spine MRIs was fatty filum (in four children), requiring intervention for tethering in only one individual. No cases of cutaneous melanoma developed during the study period, and only one patient with abnormal imaging had CNS melanoma, which was fatal.

All patients with findings suggestive of CNS melanin had more than four nevi present at birth, which is in line with current imaging screening guidelines. In addition, children with concerning imaging had higher rates of death, neurodevelopmental problems, seizures, and neurosurgery, compared with their counterparts with unremarkable imaging findings. Describing preliminary analyses, Ms. Neale said that a chi square analysis was performed to test statistical significance of these differences, “and neurosurgery was the only variable that children with concerning imaging were significantly more likely to experience, although sample size limits detection for the other variables.”

The authors concluded that MRI is a helpful tool when used in the appropriate clinical context for the management of congenital nevi. “As more children undergo imaging, we may discover more nonmelanin abnormalities,” she said.

Joseph M. Lam, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the increased risk of CNS melanin in patients with larger lesions and in those with multiple lesions confirms previous reports.

“It is interesting to note that some patients with nonconcerning imaging results still had neurodevelopmental problems and seizures, albeit at a lower rate than those with concerning imaging results,” said Dr. Lam, a pediatric dermatologist at British Columbia Children’s Hospital, Vancouver. “The lack of a control group for comparison of rates of neurological sequelae, such as NDP, seizures and nonmelanin structural anomalies, limits the generalizability of the findings. However, this is a nice study that helps us understand better the CNS anomalies in CMN.”

Ms. Neale acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the lack of a control group without CMN, the small number of patients, the potential for referral bias, and its retrospective design. Also, the proximity of the study period does not allow for chronic follow-up and detection of the development of melanoma or other problems in the future.

Ms. Neale and associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lam disclosed that he has received speaker fees from Pierre Fabre.

[email protected]

When used for appropriate patients, MRI imaging is helpful in congenital melanocytic nevus (CMN) management and may help predict neurologic outcomes or drive neurosurgical intervention, results from a small multi-institutional study showed.

“The majority of congenital nevi are considered low risk for cutaneous and/or systemic complications,” Holly Neale said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “However, a subset of children born with higher-risk congenital nevi require close monitoring, as some features of congenital nevi have been associated with cutaneous melanoma, central nervous system melanoma, melanin in the brain or spine, and structural irregularities in the brain or spine. It’s important to understand which congenital nevi are considered higher risk in order to guide management and counseling decisions.”

One major management decision is to do a screening magnetic resonance image of the CNS to evaluate for neurologic involvement, said Ms. Neale, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. Prior studies have shown that congenital nevi that are bigger than 20 cm, posterior axial location, and having more than one congenital nevus may predict CNS abnormalities, while recent guidelines from experts in the field suggest that any child with more than one congenital nevus at birth undergo screening MRI.

“However, guidelines are evolving, and more data is required to better understand the CNS abnormalities and patient outcomes for children with congenital nevi,” said Ms. Neale, who spent the past year as a pediatric dermatology research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

To address this knowledge gap, she and colleagues at the University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Boston Children’s Hospital performed a retrospective chart review between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2019, of individuals ages 18 and younger who had an MRI of the brain or spine with at least one dermatologist-diagnosed nevus as identified via key words in the medical record. Of the 909 patients screened, 46 met inclusion criteria, evenly split between males and females.

The most common location of the largest nevus was the trunk (in 41% of patients), followed by lesions that spanned multiple regions. More than one-third of patients had giant nevi (greater than 40 cm).

“The majority of images were considered nonconcerning, which includes normal, benign, or other findings such as trauma related, infectious, or orthopedic, which we did not classify as abnormal as it did not guide our study question,” Ms. Neale said. Specifically, 8% of spine images and 27% of brain images were considered “concerning,” defined as any finding that prompted further workup or monitoring, which includes findings concerning for melanin.

The most common brain finding was melanin (in eight children), and one child with brain melanin also had findings suggestive of melanin in the thoracic spine. The most common finding in spine MRIs was fatty filum (in four children), requiring intervention for tethering in only one individual. No cases of cutaneous melanoma developed during the study period, and only one patient with abnormal imaging had CNS melanoma, which was fatal.

All patients with findings suggestive of CNS melanin had more than four nevi present at birth, which is in line with current imaging screening guidelines. In addition, children with concerning imaging had higher rates of death, neurodevelopmental problems, seizures, and neurosurgery, compared with their counterparts with unremarkable imaging findings. Describing preliminary analyses, Ms. Neale said that a chi square analysis was performed to test statistical significance of these differences, “and neurosurgery was the only variable that children with concerning imaging were significantly more likely to experience, although sample size limits detection for the other variables.”

The authors concluded that MRI is a helpful tool when used in the appropriate clinical context for the management of congenital nevi. “As more children undergo imaging, we may discover more nonmelanin abnormalities,” she said.

Joseph M. Lam, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the increased risk of CNS melanin in patients with larger lesions and in those with multiple lesions confirms previous reports.

“It is interesting to note that some patients with nonconcerning imaging results still had neurodevelopmental problems and seizures, albeit at a lower rate than those with concerning imaging results,” said Dr. Lam, a pediatric dermatologist at British Columbia Children’s Hospital, Vancouver. “The lack of a control group for comparison of rates of neurological sequelae, such as NDP, seizures and nonmelanin structural anomalies, limits the generalizability of the findings. However, this is a nice study that helps us understand better the CNS anomalies in CMN.”

Ms. Neale acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the lack of a control group without CMN, the small number of patients, the potential for referral bias, and its retrospective design. Also, the proximity of the study period does not allow for chronic follow-up and detection of the development of melanoma or other problems in the future.

Ms. Neale and associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lam disclosed that he has received speaker fees from Pierre Fabre.

[email protected]

When used for appropriate patients, MRI imaging is helpful in congenital melanocytic nevus (CMN) management and may help predict neurologic outcomes or drive neurosurgical intervention, results from a small multi-institutional study showed.

“The majority of congenital nevi are considered low risk for cutaneous and/or systemic complications,” Holly Neale said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “However, a subset of children born with higher-risk congenital nevi require close monitoring, as some features of congenital nevi have been associated with cutaneous melanoma, central nervous system melanoma, melanin in the brain or spine, and structural irregularities in the brain or spine. It’s important to understand which congenital nevi are considered higher risk in order to guide management and counseling decisions.”

One major management decision is to do a screening magnetic resonance image of the CNS to evaluate for neurologic involvement, said Ms. Neale, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. Prior studies have shown that congenital nevi that are bigger than 20 cm, posterior axial location, and having more than one congenital nevus may predict CNS abnormalities, while recent guidelines from experts in the field suggest that any child with more than one congenital nevus at birth undergo screening MRI.

“However, guidelines are evolving, and more data is required to better understand the CNS abnormalities and patient outcomes for children with congenital nevi,” said Ms. Neale, who spent the past year as a pediatric dermatology research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

To address this knowledge gap, she and colleagues at the University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Boston Children’s Hospital performed a retrospective chart review between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2019, of individuals ages 18 and younger who had an MRI of the brain or spine with at least one dermatologist-diagnosed nevus as identified via key words in the medical record. Of the 909 patients screened, 46 met inclusion criteria, evenly split between males and females.

The most common location of the largest nevus was the trunk (in 41% of patients), followed by lesions that spanned multiple regions. More than one-third of patients had giant nevi (greater than 40 cm).

“The majority of images were considered nonconcerning, which includes normal, benign, or other findings such as trauma related, infectious, or orthopedic, which we did not classify as abnormal as it did not guide our study question,” Ms. Neale said. Specifically, 8% of spine images and 27% of brain images were considered “concerning,” defined as any finding that prompted further workup or monitoring, which includes findings concerning for melanin.

The most common brain finding was melanin (in eight children), and one child with brain melanin also had findings suggestive of melanin in the thoracic spine. The most common finding in spine MRIs was fatty filum (in four children), requiring intervention for tethering in only one individual. No cases of cutaneous melanoma developed during the study period, and only one patient with abnormal imaging had CNS melanoma, which was fatal.

All patients with findings suggestive of CNS melanin had more than four nevi present at birth, which is in line with current imaging screening guidelines. In addition, children with concerning imaging had higher rates of death, neurodevelopmental problems, seizures, and neurosurgery, compared with their counterparts with unremarkable imaging findings. Describing preliminary analyses, Ms. Neale said that a chi square analysis was performed to test statistical significance of these differences, “and neurosurgery was the only variable that children with concerning imaging were significantly more likely to experience, although sample size limits detection for the other variables.”

The authors concluded that MRI is a helpful tool when used in the appropriate clinical context for the management of congenital nevi. “As more children undergo imaging, we may discover more nonmelanin abnormalities,” she said.

Joseph M. Lam, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the increased risk of CNS melanin in patients with larger lesions and in those with multiple lesions confirms previous reports.

“It is interesting to note that some patients with nonconcerning imaging results still had neurodevelopmental problems and seizures, albeit at a lower rate than those with concerning imaging results,” said Dr. Lam, a pediatric dermatologist at British Columbia Children’s Hospital, Vancouver. “The lack of a control group for comparison of rates of neurological sequelae, such as NDP, seizures and nonmelanin structural anomalies, limits the generalizability of the findings. However, this is a nice study that helps us understand better the CNS anomalies in CMN.”

Ms. Neale acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the lack of a control group without CMN, the small number of patients, the potential for referral bias, and its retrospective design. Also, the proximity of the study period does not allow for chronic follow-up and detection of the development of melanoma or other problems in the future.

Ms. Neale and associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lam disclosed that he has received speaker fees from Pierre Fabre.

[email protected]

Declining trends in melanoma death rates accelerated from 2014 to 2018 in the United States, even as incidence rates increased for both males and females, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

“Death rates for cutaneous melanoma have declined rapidly in recent years following introduction of new therapies, including targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the first of which was approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] in early 2011,” Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, and associates wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The American Cancer Society, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, issue a joint report each year to update the incidence and mortality of the most common cancers and analyze short- and long-term trends since 2001.

Long-term melanoma mortality gets divided into two trends: First a slow decline over about a decade, then an accelerated decline until the end of the study period, although the timing is slightly different between males and females. For men, the death rate fell by an average of 0.9% a year from 2001 to 2009, compared with 5.7% per year in 2013-2018. For women, the average annual change went from –0.3% for 2001-2012 to –4.4% in 2012-2018.

The incidence of melanoma, however, headed in the opposite direction, rising 1.9% per year for females and 2.2% for males from 2001 to 2017, without the notable change in trend seen with death rates, Dr. Islami and associates said.

Incidence by race/ethnicity, reported for 2013-2017, shows that melanoma is much more common among white non-Hispanics: 37.4 per 100,000 standard population for males and 24.5 for females. Non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives were next at 10.8 (men) and 6.7 (women), followed by Hispanics (5.1/4.5), non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders (1.6/1.3), and non-Hispanic Blacks (1.2/1.0), they reported.

Death rates for melanoma, reported for 2014-2018, follow a similar pattern. White males (4.2 per 100,000) and females (1.8 per 100,000) had the highest mortality, then American Indians/Alaska Natives (1.0/0.5) and Hispanics (0.9/0.5), but rates were the same for Blacks and Asians/Pacific Islanders (0.4/0.3), the investigators said.

The accelerated decline in death rates in more recent years reflects “a substantial increase in survival for metastatic melanoma,” the participating organizations noted in a joint statement.

Increases in 2-year survival in distant-stage disease averaged 3.1% per year for those diagnosed during 2009-2014, which “slightly preceded the FDA approval of new therapies, likely because of the administration of these therapies through clinical trials and the FDA expanded access programs prior to the approval,” Dr. Islami and associates wrote.

The 2-year relative survival for those with nonmetastatic melanoma also improved over the study period, but the increases were much smaller: 0.4% per year for regional-stage disease and just 0.03% localized-stage cases diagnosed in 2001-2014, they reported.

The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

Declining trends in melanoma death rates accelerated from 2014 to 2018 in the United States, even as incidence rates increased for both males and females, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

“Death rates for cutaneous melanoma have declined rapidly in recent years following introduction of new therapies, including targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the first of which was approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] in early 2011,” Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, and associates wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The American Cancer Society, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, issue a joint report each year to update the incidence and mortality of the most common cancers and analyze short- and long-term trends since 2001.

Long-term melanoma mortality gets divided into two trends: First a slow decline over about a decade, then an accelerated decline until the end of the study period, although the timing is slightly different between males and females. For men, the death rate fell by an average of 0.9% a year from 2001 to 2009, compared with 5.7% per year in 2013-2018. For women, the average annual change went from –0.3% for 2001-2012 to –4.4% in 2012-2018.

The incidence of melanoma, however, headed in the opposite direction, rising 1.9% per year for females and 2.2% for males from 2001 to 2017, without the notable change in trend seen with death rates, Dr. Islami and associates said.

Incidence by race/ethnicity, reported for 2013-2017, shows that melanoma is much more common among white non-Hispanics: 37.4 per 100,000 standard population for males and 24.5 for females. Non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives were next at 10.8 (men) and 6.7 (women), followed by Hispanics (5.1/4.5), non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders (1.6/1.3), and non-Hispanic Blacks (1.2/1.0), they reported.

Death rates for melanoma, reported for 2014-2018, follow a similar pattern. White males (4.2 per 100,000) and females (1.8 per 100,000) had the highest mortality, then American Indians/Alaska Natives (1.0/0.5) and Hispanics (0.9/0.5), but rates were the same for Blacks and Asians/Pacific Islanders (0.4/0.3), the investigators said.

The accelerated decline in death rates in more recent years reflects “a substantial increase in survival for metastatic melanoma,” the participating organizations noted in a joint statement.

Increases in 2-year survival in distant-stage disease averaged 3.1% per year for those diagnosed during 2009-2014, which “slightly preceded the FDA approval of new therapies, likely because of the administration of these therapies through clinical trials and the FDA expanded access programs prior to the approval,” Dr. Islami and associates wrote.

The 2-year relative survival for those with nonmetastatic melanoma also improved over the study period, but the increases were much smaller: 0.4% per year for regional-stage disease and just 0.03% localized-stage cases diagnosed in 2001-2014, they reported.

The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

Declining trends in melanoma death rates accelerated from 2014 to 2018 in the United States, even as incidence rates increased for both males and females, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

“Death rates for cutaneous melanoma have declined rapidly in recent years following introduction of new therapies, including targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the first of which was approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] in early 2011,” Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, and associates wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The American Cancer Society, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, issue a joint report each year to update the incidence and mortality of the most common cancers and analyze short- and long-term trends since 2001.

Long-term melanoma mortality gets divided into two trends: First a slow decline over about a decade, then an accelerated decline until the end of the study period, although the timing is slightly different between males and females. For men, the death rate fell by an average of 0.9% a year from 2001 to 2009, compared with 5.7% per year in 2013-2018. For women, the average annual change went from –0.3% for 2001-2012 to –4.4% in 2012-2018.

The incidence of melanoma, however, headed in the opposite direction, rising 1.9% per year for females and 2.2% for males from 2001 to 2017, without the notable change in trend seen with death rates, Dr. Islami and associates said.

Incidence by race/ethnicity, reported for 2013-2017, shows that melanoma is much more common among white non-Hispanics: 37.4 per 100,000 standard population for males and 24.5 for females. Non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives were next at 10.8 (men) and 6.7 (women), followed by Hispanics (5.1/4.5), non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders (1.6/1.3), and non-Hispanic Blacks (1.2/1.0), they reported.

Death rates for melanoma, reported for 2014-2018, follow a similar pattern. White males (4.2 per 100,000) and females (1.8 per 100,000) had the highest mortality, then American Indians/Alaska Natives (1.0/0.5) and Hispanics (0.9/0.5), but rates were the same for Blacks and Asians/Pacific Islanders (0.4/0.3), the investigators said.

The accelerated decline in death rates in more recent years reflects “a substantial increase in survival for metastatic melanoma,” the participating organizations noted in a joint statement.

Increases in 2-year survival in distant-stage disease averaged 3.1% per year for those diagnosed during 2009-2014, which “slightly preceded the FDA approval of new therapies, likely because of the administration of these therapies through clinical trials and the FDA expanded access programs prior to the approval,” Dr. Islami and associates wrote.

The 2-year relative survival for those with nonmetastatic melanoma also improved over the study period, but the increases were much smaller: 0.4% per year for regional-stage disease and just 0.03% localized-stage cases diagnosed in 2001-2014, they reported.

The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

Consumers should stop using certain brands of spray-on sunscreen products made by Johnson & Johnson. The company has issued a voluntary recall after finding low levels of benzene, a known cancer-causing agent, in some samples.

Benzene is not an ingredient of sunscreen, and should not be present in these products. The levels detected were low and would not be expected to have an adverse effect on health, but the company says it is recalling the products anyway “out of an abundance of caution.”

The sunscreen products that have been recalled are:

• NEUTROGENA® Beach Defense® aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Cool Dry Sport aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Invisible Daily™ defense aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Ultra Sheer® aerosol sunscreen.
• AVEENO® Protect + Refresh aerosol sunscreen.

These products were distributed nationwide through a variety of retail stores. Consumers should stop using these products and throw them away, the company said.

At the same time, it emphasized the importance of using alternative sunscreen products to protect the skin from excessive sun exposure, which can lead to skin cancer including melanoma.

Johnson & Johnson has launched an investigation into how benzene got into these products.

One of the company’s other spray sunscreen products, Neutrogena Wet Skin, was not included in the recall.

Recently, benzene was found in 78 widely-used sunscreen products in tests conducted by the online pharmacy and laboratory Valisure. Most of the products were aerosol sprays, and the company called on the Food and Drug Administration to recall them all.

That petition suggested that the finding of benzene was the result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process.

“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”

There is a risk that people take away the wrong message from these findings.

“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.

He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.

On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, he said.

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

Consumers should stop using certain brands of spray-on sunscreen products made by Johnson & Johnson. The company has issued a voluntary recall after finding low levels of benzene, a known cancer-causing agent, in some samples.

Benzene is not an ingredient of sunscreen, and should not be present in these products. The levels detected were low and would not be expected to have an adverse effect on health, but the company says it is recalling the products anyway “out of an abundance of caution.”

The sunscreen products that have been recalled are:

• NEUTROGENA® Beach Defense® aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Cool Dry Sport aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Invisible Daily™ defense aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Ultra Sheer® aerosol sunscreen.
• AVEENO® Protect + Refresh aerosol sunscreen.

These products were distributed nationwide through a variety of retail stores. Consumers should stop using these products and throw them away, the company said.

At the same time, it emphasized the importance of using alternative sunscreen products to protect the skin from excessive sun exposure, which can lead to skin cancer including melanoma.

Johnson & Johnson has launched an investigation into how benzene got into these products.

One of the company’s other spray sunscreen products, Neutrogena Wet Skin, was not included in the recall.

Recently, benzene was found in 78 widely-used sunscreen products in tests conducted by the online pharmacy and laboratory Valisure. Most of the products were aerosol sprays, and the company called on the Food and Drug Administration to recall them all.

That petition suggested that the finding of benzene was the result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process.

“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”

There is a risk that people take away the wrong message from these findings.

“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.

He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.

On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, he said.

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

Consumers should stop using certain brands of spray-on sunscreen products made by Johnson & Johnson. The company has issued a voluntary recall after finding low levels of benzene, a known cancer-causing agent, in some samples.

Benzene is not an ingredient of sunscreen, and should not be present in these products. The levels detected were low and would not be expected to have an adverse effect on health, but the company says it is recalling the products anyway “out of an abundance of caution.”

The sunscreen products that have been recalled are:

• NEUTROGENA® Beach Defense® aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Cool Dry Sport aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Invisible Daily™ defense aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Ultra Sheer® aerosol sunscreen.
• AVEENO® Protect + Refresh aerosol sunscreen.

These products were distributed nationwide through a variety of retail stores. Consumers should stop using these products and throw them away, the company said.

At the same time, it emphasized the importance of using alternative sunscreen products to protect the skin from excessive sun exposure, which can lead to skin cancer including melanoma.

Johnson & Johnson has launched an investigation into how benzene got into these products.

One of the company’s other spray sunscreen products, Neutrogena Wet Skin, was not included in the recall.

Recently, benzene was found in 78 widely-used sunscreen products in tests conducted by the online pharmacy and laboratory Valisure. Most of the products were aerosol sprays, and the company called on the Food and Drug Administration to recall them all.

That petition suggested that the finding of benzene was the result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process.

“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”

There is a risk that people take away the wrong message from these findings.

“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.

He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.

On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, he said.

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