Melanoma

Overall cancer mortality in females continues to decrease in the United States, but “previous declining trends in death rates slowed” for breast cancer in recent years, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

The analysis of long-term trends in cancer death rates shows that a decline of 1.4% per year from 2001 to 2016 accelerated to 2.1% per year in 2016-2018, the American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries said.

Decreases in overall cancer mortality were seen in females of all races and ethnic groups over the most recent 5-year period included in the report, 2014-2018, varying from –1.6% per year in both non-Hispanic Blacks and Whites to –0.9% for non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and associates said in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Over those 5 years, death rates fell for 14 of the 20 most common cancers in females; increased for liver, uterus, brain, pancreas, and soft tissue including heart; and remained stable for cancers of the oral cavity/pharynx, they reported.

Breast cancer was among those that declined, but the rate of that decline has been slowing. Mortality declined by an average of 2.3% per year in 2003-2007, by 1.6% a year in 2007-2014, and by just 1.0% annually during 2014-2018, based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics’ National Vital Statistics System.

Mortality from all cancers in 2014-2018 was 133.5 deaths per 100,000 standard population, with the racial/ethnic gap ranging from 85.4 per 100,000 (non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander) to 154.9 (non-Hispanic Black), Dr. Islami and associates said.

Melanoma had the largest decline in mortality over that period among the 20 most common cancers in females, falling by an average of 4.4% per year, with lung cancer next at 4.3%. Among those with increased death rates, uterine cancer saw the largest rise at 2.0% a year, the research team said.

The deaths caused by cancer of the uterus were most common in non-Hispanic Black females, 8.9 per 100,000 population, followed by non-Hispanic White (4.5), Hispanic (4.1), non-Hispanic AI/AN (4.0), and non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander (3.3), they reported.

“Long-term increasing trends in uterine cancer death rates parallel trends in incidence, although death rates are increasing at a somewhat faster rate. Increasing uterine cancer incidence has been attributed to increasing obesity prevalence and decreased use of combined hormone replacement therapy,” Dr. Islami and associates pointed out.

Breast cancer deaths also were most common among Blacks in 2014-2018, occurring at a rate of 28.2 per 100,000, as were deaths from cancer of the cervix (3.4 per 100,000), while ovarian cancers deaths were highest in White females (7.1 per 100,000), the researchers noted.

The continuing racial and ethnic disparity “largely reflects a combination of multiple intertwined factors” of tumor biology, diagnosis, treatment, and systemic discrimination, they wrote, adding that Black persons “are more likely to have a higher exposure to some cancer risk factors and limited access to healthy food, safe places for physical activity, and evidence-based cancer preventive services.”

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]

Overall cancer mortality in females continues to decrease in the United States, but “previous declining trends in death rates slowed” for breast cancer in recent years, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

The analysis of long-term trends in cancer death rates shows that a decline of 1.4% per year from 2001 to 2016 accelerated to 2.1% per year in 2016-2018, the American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries said.

Decreases in overall cancer mortality were seen in females of all races and ethnic groups over the most recent 5-year period included in the report, 2014-2018, varying from –1.6% per year in both non-Hispanic Blacks and Whites to –0.9% for non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and associates said in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Over those 5 years, death rates fell for 14 of the 20 most common cancers in females; increased for liver, uterus, brain, pancreas, and soft tissue including heart; and remained stable for cancers of the oral cavity/pharynx, they reported.

Breast cancer was among those that declined, but the rate of that decline has been slowing. Mortality declined by an average of 2.3% per year in 2003-2007, by 1.6% a year in 2007-2014, and by just 1.0% annually during 2014-2018, based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics’ National Vital Statistics System.

Mortality from all cancers in 2014-2018 was 133.5 deaths per 100,000 standard population, with the racial/ethnic gap ranging from 85.4 per 100,000 (non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander) to 154.9 (non-Hispanic Black), Dr. Islami and associates said.

Melanoma had the largest decline in mortality over that period among the 20 most common cancers in females, falling by an average of 4.4% per year, with lung cancer next at 4.3%. Among those with increased death rates, uterine cancer saw the largest rise at 2.0% a year, the research team said.

The deaths caused by cancer of the uterus were most common in non-Hispanic Black females, 8.9 per 100,000 population, followed by non-Hispanic White (4.5), Hispanic (4.1), non-Hispanic AI/AN (4.0), and non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander (3.3), they reported.

“Long-term increasing trends in uterine cancer death rates parallel trends in incidence, although death rates are increasing at a somewhat faster rate. Increasing uterine cancer incidence has been attributed to increasing obesity prevalence and decreased use of combined hormone replacement therapy,” Dr. Islami and associates pointed out.

Breast cancer deaths also were most common among Blacks in 2014-2018, occurring at a rate of 28.2 per 100,000, as were deaths from cancer of the cervix (3.4 per 100,000), while ovarian cancers deaths were highest in White females (7.1 per 100,000), the researchers noted.

The continuing racial and ethnic disparity “largely reflects a combination of multiple intertwined factors” of tumor biology, diagnosis, treatment, and systemic discrimination, they wrote, adding that Black persons “are more likely to have a higher exposure to some cancer risk factors and limited access to healthy food, safe places for physical activity, and evidence-based cancer preventive services.”

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]

Overall cancer mortality in females continues to decrease in the United States, but “previous declining trends in death rates slowed” for breast cancer in recent years, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

The analysis of long-term trends in cancer death rates shows that a decline of 1.4% per year from 2001 to 2016 accelerated to 2.1% per year in 2016-2018, the American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries said.

Decreases in overall cancer mortality were seen in females of all races and ethnic groups over the most recent 5-year period included in the report, 2014-2018, varying from –1.6% per year in both non-Hispanic Blacks and Whites to –0.9% for non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and associates said in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Over those 5 years, death rates fell for 14 of the 20 most common cancers in females; increased for liver, uterus, brain, pancreas, and soft tissue including heart; and remained stable for cancers of the oral cavity/pharynx, they reported.

Breast cancer was among those that declined, but the rate of that decline has been slowing. Mortality declined by an average of 2.3% per year in 2003-2007, by 1.6% a year in 2007-2014, and by just 1.0% annually during 2014-2018, based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics’ National Vital Statistics System.

Mortality from all cancers in 2014-2018 was 133.5 deaths per 100,000 standard population, with the racial/ethnic gap ranging from 85.4 per 100,000 (non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander) to 154.9 (non-Hispanic Black), Dr. Islami and associates said.

Melanoma had the largest decline in mortality over that period among the 20 most common cancers in females, falling by an average of 4.4% per year, with lung cancer next at 4.3%. Among those with increased death rates, uterine cancer saw the largest rise at 2.0% a year, the research team said.

The deaths caused by cancer of the uterus were most common in non-Hispanic Black females, 8.9 per 100,000 population, followed by non-Hispanic White (4.5), Hispanic (4.1), non-Hispanic AI/AN (4.0), and non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander (3.3), they reported.

“Long-term increasing trends in uterine cancer death rates parallel trends in incidence, although death rates are increasing at a somewhat faster rate. Increasing uterine cancer incidence has been attributed to increasing obesity prevalence and decreased use of combined hormone replacement therapy,” Dr. Islami and associates pointed out.

Breast cancer deaths also were most common among Blacks in 2014-2018, occurring at a rate of 28.2 per 100,000, as were deaths from cancer of the cervix (3.4 per 100,000), while ovarian cancers deaths were highest in White females (7.1 per 100,000), the researchers noted.

The continuing racial and ethnic disparity “largely reflects a combination of multiple intertwined factors” of tumor biology, diagnosis, treatment, and systemic discrimination, they wrote, adding that Black persons “are more likely to have a higher exposure to some cancer risk factors and limited access to healthy food, safe places for physical activity, and evidence-based cancer preventive services.”

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]

Evaluation of a large insurance claims database has provided some insight into how ICD-10 indoor tanning codes are being used in practice, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

thinkstockphotos.com

“Since indoor tanning ICD-10 codes were only recently universally implemented in 2015, and providers may still be using other codes that cover similar services, we think our data likely underestimate the number of encounters and sequelae associated with indoor tanning,” Alexandria M. Brown, BSA, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in her presentation. “We think increased usage of these indoor tanning exposure codes in coming years will strengthen this body of indoor tanning literature and data.”

Using insurance claims data on about 43 million patients from Truven Health MarketScan, Ms. Brown and colleagues analyzed patient encounters with ICD-10 indoor tanning codes W89.1, W89.1XXA, W89.1XXD, and W89.1XXS between 2016 and 2018 for about 43 million patients. Overall, there were 4,550 patient encounters where these codes had been recorded, with most (99%) occurring in an outpatient setting. The majority of providers at these encounters were dermatologists (72%). Patients were mostly women (85%); and most were ages 25-34 years (19.4%), 35-44 years (20.6%), 45-54 years (22.7%), and 55-64 years (19%). Almost 5% were 65 and over, 11.7% were ages 18-24, and 1.6% were under age 18.

The use of indoor tanning codes were most common in the Midwest (55 per 100,000 encounters with dermatologists), compared with 16 per 100,000 in the Northeast, 21 per 100,000 in the West, and 28 per 100,000 in the South. CPT codes for “destruction of a premalignant lesion” and “biopsy” were the most frequently used codes entered at visits where indoor tanning codes were also entered, and were present in 15.1% of encounters and 18.4% of encounters, respectively.

“This suggests that many of these encounters may have been for skin cancer surveillance and that indoor tanning exposure may have been coded as part of a patient’s skin cancer risk profile,” Ms. Brown noted.

The study shows how these codes are being used and could help determine health care use patterns for these patients as well as their comorbidities, behaviors, and risk factors, according to the authors, who believe this is the first study to look at the use of ICD-10 indoor tanning codes.

“Any effort to reduce indoor tanning requires knowledge of the population at risk. It has been shown that the ability to recognize and provide counseling to at-risk patients can improve sun protective behaviors and reduce indoor tanning,” Ms. Brown said. Claims databases can be a “valuable tool to better understand patients who have been exposed to indoor tanning and their associated risk factors, comorbidities, behaviors, and health care utilization.”

In an interview, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the study was interesting and “provides some guidance with respect to who, when, and where in the U.S. to target educational initiatives on the harms of tanning beds.”

Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research, agreed with the authors’ assertion that their study was underestimating the use of indoor tanning beds. “Using a large database provides the means to better generalize one’s dataset; however in this case, it relies on proper coding by the practitioner,” or even using the code for tanning bed use at all.

“There also could be some inherent bias given most of the cases for which the code was used was for skin cancer surveillance, and therefore tanning bed use was top of mind,” he said.

While he believes this study may not be most efficient way of determining demographics of at-risk individuals using tanning beds, Dr. Friedman said the results “should serve as the impetus to develop public health campaigns around this information, following which research can be conducted to evaluate if the intervention had an impact.”

Ms. Brown and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Evaluation of a large insurance claims database has provided some insight into how ICD-10 indoor tanning codes are being used in practice, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

thinkstockphotos.com

“Since indoor tanning ICD-10 codes were only recently universally implemented in 2015, and providers may still be using other codes that cover similar services, we think our data likely underestimate the number of encounters and sequelae associated with indoor tanning,” Alexandria M. Brown, BSA, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in her presentation. “We think increased usage of these indoor tanning exposure codes in coming years will strengthen this body of indoor tanning literature and data.”

Using insurance claims data on about 43 million patients from Truven Health MarketScan, Ms. Brown and colleagues analyzed patient encounters with ICD-10 indoor tanning codes W89.1, W89.1XXA, W89.1XXD, and W89.1XXS between 2016 and 2018 for about 43 million patients. Overall, there were 4,550 patient encounters where these codes had been recorded, with most (99%) occurring in an outpatient setting. The majority of providers at these encounters were dermatologists (72%). Patients were mostly women (85%); and most were ages 25-34 years (19.4%), 35-44 years (20.6%), 45-54 years (22.7%), and 55-64 years (19%). Almost 5% were 65 and over, 11.7% were ages 18-24, and 1.6% were under age 18.

The use of indoor tanning codes were most common in the Midwest (55 per 100,000 encounters with dermatologists), compared with 16 per 100,000 in the Northeast, 21 per 100,000 in the West, and 28 per 100,000 in the South. CPT codes for “destruction of a premalignant lesion” and “biopsy” were the most frequently used codes entered at visits where indoor tanning codes were also entered, and were present in 15.1% of encounters and 18.4% of encounters, respectively.

“This suggests that many of these encounters may have been for skin cancer surveillance and that indoor tanning exposure may have been coded as part of a patient’s skin cancer risk profile,” Ms. Brown noted.

The study shows how these codes are being used and could help determine health care use patterns for these patients as well as their comorbidities, behaviors, and risk factors, according to the authors, who believe this is the first study to look at the use of ICD-10 indoor tanning codes.

“Any effort to reduce indoor tanning requires knowledge of the population at risk. It has been shown that the ability to recognize and provide counseling to at-risk patients can improve sun protective behaviors and reduce indoor tanning,” Ms. Brown said. Claims databases can be a “valuable tool to better understand patients who have been exposed to indoor tanning and their associated risk factors, comorbidities, behaviors, and health care utilization.”

In an interview, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the study was interesting and “provides some guidance with respect to who, when, and where in the U.S. to target educational initiatives on the harms of tanning beds.”

Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research, agreed with the authors’ assertion that their study was underestimating the use of indoor tanning beds. “Using a large database provides the means to better generalize one’s dataset; however in this case, it relies on proper coding by the practitioner,” or even using the code for tanning bed use at all.

“There also could be some inherent bias given most of the cases for which the code was used was for skin cancer surveillance, and therefore tanning bed use was top of mind,” he said.

While he believes this study may not be most efficient way of determining demographics of at-risk individuals using tanning beds, Dr. Friedman said the results “should serve as the impetus to develop public health campaigns around this information, following which research can be conducted to evaluate if the intervention had an impact.”

Ms. Brown and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Evaluation of a large insurance claims database has provided some insight into how ICD-10 indoor tanning codes are being used in practice, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

thinkstockphotos.com

“Since indoor tanning ICD-10 codes were only recently universally implemented in 2015, and providers may still be using other codes that cover similar services, we think our data likely underestimate the number of encounters and sequelae associated with indoor tanning,” Alexandria M. Brown, BSA, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in her presentation. “We think increased usage of these indoor tanning exposure codes in coming years will strengthen this body of indoor tanning literature and data.”

Using insurance claims data on about 43 million patients from Truven Health MarketScan, Ms. Brown and colleagues analyzed patient encounters with ICD-10 indoor tanning codes W89.1, W89.1XXA, W89.1XXD, and W89.1XXS between 2016 and 2018 for about 43 million patients. Overall, there were 4,550 patient encounters where these codes had been recorded, with most (99%) occurring in an outpatient setting. The majority of providers at these encounters were dermatologists (72%). Patients were mostly women (85%); and most were ages 25-34 years (19.4%), 35-44 years (20.6%), 45-54 years (22.7%), and 55-64 years (19%). Almost 5% were 65 and over, 11.7% were ages 18-24, and 1.6% were under age 18.

The use of indoor tanning codes were most common in the Midwest (55 per 100,000 encounters with dermatologists), compared with 16 per 100,000 in the Northeast, 21 per 100,000 in the West, and 28 per 100,000 in the South. CPT codes for “destruction of a premalignant lesion” and “biopsy” were the most frequently used codes entered at visits where indoor tanning codes were also entered, and were present in 15.1% of encounters and 18.4% of encounters, respectively.

“This suggests that many of these encounters may have been for skin cancer surveillance and that indoor tanning exposure may have been coded as part of a patient’s skin cancer risk profile,” Ms. Brown noted.

The study shows how these codes are being used and could help determine health care use patterns for these patients as well as their comorbidities, behaviors, and risk factors, according to the authors, who believe this is the first study to look at the use of ICD-10 indoor tanning codes.

“Any effort to reduce indoor tanning requires knowledge of the population at risk. It has been shown that the ability to recognize and provide counseling to at-risk patients can improve sun protective behaviors and reduce indoor tanning,” Ms. Brown said. Claims databases can be a “valuable tool to better understand patients who have been exposed to indoor tanning and their associated risk factors, comorbidities, behaviors, and health care utilization.”

In an interview, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the study was interesting and “provides some guidance with respect to who, when, and where in the U.S. to target educational initiatives on the harms of tanning beds.”

Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research, agreed with the authors’ assertion that their study was underestimating the use of indoor tanning beds. “Using a large database provides the means to better generalize one’s dataset; however in this case, it relies on proper coding by the practitioner,” or even using the code for tanning bed use at all.

“There also could be some inherent bias given most of the cases for which the code was used was for skin cancer surveillance, and therefore tanning bed use was top of mind,” he said.

While he believes this study may not be most efficient way of determining demographics of at-risk individuals using tanning beds, Dr. Friedman said the results “should serve as the impetus to develop public health campaigns around this information, following which research can be conducted to evaluate if the intervention had an impact.”

Ms. Brown and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A real-world study of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors found that the incidence rate of cutaneous toxicities was 25%, which is lower than previously reported estimates, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

What’s more, many of the cutaneous immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) observed in the study may be unreported in clinical trial settings and by providers, according to one of the investigators, Yevgeniy Semenov, MD, MA, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“Most cutaneous irAEs are low grade and might go unreported outside of clinical trial settings, as patients might not seek medical care, or when they do, providers might not report them in patient charts. As a result, the diagnoses identified in this study likely represent the most clinically relevant cutaneous events in the ICI population,” said Dr. Semenov, who presented the results at the meeting.

In the study, he said that one of the first issues he and his colleagues encountered was how to classify cutaneous irAEs, as they “can vary widely in morphology and severity.” Immune-related adverse events from ICIs are a “unique constellation of inflammatory toxicities,” affecting nearly every organ system, and may require treatment with immunosuppressive agents that can impact the effectiveness of the ICI. The matter is further complicated by a “lack of definitional standards of what constitutes a cutaneous immune-related adverse event, which greatly limits the research in this area,” Dr. Semenov said. There is also potential for misdiagnosis of irAEs as cutaneous eruptions occurring in patients receiving ICI therapy because of failure to account for the presence of skin disease at baseline, he pointed out.

Dr. Semenov noted that more than 40 cutaneous eruptions have been associated with ICI treatment. “Much of the observational data on cutaneous immune-related adverse events has been riddled with case reports and case series of cutaneous events that happen to be occurring in the setting of ICI therapy. These lack rigorous control groups and often associate events with little to no relationship to the actual ICI, which may have instead occurred in the setting of a competing medication,” he explained.

Real-world data

The researchers thus sought to identify the real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs with population-level data. Using data from a national claims insurance database from January 2011 through 2019, they compared 8,637 of patients with cancer, treated with an ICI (who had not been treated with other cancer treatments within 6 months of starting an ICI) with 8,637 patients with cancer who were not treated with an ICI, matched for demographics, primary cancer type, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score.

In both groups, the mean age of the patients was 67.5 years, 59.2% were men, and 93% had a severe CCI score. The most common cancer types were lung cancer (40%), melanoma (26.6%), and renal cell carcinoma (12.3%). The median follow-up time was 1.9 years, and the median treatment duration was 2.0 years.

Dr. Semenov and colleagues selected 42 dermatoses reported in the literature to evaluate and found an overall incidence of 25% within 2 years of starting ICI therapy. Of those 42 dermatoses, there were 10 with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, compared with controls: drug eruption or other nonspecific eruption (4.2%; incidence rate ratio, 5.00), bullous pemphigoid (0.3%; IRR, 4.91), maculopapular eruption (0.9%; IRR, 4.75), vitiligo (0.7%; IRR, 3.79), Grover’s disease (0.2%; IRR, 3.43), rash and other nonspecific eruption (9.0%; IRR, 2.34), mucositis (1.5%; IRR, 2.33), pruritus (4.8%; IRR, 1.92), lichen planus (0.5%; IRR, 1.75), and erythroderma (1.1%; IRR, 1.70).

After adjusting for a baseline history of squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis, the researchers found that both were significantly less likely in patients receiving ICIs.

A delay in presentation of any cutaneous irAE after starting ICI therapy was also observed (a median of 16.1 weeks), which Dr. Semenov noted was longer than the 5 weeks reported in clinical trials. This delay in presentation increased to a median of 37.5 weeks for the 10 dermatoses with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, with 17.6% of patients presenting in the first month, 63.1% presenting by 6 months, and 84.6% presenting by 1 year.


 

Use of immunosuppressive treatment

The researchers also examined use of systemic immunosuppression for treating cutaneous toxicities, defined as “a new prescription for systemic glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg per day, prednisone equivalent, or nonsteroidal systemic immunosuppression,” administered within 7 days of the diagnosis of the cutaneous event. They found that 5% of patients overall received systemic immunosuppressive treatment within 7 days of a cutaneous event, which was “at the higher end of what was reported in clinical trials for the treatment of cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov noted.

“This is likely the result of the delays in diagnosis in nonclinical trial settings ... allowing more time for these events to progress to a higher grade. Also, there may be a greater willingness by providers to initiate systemic immunosuppression due to less stringent treatment protocols in real-world clinical settings,” he said.

Using a multivariable risk prediction model for cutaneous toxicities, the researchers identified use of ipilimumab, a CTLA-4-blocking antibody, as having a protective effect for not developing a cutaneous irAE, compared with the PD-1 blocker pembrolizumab (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.98; P < .01). But combination ICI therapy (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.25-1.88; P < .001), a melanoma diagnosis (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 2.11-2.89; P < .001), and a renal cell carcinoma diagnosis (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.36-2.00; P < .001) were found to be risk factors for developing cutaneous irAEs.

“The protective effect of ipilimumab identified in the study is interesting, as historically ipilimumab has been more likely to cause cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov said. “However, we believe that the majority of this association is mediated by the melanoma, for which ipilimumab was primarily used since its introduction. Independent of this relationship, it seems to be less likely to cause cutaneous toxicity than PD-1 inhibition, according to this data.”

Based on their findings, he said, “dermatologists can utilize this information to facilitate evaluations of high-risk patients so they can take steps to prevent progression to more severe toxicities and reduce reliance or systemic immunosuppression.”

The 25% real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs observed in the study, Dr. Semenov said, is “somewhat lower than previous clinical trial estimates of over one-third of patients presenting with cutaneous toxicities” but he added that previous estimates were based primarily on studies of patients with melanoma.

That some patients delayed presentation with these conditions “should revise clinicians’ understanding of when to expect patients to present with these toxicities, and not to rule out a delayed onset of symptoms as being unrelated to immunotherapy,” Dr. Semenov said.
 

Most cutaneous irAEs are ‘manageable’

In an interview, Naiara Braghiroli, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Baptist Health’s Miami Cancer Institute, Plantation, Fla., who was not an investigator in the study, noted that over the last decade, ICIs have “revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma” and, more recently, the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers, with regard to survival rates and side effects.

She said that the results of the study show that “most of the cutaneous side effects are manageable with very few exceptions, like the cutaneous bullous disorders and rarely, more serious reactions [such as] Stevens-Johnson syndrome.”

The majority of the side effects are treatable “and when well controlled, the patient can have a good quality of life” during treatment, she added.

For future research, Dr. Braghiroli noted, it would be interesting to know more about whether the development of any specific cutaneous reaction associated with ICIs “is associated with a higher chance of good antitumor response,” as seen with other anticancer therapies such as epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors.

Dr. Semenov and Dr. Braghiroli report having no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A real-world study of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors found that the incidence rate of cutaneous toxicities was 25%, which is lower than previously reported estimates, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

What’s more, many of the cutaneous immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) observed in the study may be unreported in clinical trial settings and by providers, according to one of the investigators, Yevgeniy Semenov, MD, MA, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“Most cutaneous irAEs are low grade and might go unreported outside of clinical trial settings, as patients might not seek medical care, or when they do, providers might not report them in patient charts. As a result, the diagnoses identified in this study likely represent the most clinically relevant cutaneous events in the ICI population,” said Dr. Semenov, who presented the results at the meeting.

In the study, he said that one of the first issues he and his colleagues encountered was how to classify cutaneous irAEs, as they “can vary widely in morphology and severity.” Immune-related adverse events from ICIs are a “unique constellation of inflammatory toxicities,” affecting nearly every organ system, and may require treatment with immunosuppressive agents that can impact the effectiveness of the ICI. The matter is further complicated by a “lack of definitional standards of what constitutes a cutaneous immune-related adverse event, which greatly limits the research in this area,” Dr. Semenov said. There is also potential for misdiagnosis of irAEs as cutaneous eruptions occurring in patients receiving ICI therapy because of failure to account for the presence of skin disease at baseline, he pointed out.

Dr. Semenov noted that more than 40 cutaneous eruptions have been associated with ICI treatment. “Much of the observational data on cutaneous immune-related adverse events has been riddled with case reports and case series of cutaneous events that happen to be occurring in the setting of ICI therapy. These lack rigorous control groups and often associate events with little to no relationship to the actual ICI, which may have instead occurred in the setting of a competing medication,” he explained.

Real-world data

The researchers thus sought to identify the real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs with population-level data. Using data from a national claims insurance database from January 2011 through 2019, they compared 8,637 of patients with cancer, treated with an ICI (who had not been treated with other cancer treatments within 6 months of starting an ICI) with 8,637 patients with cancer who were not treated with an ICI, matched for demographics, primary cancer type, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score.

In both groups, the mean age of the patients was 67.5 years, 59.2% were men, and 93% had a severe CCI score. The most common cancer types were lung cancer (40%), melanoma (26.6%), and renal cell carcinoma (12.3%). The median follow-up time was 1.9 years, and the median treatment duration was 2.0 years.

Dr. Semenov and colleagues selected 42 dermatoses reported in the literature to evaluate and found an overall incidence of 25% within 2 years of starting ICI therapy. Of those 42 dermatoses, there were 10 with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, compared with controls: drug eruption or other nonspecific eruption (4.2%; incidence rate ratio, 5.00), bullous pemphigoid (0.3%; IRR, 4.91), maculopapular eruption (0.9%; IRR, 4.75), vitiligo (0.7%; IRR, 3.79), Grover’s disease (0.2%; IRR, 3.43), rash and other nonspecific eruption (9.0%; IRR, 2.34), mucositis (1.5%; IRR, 2.33), pruritus (4.8%; IRR, 1.92), lichen planus (0.5%; IRR, 1.75), and erythroderma (1.1%; IRR, 1.70).

After adjusting for a baseline history of squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis, the researchers found that both were significantly less likely in patients receiving ICIs.

A delay in presentation of any cutaneous irAE after starting ICI therapy was also observed (a median of 16.1 weeks), which Dr. Semenov noted was longer than the 5 weeks reported in clinical trials. This delay in presentation increased to a median of 37.5 weeks for the 10 dermatoses with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, with 17.6% of patients presenting in the first month, 63.1% presenting by 6 months, and 84.6% presenting by 1 year.


 

Use of immunosuppressive treatment

The researchers also examined use of systemic immunosuppression for treating cutaneous toxicities, defined as “a new prescription for systemic glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg per day, prednisone equivalent, or nonsteroidal systemic immunosuppression,” administered within 7 days of the diagnosis of the cutaneous event. They found that 5% of patients overall received systemic immunosuppressive treatment within 7 days of a cutaneous event, which was “at the higher end of what was reported in clinical trials for the treatment of cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov noted.

“This is likely the result of the delays in diagnosis in nonclinical trial settings ... allowing more time for these events to progress to a higher grade. Also, there may be a greater willingness by providers to initiate systemic immunosuppression due to less stringent treatment protocols in real-world clinical settings,” he said.

Using a multivariable risk prediction model for cutaneous toxicities, the researchers identified use of ipilimumab, a CTLA-4-blocking antibody, as having a protective effect for not developing a cutaneous irAE, compared with the PD-1 blocker pembrolizumab (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.98; P < .01). But combination ICI therapy (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.25-1.88; P < .001), a melanoma diagnosis (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 2.11-2.89; P < .001), and a renal cell carcinoma diagnosis (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.36-2.00; P < .001) were found to be risk factors for developing cutaneous irAEs.

“The protective effect of ipilimumab identified in the study is interesting, as historically ipilimumab has been more likely to cause cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov said. “However, we believe that the majority of this association is mediated by the melanoma, for which ipilimumab was primarily used since its introduction. Independent of this relationship, it seems to be less likely to cause cutaneous toxicity than PD-1 inhibition, according to this data.”

Based on their findings, he said, “dermatologists can utilize this information to facilitate evaluations of high-risk patients so they can take steps to prevent progression to more severe toxicities and reduce reliance or systemic immunosuppression.”

The 25% real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs observed in the study, Dr. Semenov said, is “somewhat lower than previous clinical trial estimates of over one-third of patients presenting with cutaneous toxicities” but he added that previous estimates were based primarily on studies of patients with melanoma.

That some patients delayed presentation with these conditions “should revise clinicians’ understanding of when to expect patients to present with these toxicities, and not to rule out a delayed onset of symptoms as being unrelated to immunotherapy,” Dr. Semenov said.
 

Most cutaneous irAEs are ‘manageable’

In an interview, Naiara Braghiroli, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Baptist Health’s Miami Cancer Institute, Plantation, Fla., who was not an investigator in the study, noted that over the last decade, ICIs have “revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma” and, more recently, the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers, with regard to survival rates and side effects.

She said that the results of the study show that “most of the cutaneous side effects are manageable with very few exceptions, like the cutaneous bullous disorders and rarely, more serious reactions [such as] Stevens-Johnson syndrome.”

The majority of the side effects are treatable “and when well controlled, the patient can have a good quality of life” during treatment, she added.

For future research, Dr. Braghiroli noted, it would be interesting to know more about whether the development of any specific cutaneous reaction associated with ICIs “is associated with a higher chance of good antitumor response,” as seen with other anticancer therapies such as epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors.

Dr. Semenov and Dr. Braghiroli report having no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A real-world study of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors found that the incidence rate of cutaneous toxicities was 25%, which is lower than previously reported estimates, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

What’s more, many of the cutaneous immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) observed in the study may be unreported in clinical trial settings and by providers, according to one of the investigators, Yevgeniy Semenov, MD, MA, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“Most cutaneous irAEs are low grade and might go unreported outside of clinical trial settings, as patients might not seek medical care, or when they do, providers might not report them in patient charts. As a result, the diagnoses identified in this study likely represent the most clinically relevant cutaneous events in the ICI population,” said Dr. Semenov, who presented the results at the meeting.

In the study, he said that one of the first issues he and his colleagues encountered was how to classify cutaneous irAEs, as they “can vary widely in morphology and severity.” Immune-related adverse events from ICIs are a “unique constellation of inflammatory toxicities,” affecting nearly every organ system, and may require treatment with immunosuppressive agents that can impact the effectiveness of the ICI. The matter is further complicated by a “lack of definitional standards of what constitutes a cutaneous immune-related adverse event, which greatly limits the research in this area,” Dr. Semenov said. There is also potential for misdiagnosis of irAEs as cutaneous eruptions occurring in patients receiving ICI therapy because of failure to account for the presence of skin disease at baseline, he pointed out.

Dr. Semenov noted that more than 40 cutaneous eruptions have been associated with ICI treatment. “Much of the observational data on cutaneous immune-related adverse events has been riddled with case reports and case series of cutaneous events that happen to be occurring in the setting of ICI therapy. These lack rigorous control groups and often associate events with little to no relationship to the actual ICI, which may have instead occurred in the setting of a competing medication,” he explained.

Real-world data

The researchers thus sought to identify the real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs with population-level data. Using data from a national claims insurance database from January 2011 through 2019, they compared 8,637 of patients with cancer, treated with an ICI (who had not been treated with other cancer treatments within 6 months of starting an ICI) with 8,637 patients with cancer who were not treated with an ICI, matched for demographics, primary cancer type, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score.

In both groups, the mean age of the patients was 67.5 years, 59.2% were men, and 93% had a severe CCI score. The most common cancer types were lung cancer (40%), melanoma (26.6%), and renal cell carcinoma (12.3%). The median follow-up time was 1.9 years, and the median treatment duration was 2.0 years.

Dr. Semenov and colleagues selected 42 dermatoses reported in the literature to evaluate and found an overall incidence of 25% within 2 years of starting ICI therapy. Of those 42 dermatoses, there were 10 with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, compared with controls: drug eruption or other nonspecific eruption (4.2%; incidence rate ratio, 5.00), bullous pemphigoid (0.3%; IRR, 4.91), maculopapular eruption (0.9%; IRR, 4.75), vitiligo (0.7%; IRR, 3.79), Grover’s disease (0.2%; IRR, 3.43), rash and other nonspecific eruption (9.0%; IRR, 2.34), mucositis (1.5%; IRR, 2.33), pruritus (4.8%; IRR, 1.92), lichen planus (0.5%; IRR, 1.75), and erythroderma (1.1%; IRR, 1.70).

After adjusting for a baseline history of squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis, the researchers found that both were significantly less likely in patients receiving ICIs.

A delay in presentation of any cutaneous irAE after starting ICI therapy was also observed (a median of 16.1 weeks), which Dr. Semenov noted was longer than the 5 weeks reported in clinical trials. This delay in presentation increased to a median of 37.5 weeks for the 10 dermatoses with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, with 17.6% of patients presenting in the first month, 63.1% presenting by 6 months, and 84.6% presenting by 1 year.


 

Use of immunosuppressive treatment

The researchers also examined use of systemic immunosuppression for treating cutaneous toxicities, defined as “a new prescription for systemic glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg per day, prednisone equivalent, or nonsteroidal systemic immunosuppression,” administered within 7 days of the diagnosis of the cutaneous event. They found that 5% of patients overall received systemic immunosuppressive treatment within 7 days of a cutaneous event, which was “at the higher end of what was reported in clinical trials for the treatment of cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov noted.

“This is likely the result of the delays in diagnosis in nonclinical trial settings ... allowing more time for these events to progress to a higher grade. Also, there may be a greater willingness by providers to initiate systemic immunosuppression due to less stringent treatment protocols in real-world clinical settings,” he said.

Using a multivariable risk prediction model for cutaneous toxicities, the researchers identified use of ipilimumab, a CTLA-4-blocking antibody, as having a protective effect for not developing a cutaneous irAE, compared with the PD-1 blocker pembrolizumab (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.98; P < .01). But combination ICI therapy (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.25-1.88; P < .001), a melanoma diagnosis (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 2.11-2.89; P < .001), and a renal cell carcinoma diagnosis (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.36-2.00; P < .001) were found to be risk factors for developing cutaneous irAEs.

“The protective effect of ipilimumab identified in the study is interesting, as historically ipilimumab has been more likely to cause cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov said. “However, we believe that the majority of this association is mediated by the melanoma, for which ipilimumab was primarily used since its introduction. Independent of this relationship, it seems to be less likely to cause cutaneous toxicity than PD-1 inhibition, according to this data.”

Based on their findings, he said, “dermatologists can utilize this information to facilitate evaluations of high-risk patients so they can take steps to prevent progression to more severe toxicities and reduce reliance or systemic immunosuppression.”

The 25% real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs observed in the study, Dr. Semenov said, is “somewhat lower than previous clinical trial estimates of over one-third of patients presenting with cutaneous toxicities” but he added that previous estimates were based primarily on studies of patients with melanoma.

That some patients delayed presentation with these conditions “should revise clinicians’ understanding of when to expect patients to present with these toxicities, and not to rule out a delayed onset of symptoms as being unrelated to immunotherapy,” Dr. Semenov said.
 

Most cutaneous irAEs are ‘manageable’

In an interview, Naiara Braghiroli, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Baptist Health’s Miami Cancer Institute, Plantation, Fla., who was not an investigator in the study, noted that over the last decade, ICIs have “revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma” and, more recently, the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers, with regard to survival rates and side effects.

She said that the results of the study show that “most of the cutaneous side effects are manageable with very few exceptions, like the cutaneous bullous disorders and rarely, more serious reactions [such as] Stevens-Johnson syndrome.”

The majority of the side effects are treatable “and when well controlled, the patient can have a good quality of life” during treatment, she added.

For future research, Dr. Braghiroli noted, it would be interesting to know more about whether the development of any specific cutaneous reaction associated with ICIs “is associated with a higher chance of good antitumor response,” as seen with other anticancer therapies such as epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors.

Dr. Semenov and Dr. Braghiroli report having no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Nearly all Americans say that sun protection is important, but almost half don’t use sunscreen regularly and more than a third believe that tanning is healthy, according to the results of a recent survey commissioned by the American Academy of Dermatology.

With the pandemic seemingly behind it, the United States enters the summer months facing the paradox of sun protection. Four out of five adults know that sunscreen should be reapplied every 2 hours when they’re outdoors, but only one in three make the actual effort, and 77% are likely to use sunscreen at the beach or a pool, compared with 41% when they’re gardening or working outside on their homes, the AAD reported.

“These findings are surprising and seem to suggest that many people do not take skin cancer seriously or perhaps believe skin cancer won’t happen to them,” Robert T. Brodell, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, said in a written statement from the AAD, adding that “unprotected exposure to ultraviolet rays is the most preventable risk factor for skin cancer, including melanoma.”

A quarter of all survey respondents reported getting sunburned in 2020, with the youngest adults most likely to feel the wrath of the sun. Sunburn was reported by 43% of those aged 18-23 years, 37% of those aged 24-39, 25% of the 40- to 55-year-olds, 12% of the 56- to 74-year-olds, and 7% of those aged 75 and older. More than a quarter of those who got sunburned said that it was bad enough to make their clothes feel uncomfortable, the academy said.

“Americans see the damaging effects of the sun on their skin as they get older, and two out of three look back and wish they had been more careful. But when it comes to cancer, specifically, most feel unconcerned in spite of their own risk,” according to a statement from Versta Research, which conducted the poll on behalf of the AAD. The survey was conducted from Feb. 22 to March 10, 2021, and involved 1,056 respondents, with a ±3% margin of error.

The lack of concern for skin cancer looks like this: More than two-thirds of the respondents (69%) have at least one possible risk factor – lighter skin tone, blue or green eyes, more than 50 moles, family history – but only 36% expressed concern about developing it. “Indeed, half of survey respondents (49%) say they are more worried about avoiding sunburn than they are about preventing skin cancer, and a third (32%) are more worried about avoiding premature wrinkles than they are about preventing cancer,” the AAD said.

The AAD is considering the creation of a social media quiz or interactive tool, and if the results of this survey were recast as a potential “Knowledge and Awareness Quiz” and graded with a traditional scheme (A = 90%-100%, B = 80%-89%, etc.), then 34% of the respondents would have failed, 15% would have gotten a D, and only 5% would have earned an A, the academy noted.

[email protected]

Nearly all Americans say that sun protection is important, but almost half don’t use sunscreen regularly and more than a third believe that tanning is healthy, according to the results of a recent survey commissioned by the American Academy of Dermatology.

With the pandemic seemingly behind it, the United States enters the summer months facing the paradox of sun protection. Four out of five adults know that sunscreen should be reapplied every 2 hours when they’re outdoors, but only one in three make the actual effort, and 77% are likely to use sunscreen at the beach or a pool, compared with 41% when they’re gardening or working outside on their homes, the AAD reported.

“These findings are surprising and seem to suggest that many people do not take skin cancer seriously or perhaps believe skin cancer won’t happen to them,” Robert T. Brodell, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, said in a written statement from the AAD, adding that “unprotected exposure to ultraviolet rays is the most preventable risk factor for skin cancer, including melanoma.”

A quarter of all survey respondents reported getting sunburned in 2020, with the youngest adults most likely to feel the wrath of the sun. Sunburn was reported by 43% of those aged 18-23 years, 37% of those aged 24-39, 25% of the 40- to 55-year-olds, 12% of the 56- to 74-year-olds, and 7% of those aged 75 and older. More than a quarter of those who got sunburned said that it was bad enough to make their clothes feel uncomfortable, the academy said.

“Americans see the damaging effects of the sun on their skin as they get older, and two out of three look back and wish they had been more careful. But when it comes to cancer, specifically, most feel unconcerned in spite of their own risk,” according to a statement from Versta Research, which conducted the poll on behalf of the AAD. The survey was conducted from Feb. 22 to March 10, 2021, and involved 1,056 respondents, with a ±3% margin of error.

The lack of concern for skin cancer looks like this: More than two-thirds of the respondents (69%) have at least one possible risk factor – lighter skin tone, blue or green eyes, more than 50 moles, family history – but only 36% expressed concern about developing it. “Indeed, half of survey respondents (49%) say they are more worried about avoiding sunburn than they are about preventing skin cancer, and a third (32%) are more worried about avoiding premature wrinkles than they are about preventing cancer,” the AAD said.

The AAD is considering the creation of a social media quiz or interactive tool, and if the results of this survey were recast as a potential “Knowledge and Awareness Quiz” and graded with a traditional scheme (A = 90%-100%, B = 80%-89%, etc.), then 34% of the respondents would have failed, 15% would have gotten a D, and only 5% would have earned an A, the academy noted.

[email protected]

Nearly all Americans say that sun protection is important, but almost half don’t use sunscreen regularly and more than a third believe that tanning is healthy, according to the results of a recent survey commissioned by the American Academy of Dermatology.

With the pandemic seemingly behind it, the United States enters the summer months facing the paradox of sun protection. Four out of five adults know that sunscreen should be reapplied every 2 hours when they’re outdoors, but only one in three make the actual effort, and 77% are likely to use sunscreen at the beach or a pool, compared with 41% when they’re gardening or working outside on their homes, the AAD reported.

“These findings are surprising and seem to suggest that many people do not take skin cancer seriously or perhaps believe skin cancer won’t happen to them,” Robert T. Brodell, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, said in a written statement from the AAD, adding that “unprotected exposure to ultraviolet rays is the most preventable risk factor for skin cancer, including melanoma.”

A quarter of all survey respondents reported getting sunburned in 2020, with the youngest adults most likely to feel the wrath of the sun. Sunburn was reported by 43% of those aged 18-23 years, 37% of those aged 24-39, 25% of the 40- to 55-year-olds, 12% of the 56- to 74-year-olds, and 7% of those aged 75 and older. More than a quarter of those who got sunburned said that it was bad enough to make their clothes feel uncomfortable, the academy said.

“Americans see the damaging effects of the sun on their skin as they get older, and two out of three look back and wish they had been more careful. But when it comes to cancer, specifically, most feel unconcerned in spite of their own risk,” according to a statement from Versta Research, which conducted the poll on behalf of the AAD. The survey was conducted from Feb. 22 to March 10, 2021, and involved 1,056 respondents, with a ±3% margin of error.

The lack of concern for skin cancer looks like this: More than two-thirds of the respondents (69%) have at least one possible risk factor – lighter skin tone, blue or green eyes, more than 50 moles, family history – but only 36% expressed concern about developing it. “Indeed, half of survey respondents (49%) say they are more worried about avoiding sunburn than they are about preventing skin cancer, and a third (32%) are more worried about avoiding premature wrinkles than they are about preventing cancer,” the AAD said.

The AAD is considering the creation of a social media quiz or interactive tool, and if the results of this survey were recast as a potential “Knowledge and Awareness Quiz” and graded with a traditional scheme (A = 90%-100%, B = 80%-89%, etc.), then 34% of the respondents would have failed, 15% would have gotten a D, and only 5% would have earned an A, the academy noted.

[email protected]

Granuloma annulare (GA) is a benign, cutaneous, granulomatous disease of unclear etiology. Typically, GA presents in young adults as asymptomatic, annular, flesh-colored to pink papules and plaques, commonly on the upper and lower extremities. Histologically, GA is characterized by mucin deposition, palisading or an interstitial granulomatous pattern, and collagen and elastic fiber degeneration.¹

Granuloma annulare has been associated with various medications and medical conditions, including diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, thyroid disease, and HIV.¹ More recently, immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been reported to trigger GA.² We report a case of nivolumab-induced GA in a 54-year-old woman.

Case Report

A 54-year-old woman presented with an itchy rash on the upper extremities, face, and chest of 4 months’ duration. The patient noted that the rash started on the hands and progressed to include the arms, face, and chest. She also reported associated mild tenderness. She had a history of stage IV non–small-cell lung carcinoma with metastases to the ribs and adrenal glands. She had been started on biweekly intravenous infusions of the ICI nivolumab by her oncologist approximately 1 year prior to the current presentation after failing a course of conventional chemotherapy. The most recent positron emission tomography–computed tomography scan 1 month prior to presentation showed a stable lung mass with radiologic disappearance of metastases, indicating a favorable response to nivolumab. The patient also had a history of hypothyroidism and depression, which were treated with oral levothyroxine 75 μg once daily and oral sertraline 50 mg once daily, respectively, both for longer than 5 years.

Physical examination revealed annular, erythematous, flat-topped papules, some with surmounting fine scale, coalescing into larger plaques along the dorsal surface of the hands and arms (Figure 1) as well as the forehead and chest. A biopsy of a papule on the dorsal aspect of the left hand revealed nodules of histiocytes admixed with Langerhans giant cells within the dermis; mucin was noted centrally within some nodules (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative for fungal elements compared to control. Polarization of the specimen was negative for foreign bodies. The biopsy findings therefore were consistent with a diagnosis of GA.

Comment

Discovery of specific immune checkpoints in tumor-induced immunosuppression revolutionized oncologic therapy. An example is the programmed cell-death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor that is expressed on activated immune cells, including T cells and macrophages.^3,4 Upon binding to the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), T-cell proliferation is inhibited, resulting in downregulation of the immune response. As a result, tumor cells have evolved to overexpress PD-L1 to evade immunologic detection.³ Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 antibody to PD-1, has emerged along with other ICIs as effective treatments for numerous cancers, including melanoma and non–small-cell lung cancer. By disrupting downregulation of T cells, ICIs improve immune-mediated antitumor activity.³

However, the resulting immunologic disturbance by ICIs has been reported to induce various cutaneous and systemic immune-mediated adverse reactions, including granulomatous reactions such as sarcoidosis, GA, and a cutaneous sarcoidlike granulomatous reaction.^1,2,5,6 Our patient represents a rare case of nivolumab-induced GA.

Recent evidence suggests that GA might be caused in part by a cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction that is regulated by a helper T cell subset 1 inflammatory reaction. Through release of cytokines by activated CD4⁺ T cells, macrophages are recruited, forming the granulomatous pattern and secreting enzymes that can degrade connective tissue. Nivolumab and other ICIs can thus trigger this reaction because their blockade of PD-1 enhances T cell–mediated immune reactions.² In addition, because macrophages themselves also express PD-1, ICIs can directly enhance macrophage recruitment and proliferation, further increasing the risk of a granulomatous reaction.⁴

Interestingly, cutaneous adverse reactions to nivolumab have been associated with improved survival in melanoma patients.⁷ The nature of this association with granulomatous reactions in general and with GA specifically remains to be determined.

Conclusion

Since the approval of the first PD-1 inhibitors, pembrolizumab and nivolumab, in 2014, other ICIs targeting the immune checkpoint pathway have been developed. Newer agents targeting PD-L1 (avelumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab) were recently approved. Additionally, cemiplimab, another PD-1 inhibitor, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.⁸ Indications for all ICIs also have expanded considerably.³ Therefore, the incidence of immune-mediated adverse reactions, including GA, is bound to increase. Physicians should be cognizant of this association to accurately diagnose and effectively treat adverse reactions in patients who are taking ICIs.

Granuloma annulare (GA) is a benign, cutaneous, granulomatous disease of unclear etiology. Typically, GA presents in young adults as asymptomatic, annular, flesh-colored to pink papules and plaques, commonly on the upper and lower extremities. Histologically, GA is characterized by mucin deposition, palisading or an interstitial granulomatous pattern, and collagen and elastic fiber degeneration.¹

Granuloma annulare has been associated with various medications and medical conditions, including diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, thyroid disease, and HIV.¹ More recently, immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been reported to trigger GA.² We report a case of nivolumab-induced GA in a 54-year-old woman.

Case Report

A 54-year-old woman presented with an itchy rash on the upper extremities, face, and chest of 4 months’ duration. The patient noted that the rash started on the hands and progressed to include the arms, face, and chest. She also reported associated mild tenderness. She had a history of stage IV non–small-cell lung carcinoma with metastases to the ribs and adrenal glands. She had been started on biweekly intravenous infusions of the ICI nivolumab by her oncologist approximately 1 year prior to the current presentation after failing a course of conventional chemotherapy. The most recent positron emission tomography–computed tomography scan 1 month prior to presentation showed a stable lung mass with radiologic disappearance of metastases, indicating a favorable response to nivolumab. The patient also had a history of hypothyroidism and depression, which were treated with oral levothyroxine 75 μg once daily and oral sertraline 50 mg once daily, respectively, both for longer than 5 years.

Physical examination revealed annular, erythematous, flat-topped papules, some with surmounting fine scale, coalescing into larger plaques along the dorsal surface of the hands and arms (Figure 1) as well as the forehead and chest. A biopsy of a papule on the dorsal aspect of the left hand revealed nodules of histiocytes admixed with Langerhans giant cells within the dermis; mucin was noted centrally within some nodules (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative for fungal elements compared to control. Polarization of the specimen was negative for foreign bodies. The biopsy findings therefore were consistent with a diagnosis of GA.

Comment

Discovery of specific immune checkpoints in tumor-induced immunosuppression revolutionized oncologic therapy. An example is the programmed cell-death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor that is expressed on activated immune cells, including T cells and macrophages.^3,4 Upon binding to the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), T-cell proliferation is inhibited, resulting in downregulation of the immune response. As a result, tumor cells have evolved to overexpress PD-L1 to evade immunologic detection.³ Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 antibody to PD-1, has emerged along with other ICIs as effective treatments for numerous cancers, including melanoma and non–small-cell lung cancer. By disrupting downregulation of T cells, ICIs improve immune-mediated antitumor activity.³

However, the resulting immunologic disturbance by ICIs has been reported to induce various cutaneous and systemic immune-mediated adverse reactions, including granulomatous reactions such as sarcoidosis, GA, and a cutaneous sarcoidlike granulomatous reaction.^1,2,5,6 Our patient represents a rare case of nivolumab-induced GA.

Recent evidence suggests that GA might be caused in part by a cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction that is regulated by a helper T cell subset 1 inflammatory reaction. Through release of cytokines by activated CD4⁺ T cells, macrophages are recruited, forming the granulomatous pattern and secreting enzymes that can degrade connective tissue. Nivolumab and other ICIs can thus trigger this reaction because their blockade of PD-1 enhances T cell–mediated immune reactions.² In addition, because macrophages themselves also express PD-1, ICIs can directly enhance macrophage recruitment and proliferation, further increasing the risk of a granulomatous reaction.⁴

Interestingly, cutaneous adverse reactions to nivolumab have been associated with improved survival in melanoma patients.⁷ The nature of this association with granulomatous reactions in general and with GA specifically remains to be determined.

Conclusion

Since the approval of the first PD-1 inhibitors, pembrolizumab and nivolumab, in 2014, other ICIs targeting the immune checkpoint pathway have been developed. Newer agents targeting PD-L1 (avelumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab) were recently approved. Additionally, cemiplimab, another PD-1 inhibitor, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.⁸ Indications for all ICIs also have expanded considerably.³ Therefore, the incidence of immune-mediated adverse reactions, including GA, is bound to increase. Physicians should be cognizant of this association to accurately diagnose and effectively treat adverse reactions in patients who are taking ICIs.

Granuloma annulare (GA) is a benign, cutaneous, granulomatous disease of unclear etiology. Typically, GA presents in young adults as asymptomatic, annular, flesh-colored to pink papules and plaques, commonly on the upper and lower extremities. Histologically, GA is characterized by mucin deposition, palisading or an interstitial granulomatous pattern, and collagen and elastic fiber degeneration.¹

Granuloma annulare has been associated with various medications and medical conditions, including diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, thyroid disease, and HIV.¹ More recently, immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been reported to trigger GA.² We report a case of nivolumab-induced GA in a 54-year-old woman.

Case Report

A 54-year-old woman presented with an itchy rash on the upper extremities, face, and chest of 4 months’ duration. The patient noted that the rash started on the hands and progressed to include the arms, face, and chest. She also reported associated mild tenderness. She had a history of stage IV non–small-cell lung carcinoma with metastases to the ribs and adrenal glands. She had been started on biweekly intravenous infusions of the ICI nivolumab by her oncologist approximately 1 year prior to the current presentation after failing a course of conventional chemotherapy. The most recent positron emission tomography–computed tomography scan 1 month prior to presentation showed a stable lung mass with radiologic disappearance of metastases, indicating a favorable response to nivolumab. The patient also had a history of hypothyroidism and depression, which were treated with oral levothyroxine 75 μg once daily and oral sertraline 50 mg once daily, respectively, both for longer than 5 years.

Physical examination revealed annular, erythematous, flat-topped papules, some with surmounting fine scale, coalescing into larger plaques along the dorsal surface of the hands and arms (Figure 1) as well as the forehead and chest. A biopsy of a papule on the dorsal aspect of the left hand revealed nodules of histiocytes admixed with Langerhans giant cells within the dermis; mucin was noted centrally within some nodules (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative for fungal elements compared to control. Polarization of the specimen was negative for foreign bodies. The biopsy findings therefore were consistent with a diagnosis of GA.

Comment

Discovery of specific immune checkpoints in tumor-induced immunosuppression revolutionized oncologic therapy. An example is the programmed cell-death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor that is expressed on activated immune cells, including T cells and macrophages.^3,4 Upon binding to the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), T-cell proliferation is inhibited, resulting in downregulation of the immune response. As a result, tumor cells have evolved to overexpress PD-L1 to evade immunologic detection.³ Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 antibody to PD-1, has emerged along with other ICIs as effective treatments for numerous cancers, including melanoma and non–small-cell lung cancer. By disrupting downregulation of T cells, ICIs improve immune-mediated antitumor activity.³

However, the resulting immunologic disturbance by ICIs has been reported to induce various cutaneous and systemic immune-mediated adverse reactions, including granulomatous reactions such as sarcoidosis, GA, and a cutaneous sarcoidlike granulomatous reaction.^1,2,5,6 Our patient represents a rare case of nivolumab-induced GA.

Recent evidence suggests that GA might be caused in part by a cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction that is regulated by a helper T cell subset 1 inflammatory reaction. Through release of cytokines by activated CD4⁺ T cells, macrophages are recruited, forming the granulomatous pattern and secreting enzymes that can degrade connective tissue. Nivolumab and other ICIs can thus trigger this reaction because their blockade of PD-1 enhances T cell–mediated immune reactions.² In addition, because macrophages themselves also express PD-1, ICIs can directly enhance macrophage recruitment and proliferation, further increasing the risk of a granulomatous reaction.⁴

Interestingly, cutaneous adverse reactions to nivolumab have been associated with improved survival in melanoma patients.⁷ The nature of this association with granulomatous reactions in general and with GA specifically remains to be determined.

Conclusion

Since the approval of the first PD-1 inhibitors, pembrolizumab and nivolumab, in 2014, other ICIs targeting the immune checkpoint pathway have been developed. Newer agents targeting PD-L1 (avelumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab) were recently approved. Additionally, cemiplimab, another PD-1 inhibitor, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.⁸ Indications for all ICIs also have expanded considerably.³ Therefore, the incidence of immune-mediated adverse reactions, including GA, is bound to increase. Physicians should be cognizant of this association to accurately diagnose and effectively treat adverse reactions in patients who are taking ICIs.

Just before Memorial Day, online pharmacy and lab Valisure announced that its testing had found benzene, a known carcinogen, in batches of 78 widely-available sunscreen and after-sun products. The company has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to recall these products, which include batches from Neutrogena, Banana Boat, CVS Health, and other brands. More than three-quarters of the products are sprays.

©Vesna Andjic/iStockphoto.com

“We’re asking our patients to put sunscreen on from 6 months of age, telling them to do it their entire life, their whole body, multiple times a day,” Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. If benzene-contaminated sunscreen proves to be a widespread problem, he said, “the benzene amounts can add up to a significant chronic exposure over a lifetime.”

In the Valisure statement announcing the findings, Dr. Bunick, who is also quoted in the petition, said that “it is critical that regulatory agencies address benzene contamination in sunscreens, and all topical medications at the manufacturing and final product level, so that all individuals feel safe using sunscreen products.”

The list of products that tested positive is included in the citizen petition, and a full list of products that did not show any contamination is available in an attachment.

Benzene is not an ingredient in sunscreen, and Valisure’s petition suggests that the findings are a result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process, not of product degradation.

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

Assessing the risks

There is a risk of patients taking 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 ingesting 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, ultimately to be determined by the FDA.

“Just because those particular products do pose a risk, that doesn’t erase the message that sunscreens are safe and should be used,” Dr. Bunick said. “It’s not mutually exclusive.”

And then there’s the fact that the benzene contamination appears to be fairly limited. “The majority of products we tested, over 200 of them, had no detectable amounts of benzene, and uncontaminated sunscreen should certainly continue to be used,” David Light, CEO of Valisure, told this news organization.

Advising patients

With headlines blaring the news about a carcinogen in sunscreen, patients will be reaching out for advice.

“The number one question patients will have is, ‘What sunscreen do you recommend?’” said Dr. Bunick. “The answer should be to pick a sunscreen that we know wasn’t contaminated. Reassure your patient the ingredients themselves are effective and safe, and that’s not what’s leading to the contamination.”

Dr. Friedman agrees. “We need to be mindful. Dermatologists need to be armed with the facts in order to counsel patients: Sunscreen is still a very important, effective, and safe, scientifically based way to prevent the harmful effects of the sun, in addition to things like sun protective clothing and seeking shade between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.”

As alarming as Valisure’s findings may seem initially, Dr. Bunick noted a silver lining. “The consumer, the public should feel reassured this report is out there. It shows that someone’s watching out. That’s an important safety message: These things aren’t going undetected.”
 

Just before Memorial Day, online pharmacy and lab Valisure announced that its testing had found benzene, a known carcinogen, in batches of 78 widely-available sunscreen and after-sun products. The company has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to recall these products, which include batches from Neutrogena, Banana Boat, CVS Health, and other brands. More than three-quarters of the products are sprays.

©Vesna Andjic/iStockphoto.com

“We’re asking our patients to put sunscreen on from 6 months of age, telling them to do it their entire life, their whole body, multiple times a day,” Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. If benzene-contaminated sunscreen proves to be a widespread problem, he said, “the benzene amounts can add up to a significant chronic exposure over a lifetime.”

In the Valisure statement announcing the findings, Dr. Bunick, who is also quoted in the petition, said that “it is critical that regulatory agencies address benzene contamination in sunscreens, and all topical medications at the manufacturing and final product level, so that all individuals feel safe using sunscreen products.”

The list of products that tested positive is included in the citizen petition, and a full list of products that did not show any contamination is available in an attachment.

Benzene is not an ingredient in sunscreen, and Valisure’s petition suggests that the findings are a result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process, not of product degradation.

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

Assessing the risks

There is a risk of patients taking 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 ingesting 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, ultimately to be determined by the FDA.

“Just because those particular products do pose a risk, that doesn’t erase the message that sunscreens are safe and should be used,” Dr. Bunick said. “It’s not mutually exclusive.”

And then there’s the fact that the benzene contamination appears to be fairly limited. “The majority of products we tested, over 200 of them, had no detectable amounts of benzene, and uncontaminated sunscreen should certainly continue to be used,” David Light, CEO of Valisure, told this news organization.

Advising patients

With headlines blaring the news about a carcinogen in sunscreen, patients will be reaching out for advice.

“The number one question patients will have is, ‘What sunscreen do you recommend?’” said Dr. Bunick. “The answer should be to pick a sunscreen that we know wasn’t contaminated. Reassure your patient the ingredients themselves are effective and safe, and that’s not what’s leading to the contamination.”

Dr. Friedman agrees. “We need to be mindful. Dermatologists need to be armed with the facts in order to counsel patients: Sunscreen is still a very important, effective, and safe, scientifically based way to prevent the harmful effects of the sun, in addition to things like sun protective clothing and seeking shade between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.”

As alarming as Valisure’s findings may seem initially, Dr. Bunick noted a silver lining. “The consumer, the public should feel reassured this report is out there. It shows that someone’s watching out. That’s an important safety message: These things aren’t going undetected.”
 

Just before Memorial Day, online pharmacy and lab Valisure announced that its testing had found benzene, a known carcinogen, in batches of 78 widely-available sunscreen and after-sun products. The company has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to recall these products, which include batches from Neutrogena, Banana Boat, CVS Health, and other brands. More than three-quarters of the products are sprays.

©Vesna Andjic/iStockphoto.com

“We’re asking our patients to put sunscreen on from 6 months of age, telling them to do it their entire life, their whole body, multiple times a day,” Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. If benzene-contaminated sunscreen proves to be a widespread problem, he said, “the benzene amounts can add up to a significant chronic exposure over a lifetime.”

In the Valisure statement announcing the findings, Dr. Bunick, who is also quoted in the petition, said that “it is critical that regulatory agencies address benzene contamination in sunscreens, and all topical medications at the manufacturing and final product level, so that all individuals feel safe using sunscreen products.”

The list of products that tested positive is included in the citizen petition, and a full list of products that did not show any contamination is available in an attachment.

Benzene is not an ingredient in sunscreen, and Valisure’s petition suggests that the findings are a result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process, not of product degradation.

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

Assessing the risks

There is a risk of patients taking 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 ingesting 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, ultimately to be determined by the FDA.

“Just because those particular products do pose a risk, that doesn’t erase the message that sunscreens are safe and should be used,” Dr. Bunick said. “It’s not mutually exclusive.”

And then there’s the fact that the benzene contamination appears to be fairly limited. “The majority of products we tested, over 200 of them, had no detectable amounts of benzene, and uncontaminated sunscreen should certainly continue to be used,” David Light, CEO of Valisure, told this news organization.

Advising patients

With headlines blaring the news about a carcinogen in sunscreen, patients will be reaching out for advice.

“The number one question patients will have is, ‘What sunscreen do you recommend?’” said Dr. Bunick. “The answer should be to pick a sunscreen that we know wasn’t contaminated. Reassure your patient the ingredients themselves are effective and safe, and that’s not what’s leading to the contamination.”

Dr. Friedman agrees. “We need to be mindful. Dermatologists need to be armed with the facts in order to counsel patients: Sunscreen is still a very important, effective, and safe, scientifically based way to prevent the harmful effects of the sun, in addition to things like sun protective clothing and seeking shade between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.”

As alarming as Valisure’s findings may seem initially, Dr. Bunick noted a silver lining. “The consumer, the public should feel reassured this report is out there. It shows that someone’s watching out. That’s an important safety message: These things aren’t going undetected.”
 

Almost 14% of transected invasive melanoma biopsies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham were up-staged on final surgical pathology, in a review of cases at the university.

Had their true Breslow depths been known before definitive surgery, sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsies and wider surgical margins would likely have been recommended.

The findings led the investigators to conclude that a second biopsy should be considered when the first one is transected to ensure surgical and other management decisions are based on an accurate Breslow depth.

A second biopsy is especially warranted for broadly transected biopsies and transected T1a tumors with gross residual tumor or pigment on preoperative exam; both scenarios significantly increased the risk of up-staging in the study, according to lead investigator James Duncan, MD, a Mohs surgery and dermatologic oncology fellow at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

“Accurate staging of malignancies, especially melanoma, is critical to determine prognosis and the best treatment approach,” said Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University, Washington, when asked for comment.

“This study identifies how transected biopsies can underestimate a melanoma’s true depth and thus impact treatment and outcomes. The authors highlight that when a biopsy is transected, or there is notable pigment at the base, attempts should be taken to sample the remaining tumor prior to surgery so the accurate tumor depth can be determined and treatment options be fully discussed with the patient,” Dr. Patel said.

The Birmingham team reviewed invasive melanoma cases at their university from 2017 to 2019.

Almost half (49.6%) of the 726 melanomas they identified were transected on biopsy, which is in line with prior reports. About 60% of the patients were men and 98% were White; the average age was 63 years.

Of the 360 transected tumors, 49 (13.6%) had up-staging at final excision that “would have prompted discussion of alternate surgical treatment such as SLN biopsy or wider surgical margins,” the team said.

Of the 89 transected pT1a melanomas identified, 47.1% with gross residual tumor or pigment on preoperative physical examination were up-staged following excision versus 6.9% with no remaining pigment or tumor prior to surgery (P < .01).

Broadly transected tumors were up-staged in 21.7% of cases versus 4.9% of focally transected tumors (P = .038). The average increase in Breslow depth for broadly transected tumors was 1.03 mm versus 0.03 mm for focally transected lesions (P = .04).

Shave biopsies, ulceration, and lack of concern for melanoma at the initial biopsy were among the factors associated with a higher risk of transection.

Superficial spreading melanoma was the most common subtype. Tumors were evenly distributed between the head, neck, and extremities. The average Breslow depth was 1.51 mm, and the majority of tumors were pT1a or pT2a.

The review excluded melanoma in situ, recurrences, metastases, noncutaneous melanomas, and biopsies where deep margin status was unknown.

There was no funding for the study, and Dr. Duncan and Dr. Patel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Almost 14% of transected invasive melanoma biopsies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham were up-staged on final surgical pathology, in a review of cases at the university.

Had their true Breslow depths been known before definitive surgery, sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsies and wider surgical margins would likely have been recommended.

The findings led the investigators to conclude that a second biopsy should be considered when the first one is transected to ensure surgical and other management decisions are based on an accurate Breslow depth.

A second biopsy is especially warranted for broadly transected biopsies and transected T1a tumors with gross residual tumor or pigment on preoperative exam; both scenarios significantly increased the risk of up-staging in the study, according to lead investigator James Duncan, MD, a Mohs surgery and dermatologic oncology fellow at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

“Accurate staging of malignancies, especially melanoma, is critical to determine prognosis and the best treatment approach,” said Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University, Washington, when asked for comment.

“This study identifies how transected biopsies can underestimate a melanoma’s true depth and thus impact treatment and outcomes. The authors highlight that when a biopsy is transected, or there is notable pigment at the base, attempts should be taken to sample the remaining tumor prior to surgery so the accurate tumor depth can be determined and treatment options be fully discussed with the patient,” Dr. Patel said.

The Birmingham team reviewed invasive melanoma cases at their university from 2017 to 2019.

Almost half (49.6%) of the 726 melanomas they identified were transected on biopsy, which is in line with prior reports. About 60% of the patients were men and 98% were White; the average age was 63 years.

Of the 360 transected tumors, 49 (13.6%) had up-staging at final excision that “would have prompted discussion of alternate surgical treatment such as SLN biopsy or wider surgical margins,” the team said.

Of the 89 transected pT1a melanomas identified, 47.1% with gross residual tumor or pigment on preoperative physical examination were up-staged following excision versus 6.9% with no remaining pigment or tumor prior to surgery (P < .01).

Broadly transected tumors were up-staged in 21.7% of cases versus 4.9% of focally transected tumors (P = .038). The average increase in Breslow depth for broadly transected tumors was 1.03 mm versus 0.03 mm for focally transected lesions (P = .04).

Shave biopsies, ulceration, and lack of concern for melanoma at the initial biopsy were among the factors associated with a higher risk of transection.

Superficial spreading melanoma was the most common subtype. Tumors were evenly distributed between the head, neck, and extremities. The average Breslow depth was 1.51 mm, and the majority of tumors were pT1a or pT2a.

The review excluded melanoma in situ, recurrences, metastases, noncutaneous melanomas, and biopsies where deep margin status was unknown.

There was no funding for the study, and Dr. Duncan and Dr. Patel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Almost 14% of transected invasive melanoma biopsies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham were up-staged on final surgical pathology, in a review of cases at the university.

Had their true Breslow depths been known before definitive surgery, sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsies and wider surgical margins would likely have been recommended.

The findings led the investigators to conclude that a second biopsy should be considered when the first one is transected to ensure surgical and other management decisions are based on an accurate Breslow depth.

A second biopsy is especially warranted for broadly transected biopsies and transected T1a tumors with gross residual tumor or pigment on preoperative exam; both scenarios significantly increased the risk of up-staging in the study, according to lead investigator James Duncan, MD, a Mohs surgery and dermatologic oncology fellow at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

“Accurate staging of malignancies, especially melanoma, is critical to determine prognosis and the best treatment approach,” said Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University, Washington, when asked for comment.

“This study identifies how transected biopsies can underestimate a melanoma’s true depth and thus impact treatment and outcomes. The authors highlight that when a biopsy is transected, or there is notable pigment at the base, attempts should be taken to sample the remaining tumor prior to surgery so the accurate tumor depth can be determined and treatment options be fully discussed with the patient,” Dr. Patel said.

The Birmingham team reviewed invasive melanoma cases at their university from 2017 to 2019.

Almost half (49.6%) of the 726 melanomas they identified were transected on biopsy, which is in line with prior reports. About 60% of the patients were men and 98% were White; the average age was 63 years.

Of the 360 transected tumors, 49 (13.6%) had up-staging at final excision that “would have prompted discussion of alternate surgical treatment such as SLN biopsy or wider surgical margins,” the team said.

Of the 89 transected pT1a melanomas identified, 47.1% with gross residual tumor or pigment on preoperative physical examination were up-staged following excision versus 6.9% with no remaining pigment or tumor prior to surgery (P < .01).

Broadly transected tumors were up-staged in 21.7% of cases versus 4.9% of focally transected tumors (P = .038). The average increase in Breslow depth for broadly transected tumors was 1.03 mm versus 0.03 mm for focally transected lesions (P = .04).

Shave biopsies, ulceration, and lack of concern for melanoma at the initial biopsy were among the factors associated with a higher risk of transection.

Superficial spreading melanoma was the most common subtype. Tumors were evenly distributed between the head, neck, and extremities. The average Breslow depth was 1.51 mm, and the majority of tumors were pT1a or pT2a.

The review excluded melanoma in situ, recurrences, metastases, noncutaneous melanomas, and biopsies where deep margin status was unknown.

There was no funding for the study, and Dr. Duncan and Dr. Patel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Multidisciplinary tumor boards are composed of providers from many fields who deliver coordinated care for patients with unresectable and high-risk skin cancers. Providers who comprise the tumor board often are radiation oncologists, hematologists/oncologists, general surgeons, dermatologists, dermatologic surgeons, and pathologists. The benefit of having a tumor board is that each patient is evaluated simultaneously by a group of physicians from various specialties who bring diverse perspectives that will contribute to the overall treatment plan. The cases often encompass high-risk tumors including unresectable basal cell carcinomas or invasive melanomas. By combining knowledge from each specialty in a team approach, the tumor board can effectively and holistically develop a care plan for each patient.

For the tumor board at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University (Providence, Rhode Island), we often prepare a presentation with comprehensive details about the patient and tumor. During the presentation, we also propose a treatment plan prior to describing each patient at the weekly conference and amend the plans during the discussion. Tumor boards also provide a consulting role to the community and hospital providers in which patients are being referred by their primary provider and are seeking a second opinion or guidance.

In many ways, the tumor board is a multidisciplinary approach for patient advocacy in the form of treatment. These physicians meet on a regular basis to check on the patient’s progress and continually reevaluate how to have discussions about the patient’s care. There are many reasons why it is important to refer patients to a multidisciplinary tumor board.

Improved Workup and Diagnosis

One of the values of a tumor board is that it allows for patient data to be collected and assembled in a way that tells a story. The specialist from each field can then discuss and weigh the benefits and risks for each diagnostic test that should be performed for the workup in each patient. Physicians who refer their patients to the tumor board use their recommendations to both confirm the diagnosis and shift their treatment plans, depending on the information presented during the meeting.¹ There may be a change in the tumor type, decision to refer for surgery, cancer staging, and list of viable options, especially after reviewing pathology and imaging.² The discussion of the treatment plan may consider not only surgical considerations but also the patient’s quality of life. At times, noninvasive interventions are more appropriate and align with the patient’s goals of care. In addition, during the tumor board clinic there may be new tumors that are identified and biopsied, providing increased diagnosis and surveillance for patients who may have a higher risk for developing skin cancer.

Education for Residents and Providers

The multidisciplinary tumor board not only helps patients but also educates both residents and providers on the evidence-based therapeutic management of high-risk tumors.² Research literature on cutaneous oncology is dynamic, and the weekly tumor board meetings help providers stay informed about the best and most effective treatments for their patients.³ In addition to the attending specialists, participants of the tumor board also may include residents, medical students, medical assistance staff, nurses, physician assistants, and fellows. Furthermore, the recommendations given by the tumor board serve to educate both the patient and the provider who referred them to the tumor board. Although we have access to excellent dermatology textbooks as residents, the most impactful educational experience is seeing the patients in tumor board clinic and participating in the immensely educational discussions at the weekly conferences. Through this experience, I have learned that treatment plans should be personalized to the patient. There are many factors to take into consideration when deciphering what the best course of treatment will be for a patient. Sometimes the best option is Mohs micrographic surgery, while other times it may be scheduling several sessions of palliative radiation oncology. Treatment depends on the individual patient and their condition.

Coordination of Care

During a week that I was on call, I was consulted to biopsy a patient with a giant hemorrhagic basal cell carcinoma that caused substantial cheek and nose distortion as well as anemia secondary to acute blood loss. The patient not only did not have a dermatologist but also did not have a primary care physician given he had not had contact with the health care system in more than 30 years. The reason for him not seeking care was multifactorial, but the approach to his care became multidisciplinary. We sought to connect him with the right providers to help him in any way that we could. We presented him at our multidisciplinary tumor board and started him on sonedigib, a medication that binds to and inhibits the smoothened protein.⁴ Through the tumor board, we were able to establish sustained contact with the patient. The tumor board created effective communication between providers to get him the referrals that he needed for dermatology, pathology, radiation oncology, hematology/oncology, and otolaryngology. The discussions centered around being cognizant of the patient’s apprehension with the health care system as well as providing medical and surgical treatment that would help his quality of life. We built a consensus on what the best plan was for the patient and his family. This consensus would have been more difficult had it not been for the combined specialties of the tumor board. In general, studies have shown that weekly tumor boards have resulted in decreased mortality rates for patients with advanced cancers.⁵

Final Thoughts

The multidisciplinary tumor board is a powerful resource for hospitals and the greater medical community. At these weekly conferences you realize there may still be hope that begins at the line where your expertise ends. It represents a team of providers who compassionately refuse to give up on patients when they are the last refuge.

Multidisciplinary tumor boards are composed of providers from many fields who deliver coordinated care for patients with unresectable and high-risk skin cancers. Providers who comprise the tumor board often are radiation oncologists, hematologists/oncologists, general surgeons, dermatologists, dermatologic surgeons, and pathologists. The benefit of having a tumor board is that each patient is evaluated simultaneously by a group of physicians from various specialties who bring diverse perspectives that will contribute to the overall treatment plan. The cases often encompass high-risk tumors including unresectable basal cell carcinomas or invasive melanomas. By combining knowledge from each specialty in a team approach, the tumor board can effectively and holistically develop a care plan for each patient.

For the tumor board at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University (Providence, Rhode Island), we often prepare a presentation with comprehensive details about the patient and tumor. During the presentation, we also propose a treatment plan prior to describing each patient at the weekly conference and amend the plans during the discussion. Tumor boards also provide a consulting role to the community and hospital providers in which patients are being referred by their primary provider and are seeking a second opinion or guidance.

In many ways, the tumor board is a multidisciplinary approach for patient advocacy in the form of treatment. These physicians meet on a regular basis to check on the patient’s progress and continually reevaluate how to have discussions about the patient’s care. There are many reasons why it is important to refer patients to a multidisciplinary tumor board.

Improved Workup and Diagnosis

One of the values of a tumor board is that it allows for patient data to be collected and assembled in a way that tells a story. The specialist from each field can then discuss and weigh the benefits and risks for each diagnostic test that should be performed for the workup in each patient. Physicians who refer their patients to the tumor board use their recommendations to both confirm the diagnosis and shift their treatment plans, depending on the information presented during the meeting.¹ There may be a change in the tumor type, decision to refer for surgery, cancer staging, and list of viable options, especially after reviewing pathology and imaging.² The discussion of the treatment plan may consider not only surgical considerations but also the patient’s quality of life. At times, noninvasive interventions are more appropriate and align with the patient’s goals of care. In addition, during the tumor board clinic there may be new tumors that are identified and biopsied, providing increased diagnosis and surveillance for patients who may have a higher risk for developing skin cancer.

Education for Residents and Providers

The multidisciplinary tumor board not only helps patients but also educates both residents and providers on the evidence-based therapeutic management of high-risk tumors.² Research literature on cutaneous oncology is dynamic, and the weekly tumor board meetings help providers stay informed about the best and most effective treatments for their patients.³ In addition to the attending specialists, participants of the tumor board also may include residents, medical students, medical assistance staff, nurses, physician assistants, and fellows. Furthermore, the recommendations given by the tumor board serve to educate both the patient and the provider who referred them to the tumor board. Although we have access to excellent dermatology textbooks as residents, the most impactful educational experience is seeing the patients in tumor board clinic and participating in the immensely educational discussions at the weekly conferences. Through this experience, I have learned that treatment plans should be personalized to the patient. There are many factors to take into consideration when deciphering what the best course of treatment will be for a patient. Sometimes the best option is Mohs micrographic surgery, while other times it may be scheduling several sessions of palliative radiation oncology. Treatment depends on the individual patient and their condition.

Coordination of Care

During a week that I was on call, I was consulted to biopsy a patient with a giant hemorrhagic basal cell carcinoma that caused substantial cheek and nose distortion as well as anemia secondary to acute blood loss. The patient not only did not have a dermatologist but also did not have a primary care physician given he had not had contact with the health care system in more than 30 years. The reason for him not seeking care was multifactorial, but the approach to his care became multidisciplinary. We sought to connect him with the right providers to help him in any way that we could. We presented him at our multidisciplinary tumor board and started him on sonedigib, a medication that binds to and inhibits the smoothened protein.⁴ Through the tumor board, we were able to establish sustained contact with the patient. The tumor board created effective communication between providers to get him the referrals that he needed for dermatology, pathology, radiation oncology, hematology/oncology, and otolaryngology. The discussions centered around being cognizant of the patient’s apprehension with the health care system as well as providing medical and surgical treatment that would help his quality of life. We built a consensus on what the best plan was for the patient and his family. This consensus would have been more difficult had it not been for the combined specialties of the tumor board. In general, studies have shown that weekly tumor boards have resulted in decreased mortality rates for patients with advanced cancers.⁵

Final Thoughts

The multidisciplinary tumor board is a powerful resource for hospitals and the greater medical community. At these weekly conferences you realize there may still be hope that begins at the line where your expertise ends. It represents a team of providers who compassionately refuse to give up on patients when they are the last refuge.

Multidisciplinary tumor boards are composed of providers from many fields who deliver coordinated care for patients with unresectable and high-risk skin cancers. Providers who comprise the tumor board often are radiation oncologists, hematologists/oncologists, general surgeons, dermatologists, dermatologic surgeons, and pathologists. The benefit of having a tumor board is that each patient is evaluated simultaneously by a group of physicians from various specialties who bring diverse perspectives that will contribute to the overall treatment plan. The cases often encompass high-risk tumors including unresectable basal cell carcinomas or invasive melanomas. By combining knowledge from each specialty in a team approach, the tumor board can effectively and holistically develop a care plan for each patient.

For the tumor board at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University (Providence, Rhode Island), we often prepare a presentation with comprehensive details about the patient and tumor. During the presentation, we also propose a treatment plan prior to describing each patient at the weekly conference and amend the plans during the discussion. Tumor boards also provide a consulting role to the community and hospital providers in which patients are being referred by their primary provider and are seeking a second opinion or guidance.

In many ways, the tumor board is a multidisciplinary approach for patient advocacy in the form of treatment. These physicians meet on a regular basis to check on the patient’s progress and continually reevaluate how to have discussions about the patient’s care. There are many reasons why it is important to refer patients to a multidisciplinary tumor board.

Improved Workup and Diagnosis

One of the values of a tumor board is that it allows for patient data to be collected and assembled in a way that tells a story. The specialist from each field can then discuss and weigh the benefits and risks for each diagnostic test that should be performed for the workup in each patient. Physicians who refer their patients to the tumor board use their recommendations to both confirm the diagnosis and shift their treatment plans, depending on the information presented during the meeting.¹ There may be a change in the tumor type, decision to refer for surgery, cancer staging, and list of viable options, especially after reviewing pathology and imaging.² The discussion of the treatment plan may consider not only surgical considerations but also the patient’s quality of life. At times, noninvasive interventions are more appropriate and align with the patient’s goals of care. In addition, during the tumor board clinic there may be new tumors that are identified and biopsied, providing increased diagnosis and surveillance for patients who may have a higher risk for developing skin cancer.

Education for Residents and Providers

The multidisciplinary tumor board not only helps patients but also educates both residents and providers on the evidence-based therapeutic management of high-risk tumors.² Research literature on cutaneous oncology is dynamic, and the weekly tumor board meetings help providers stay informed about the best and most effective treatments for their patients.³ In addition to the attending specialists, participants of the tumor board also may include residents, medical students, medical assistance staff, nurses, physician assistants, and fellows. Furthermore, the recommendations given by the tumor board serve to educate both the patient and the provider who referred them to the tumor board. Although we have access to excellent dermatology textbooks as residents, the most impactful educational experience is seeing the patients in tumor board clinic and participating in the immensely educational discussions at the weekly conferences. Through this experience, I have learned that treatment plans should be personalized to the patient. There are many factors to take into consideration when deciphering what the best course of treatment will be for a patient. Sometimes the best option is Mohs micrographic surgery, while other times it may be scheduling several sessions of palliative radiation oncology. Treatment depends on the individual patient and their condition.

Coordination of Care

During a week that I was on call, I was consulted to biopsy a patient with a giant hemorrhagic basal cell carcinoma that caused substantial cheek and nose distortion as well as anemia secondary to acute blood loss. The patient not only did not have a dermatologist but also did not have a primary care physician given he had not had contact with the health care system in more than 30 years. The reason for him not seeking care was multifactorial, but the approach to his care became multidisciplinary. We sought to connect him with the right providers to help him in any way that we could. We presented him at our multidisciplinary tumor board and started him on sonedigib, a medication that binds to and inhibits the smoothened protein.⁴ Through the tumor board, we were able to establish sustained contact with the patient. The tumor board created effective communication between providers to get him the referrals that he needed for dermatology, pathology, radiation oncology, hematology/oncology, and otolaryngology. The discussions centered around being cognizant of the patient’s apprehension with the health care system as well as providing medical and surgical treatment that would help his quality of life. We built a consensus on what the best plan was for the patient and his family. This consensus would have been more difficult had it not been for the combined specialties of the tumor board. In general, studies have shown that weekly tumor boards have resulted in decreased mortality rates for patients with advanced cancers.⁵

Final Thoughts

The multidisciplinary tumor board is a powerful resource for hospitals and the greater medical community. At these weekly conferences you realize there may still be hope that begins at the line where your expertise ends. It represents a team of providers who compassionately refuse to give up on patients when they are the last refuge.

Valisure, an online pharmacy known for testing every batch of medication it sells, announced that it has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to recall 40 batches of sunscreens and after-sun products they say tested for high levels of the chemical benzene.

The company tested 294 batches from 69 companies and found benzene in 27% – many in major national brands like Neutrogena and Banana Boat. Some batches contained as much as three times the emergency FDA limit of 2 parts per million.

Long-term exposure to benzene is known to cause cancer in humans.

“This is especially concerning with sunscreen because multiple FDA studies have shown that sunscreen ingredients absorb through the skin and end up in the blood at high levels,” said David Light, CEO of Valisure.

The FDA is seeking more information about the potential risks from common sunscreen ingredients.

“There is not a safe level of benzene that can exist in sunscreen products,” Christopher Bunick, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in Valisure’s FDA petition. “The total mass of sunscreen required to cover and protect the human body, in single daily application or repeated applications daily, means that even benzene at 0.1 ppm in a sunscreen could expose people to excessively high nanogram amounts of benzene.”

Valisure’s testing previously led to FDA recalls of heartburn medications and hand sanitizers.
 

Examining sunscreen’s environmental impact

Chemicals in sunscreen may be harmful to other forms of life, too. For years, scientists have been examining whether certain chemicals in sunscreen could be causing damage to marine life, in particular the world’s coral reefs. Specific ingredients, including oxybenzone, benzophenone-1, benzophenone-8, OD-PABA, 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, 3-benzylidene camphor, nano-titanium dioxide, nano-zinc oxide, octinoxate, and octocrylene, have been identified as potential risks.

Earlier this year, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine created a committee to review the existing science about the potential environmental hazards. Over the next 2 years, they’ll also consider the public health implications if people stopped using sunscreen.

Valisure’s announcement included this message: “It is important to note that not all sunscreen products contain benzene and that uncontaminated products are available, should continue to be used, and are important for protecting against potentially harmful solar radiation.”

Using sunscreen with SPF 15 every day can lower risk of squamous cell carcinoma by around 40% and melanoma by 50%. The American Academy of Dermatology recommends a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher.

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

Valisure, an online pharmacy known for testing every batch of medication it sells, announced that it has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to recall 40 batches of sunscreens and after-sun products they say tested for high levels of the chemical benzene.

The company tested 294 batches from 69 companies and found benzene in 27% – many in major national brands like Neutrogena and Banana Boat. Some batches contained as much as three times the emergency FDA limit of 2 parts per million.

Long-term exposure to benzene is known to cause cancer in humans.

“This is especially concerning with sunscreen because multiple FDA studies have shown that sunscreen ingredients absorb through the skin and end up in the blood at high levels,” said David Light, CEO of Valisure.

The FDA is seeking more information about the potential risks from common sunscreen ingredients.

“There is not a safe level of benzene that can exist in sunscreen products,” Christopher Bunick, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in Valisure’s FDA petition. “The total mass of sunscreen required to cover and protect the human body, in single daily application or repeated applications daily, means that even benzene at 0.1 ppm in a sunscreen could expose people to excessively high nanogram amounts of benzene.”

Valisure’s testing previously led to FDA recalls of heartburn medications and hand sanitizers.
 

Examining sunscreen’s environmental impact

Chemicals in sunscreen may be harmful to other forms of life, too. For years, scientists have been examining whether certain chemicals in sunscreen could be causing damage to marine life, in particular the world’s coral reefs. Specific ingredients, including oxybenzone, benzophenone-1, benzophenone-8, OD-PABA, 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, 3-benzylidene camphor, nano-titanium dioxide, nano-zinc oxide, octinoxate, and octocrylene, have been identified as potential risks.

Earlier this year, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine created a committee to review the existing science about the potential environmental hazards. Over the next 2 years, they’ll also consider the public health implications if people stopped using sunscreen.

Valisure’s announcement included this message: “It is important to note that not all sunscreen products contain benzene and that uncontaminated products are available, should continue to be used, and are important for protecting against potentially harmful solar radiation.”

Using sunscreen with SPF 15 every day can lower risk of squamous cell carcinoma by around 40% and melanoma by 50%. The American Academy of Dermatology recommends a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher.

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

Valisure, an online pharmacy known for testing every batch of medication it sells, announced that it has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to recall 40 batches of sunscreens and after-sun products they say tested for high levels of the chemical benzene.

The company tested 294 batches from 69 companies and found benzene in 27% – many in major national brands like Neutrogena and Banana Boat. Some batches contained as much as three times the emergency FDA limit of 2 parts per million.

Long-term exposure to benzene is known to cause cancer in humans.

“This is especially concerning with sunscreen because multiple FDA studies have shown that sunscreen ingredients absorb through the skin and end up in the blood at high levels,” said David Light, CEO of Valisure.

The FDA is seeking more information about the potential risks from common sunscreen ingredients.

“There is not a safe level of benzene that can exist in sunscreen products,” Christopher Bunick, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in Valisure’s FDA petition. “The total mass of sunscreen required to cover and protect the human body, in single daily application or repeated applications daily, means that even benzene at 0.1 ppm in a sunscreen could expose people to excessively high nanogram amounts of benzene.”

Valisure’s testing previously led to FDA recalls of heartburn medications and hand sanitizers.
 

Examining sunscreen’s environmental impact

Chemicals in sunscreen may be harmful to other forms of life, too. For years, scientists have been examining whether certain chemicals in sunscreen could be causing damage to marine life, in particular the world’s coral reefs. Specific ingredients, including oxybenzone, benzophenone-1, benzophenone-8, OD-PABA, 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, 3-benzylidene camphor, nano-titanium dioxide, nano-zinc oxide, octinoxate, and octocrylene, have been identified as potential risks.

Earlier this year, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine created a committee to review the existing science about the potential environmental hazards. Over the next 2 years, they’ll also consider the public health implications if people stopped using sunscreen.

Valisure’s announcement included this message: “It is important to note that not all sunscreen products contain benzene and that uncontaminated products are available, should continue to be used, and are important for protecting against potentially harmful solar radiation.”

Using sunscreen with SPF 15 every day can lower risk of squamous cell carcinoma by around 40% and melanoma by 50%. The American Academy of Dermatology recommends a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher.

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

Many Mohs surgeons are struggling on the job, and women seem to be especially vulnerable, a new survey suggests.

In a measurement of well-being, 40% of members of the American College of Mohs

Surgery (ACMS) who responded to the survey – and 52% of women – scored at a level considered “at-risk” for adverse outcomes, such as poor quality of life.

“I didn’t think the numbers were going to be that high,” said study author Kemi O. Awe, MD, PhD, a dermatology resident at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, especially in light of Mohs surgery’s reputation as being an especially desirable field in dermatology. She presented the findings at the annual meeting of the ACMS.

Dr. Awe, who hopes to become a Mohs surgeon herself, said in an interview that she launched the study in part to understand how colleagues are faring. “Dermatology is known as a specialty that has a good lifestyle and less stress, but the rate of burnout is actually going up.”

For the study, Dr. Awe and colleagues sent a survey to ACMS members between October and December 2020. The 91 respondents had an average age of 46, and 58% were male. Most practiced in academic facilities (56%), while the rest worked in private practice (39%) or multispecialty (4%) practices. Almost all (89%) were married or in partnerships.

The survey calculated scores on the expanded Physician Well Being Index, a validated tool for measuring physician distress. Forty percent of 68 respondents to this part of the survey got a score of 3 or higher, which the study describes as “a threshold for respondents who are ‘at-risk’ of adverse outcomes such as poor quality of life, depression, and a high level of fatigue.”

Women were more likely to be considered at risk (52%) than men (28%). “This isn’t different than what’s already out there: Female physicians are more likely to be burned out compared to men,” Dr. Awe said.

Compared with their male counterparts, female Mohs surgeons were more likely to say that time at work, malpractice concerns, insurance reimbursement, and compensation structure negatively affected their well-being (P ≤ .05).

It’s unclear whether there’s a well-being gender gap among dermatologists overall, however. Dr. Awe highlighted a 2019 survey of 108 dermatologists that found no significant difference in overall burnout between men and women – about 42% of both genders reported symptoms. But the survey did find that “dermatologists with children living at home had significantly higher levels of burnout,” with a P value of .03.

Dr. Awe said the findings offer insight into what to look out for when pursuing a career as a Mohs surgeon. “There’s potentially excess stress about being a Mohs surgeon,” she said, although the field also has a reputation as being fulfilling and rewarding.

In an interview, Stanford (Calif.) University dermatologist Zakia Rahman, MD, praised the study and said it “certainly provides a framework to address professional fulfillment amongst Mohs surgeons.”

For now, dermatologists can focus on strategies that can reduce burnout in the field, Sailesh Konda, MD, a Mohs surgeon at the Univeristy of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. Dr. Konda highlighted a report published in 2020 that, he said, "recommended focusing on incremental changes that help restore autonomy and control over work, connecting with colleagues within dermatology and the broader medical community, developing self-awareness and recognition of a perfectionist mindset, and restoring meaning and joy to patient care.”*

No funding is reported for the study. Dr. Awe, Dr. Rahman, and Dr. Konda have no relevant disclosures.

*This story was updated on June 2 for clarity.

Many Mohs surgeons are struggling on the job, and women seem to be especially vulnerable, a new survey suggests.

In a measurement of well-being, 40% of members of the American College of Mohs

Surgery (ACMS) who responded to the survey – and 52% of women – scored at a level considered “at-risk” for adverse outcomes, such as poor quality of life.

“I didn’t think the numbers were going to be that high,” said study author Kemi O. Awe, MD, PhD, a dermatology resident at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, especially in light of Mohs surgery’s reputation as being an especially desirable field in dermatology. She presented the findings at the annual meeting of the ACMS.

Dr. Awe, who hopes to become a Mohs surgeon herself, said in an interview that she launched the study in part to understand how colleagues are faring. “Dermatology is known as a specialty that has a good lifestyle and less stress, but the rate of burnout is actually going up.”

For the study, Dr. Awe and colleagues sent a survey to ACMS members between October and December 2020. The 91 respondents had an average age of 46, and 58% were male. Most practiced in academic facilities (56%), while the rest worked in private practice (39%) or multispecialty (4%) practices. Almost all (89%) were married or in partnerships.

The survey calculated scores on the expanded Physician Well Being Index, a validated tool for measuring physician distress. Forty percent of 68 respondents to this part of the survey got a score of 3 or higher, which the study describes as “a threshold for respondents who are ‘at-risk’ of adverse outcomes such as poor quality of life, depression, and a high level of fatigue.”

Women were more likely to be considered at risk (52%) than men (28%). “This isn’t different than what’s already out there: Female physicians are more likely to be burned out compared to men,” Dr. Awe said.

Compared with their male counterparts, female Mohs surgeons were more likely to say that time at work, malpractice concerns, insurance reimbursement, and compensation structure negatively affected their well-being (P ≤ .05).

It’s unclear whether there’s a well-being gender gap among dermatologists overall, however. Dr. Awe highlighted a 2019 survey of 108 dermatologists that found no significant difference in overall burnout between men and women – about 42% of both genders reported symptoms. But the survey did find that “dermatologists with children living at home had significantly higher levels of burnout,” with a P value of .03.

Dr. Awe said the findings offer insight into what to look out for when pursuing a career as a Mohs surgeon. “There’s potentially excess stress about being a Mohs surgeon,” she said, although the field also has a reputation as being fulfilling and rewarding.

In an interview, Stanford (Calif.) University dermatologist Zakia Rahman, MD, praised the study and said it “certainly provides a framework to address professional fulfillment amongst Mohs surgeons.”

For now, dermatologists can focus on strategies that can reduce burnout in the field, Sailesh Konda, MD, a Mohs surgeon at the Univeristy of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. Dr. Konda highlighted a report published in 2020 that, he said, "recommended focusing on incremental changes that help restore autonomy and control over work, connecting with colleagues within dermatology and the broader medical community, developing self-awareness and recognition of a perfectionist mindset, and restoring meaning and joy to patient care.”*

No funding is reported for the study. Dr. Awe, Dr. Rahman, and Dr. Konda have no relevant disclosures.

*This story was updated on June 2 for clarity.

Many Mohs surgeons are struggling on the job, and women seem to be especially vulnerable, a new survey suggests.

In a measurement of well-being, 40% of members of the American College of Mohs

Surgery (ACMS) who responded to the survey – and 52% of women – scored at a level considered “at-risk” for adverse outcomes, such as poor quality of life.

“I didn’t think the numbers were going to be that high,” said study author Kemi O. Awe, MD, PhD, a dermatology resident at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, especially in light of Mohs surgery’s reputation as being an especially desirable field in dermatology. She presented the findings at the annual meeting of the ACMS.

Dr. Awe, who hopes to become a Mohs surgeon herself, said in an interview that she launched the study in part to understand how colleagues are faring. “Dermatology is known as a specialty that has a good lifestyle and less stress, but the rate of burnout is actually going up.”

For the study, Dr. Awe and colleagues sent a survey to ACMS members between October and December 2020. The 91 respondents had an average age of 46, and 58% were male. Most practiced in academic facilities (56%), while the rest worked in private practice (39%) or multispecialty (4%) practices. Almost all (89%) were married or in partnerships.

The survey calculated scores on the expanded Physician Well Being Index, a validated tool for measuring physician distress. Forty percent of 68 respondents to this part of the survey got a score of 3 or higher, which the study describes as “a threshold for respondents who are ‘at-risk’ of adverse outcomes such as poor quality of life, depression, and a high level of fatigue.”

Women were more likely to be considered at risk (52%) than men (28%). “This isn’t different than what’s already out there: Female physicians are more likely to be burned out compared to men,” Dr. Awe said.

Compared with their male counterparts, female Mohs surgeons were more likely to say that time at work, malpractice concerns, insurance reimbursement, and compensation structure negatively affected their well-being (P ≤ .05).

It’s unclear whether there’s a well-being gender gap among dermatologists overall, however. Dr. Awe highlighted a 2019 survey of 108 dermatologists that found no significant difference in overall burnout between men and women – about 42% of both genders reported symptoms. But the survey did find that “dermatologists with children living at home had significantly higher levels of burnout,” with a P value of .03.

Dr. Awe said the findings offer insight into what to look out for when pursuing a career as a Mohs surgeon. “There’s potentially excess stress about being a Mohs surgeon,” she said, although the field also has a reputation as being fulfilling and rewarding.

In an interview, Stanford (Calif.) University dermatologist Zakia Rahman, MD, praised the study and said it “certainly provides a framework to address professional fulfillment amongst Mohs surgeons.”

For now, dermatologists can focus on strategies that can reduce burnout in the field, Sailesh Konda, MD, a Mohs surgeon at the Univeristy of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. Dr. Konda highlighted a report published in 2020 that, he said, "recommended focusing on incremental changes that help restore autonomy and control over work, connecting with colleagues within dermatology and the broader medical community, developing self-awareness and recognition of a perfectionist mindset, and restoring meaning and joy to patient care.”*

No funding is reported for the study. Dr. Awe, Dr. Rahman, and Dr. Konda have no relevant disclosures.

*This story was updated on June 2 for clarity.