Melanoma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

Variety of cancers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Variety of cancers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Variety of cancers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“That will have to change,” he suggested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details of the results in earlier stage disease

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

Patients were randomized to receive pembrolizumab or placebo.

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

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

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

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

At 12 months, the study met its primary endpoint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“That will have to change,” he suggested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details of the results in earlier stage disease

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

Patients were randomized to receive pembrolizumab or placebo.

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

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

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

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

At 12 months, the study met its primary endpoint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“That will have to change,” he suggested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details of the results in earlier stage disease

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

Patients were randomized to receive pembrolizumab or placebo.

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

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

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

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

At 12 months, the study met its primary endpoint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

AI for Skin Cancer

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

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

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

Smartphone Diagnosis of Melanoma

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

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

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

Utility of AI in Telehealth

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

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

Hazards of Racial Bias in AI

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

Benefits of Conversational Agents

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

AI for Skin Cancer

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

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

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

Smartphone Diagnosis of Melanoma

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

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

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

Utility of AI in Telehealth

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

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

Hazards of Racial Bias in AI

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

Benefits of Conversational Agents

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

AI for Skin Cancer

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

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

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

Smartphone Diagnosis of Melanoma

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

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

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

Utility of AI in Telehealth

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

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

Hazards of Racial Bias in AI

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

Benefits of Conversational Agents

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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