Melanoma

To the Editor:

A 32-year-old man presented to the dermatology clinic with multiple asymptomatic blue lesions on the arms and upper torso of 15 years’ duration. His medical history was notable for a recent diagnosis of malignant melanoma following excision of a mole on the upper back 4 months prior. He reported that the mole had been present since childhood, but his sister noticed that it increased in size and changed in color over the course of a year. Physical examination showed multiple blue subcutaneous nodules on the bilateral arms and lower back. The nodules were soft and nontender, and some had telangiectasia on the overlying skin.

Given the atypical distribution of nodules and the patient’s recent history of melanoma, there was concern for cutaneous metastases. A punch biopsy of one of the nodules on the right upper arm was performed. Microscopic examination of the biopsy specimen revealed a proliferation of multiple cavernous vessels surrounded by several rows of monotonous round cells with moderate eosinophilic cytoplasm and monomorphic nuclei, which was consistent with a diagnosis of glomangioma (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical analysis showed diffuse positive staining for smooth muscle actin (Figure 2); CD34 immunostain was positive in endothelial cells and negative in tumor cells (Figure 3).

Glomus tumors arise from modified smooth muscle cells located in glomus bodies. The glomus body is a component of the dermis involved in regulation of body temperature that is composed of an afferent arteriole and an efferent venule. The arterial end of this apparatus, known as the Sucquet-Hoyer canal, is surrounded by glomus cells that have a contractile capability similar to smooth muscle cells. Glomus tumors usually present as painful masses on the fingers with a typical subungual location and almost always are solitary.¹ Glomangiomas, sometimes known as glomuvenous malformations, tend to be larger and usually are painless. They mostly are found on the trunk and extremities and can appear in groups.^2,3 Histopathologically, glomus tumors are circumscribed lesions that show a predominance of glomus cells surrounding inconspicuous blood vessels. Glomangiomas are less well-circumscribed and show a more vascular architecture with prominent dilated vessels and a smaller number of glomus cells.⁴

We present a case of a patient with multiple glomangiomas. There are few reports of multiple glomangiomas in the literature. This case is particularly interesting in that our patient had a history of malignant melanoma, and there was a concern for skin metastases. Despite the patient’s personal history of blue lesions that predated the diagnosis of melanoma for many years, we could not exclude the possibility of cutaneous metastases without performing biopsies.

Tumors of glomus cell origin usually are benign. It has been suggested to replace the term glomangioma with glomuvenous malformations to emphasize the hamartomatous nature of these lesions.⁵ Glomuvenous malformations, or glomangiomas, can occur sporadically or can be inherited as a familial disorder. Inheritable glomangioma has been linked to the chromosome 1p21-22 locus and mutations in the glomulin gene, GLMN, with variable penetrance.⁶ Our patient did not report a family history of such lesions.

Glomangiomas typically are solitary but rarely can present as multiple lesions in fewer than 10% of cases.⁷ Multiple glomangiomas are classified into 3 subtypes: localized, disseminated, and congenital plaque type. Localized multiple glomangiomas present as blue nodules confined to 1 anatomic location such as the hand or arm. Disseminated glomangiomas are more widely distributed and involve more than 1 anatomic location.⁸ Plaque-type glomangiomas consist of numerous confluent lesions occurring either as solitary or multiple plaques.² Clinically, glomangiomas manifest as painless to mildly painful cutaneous nodules. Compared to venous malformations, glomangiomas are less compressible under external pressure.

Histopathologically, glomangiomas appear as nonencapsulated tumors with large, irregular, prominent vessels lined by glomus cells. Glomus cells may be so sparse that the distinction from venous malformations and hemangiomas becomes difficult. Immunohistochemistry can play an important role in diagnosis. As modified smooth muscle cells, glomus cells stain positive with a-smooth muscle actin, while CD34 highlights the vascular endothelium.¹The clinical differential diagnosis of multiple blue or violaceous subcutaneous nodules includes blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome, Maffucci syndrome, glomus tumor, pyogenic granuloma, hemangioma, spiradenoma, angiolipoma, leiomyoma, or hemangiopericytoma.^9-12

Different treatment modalities are available for solitary glomangiomas, including surgical excision, sclerotherapy, and laser application. Treatment of multiple glomangiomas may not be feasible, and excision of isolated symptomatic lesions may be the only option; however, it is crucial to reach the correct diagnosis in these patients to avoid improper treatments and interventions.

To the Editor:

A 32-year-old man presented to the dermatology clinic with multiple asymptomatic blue lesions on the arms and upper torso of 15 years’ duration. His medical history was notable for a recent diagnosis of malignant melanoma following excision of a mole on the upper back 4 months prior. He reported that the mole had been present since childhood, but his sister noticed that it increased in size and changed in color over the course of a year. Physical examination showed multiple blue subcutaneous nodules on the bilateral arms and lower back. The nodules were soft and nontender, and some had telangiectasia on the overlying skin.

Given the atypical distribution of nodules and the patient’s recent history of melanoma, there was concern for cutaneous metastases. A punch biopsy of one of the nodules on the right upper arm was performed. Microscopic examination of the biopsy specimen revealed a proliferation of multiple cavernous vessels surrounded by several rows of monotonous round cells with moderate eosinophilic cytoplasm and monomorphic nuclei, which was consistent with a diagnosis of glomangioma (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical analysis showed diffuse positive staining for smooth muscle actin (Figure 2); CD34 immunostain was positive in endothelial cells and negative in tumor cells (Figure 3).

Glomus tumors arise from modified smooth muscle cells located in glomus bodies. The glomus body is a component of the dermis involved in regulation of body temperature that is composed of an afferent arteriole and an efferent venule. The arterial end of this apparatus, known as the Sucquet-Hoyer canal, is surrounded by glomus cells that have a contractile capability similar to smooth muscle cells. Glomus tumors usually present as painful masses on the fingers with a typical subungual location and almost always are solitary.¹ Glomangiomas, sometimes known as glomuvenous malformations, tend to be larger and usually are painless. They mostly are found on the trunk and extremities and can appear in groups.^2,3 Histopathologically, glomus tumors are circumscribed lesions that show a predominance of glomus cells surrounding inconspicuous blood vessels. Glomangiomas are less well-circumscribed and show a more vascular architecture with prominent dilated vessels and a smaller number of glomus cells.⁴

We present a case of a patient with multiple glomangiomas. There are few reports of multiple glomangiomas in the literature. This case is particularly interesting in that our patient had a history of malignant melanoma, and there was a concern for skin metastases. Despite the patient’s personal history of blue lesions that predated the diagnosis of melanoma for many years, we could not exclude the possibility of cutaneous metastases without performing biopsies.

Tumors of glomus cell origin usually are benign. It has been suggested to replace the term glomangioma with glomuvenous malformations to emphasize the hamartomatous nature of these lesions.⁵ Glomuvenous malformations, or glomangiomas, can occur sporadically or can be inherited as a familial disorder. Inheritable glomangioma has been linked to the chromosome 1p21-22 locus and mutations in the glomulin gene, GLMN, with variable penetrance.⁶ Our patient did not report a family history of such lesions.

Glomangiomas typically are solitary but rarely can present as multiple lesions in fewer than 10% of cases.⁷ Multiple glomangiomas are classified into 3 subtypes: localized, disseminated, and congenital plaque type. Localized multiple glomangiomas present as blue nodules confined to 1 anatomic location such as the hand or arm. Disseminated glomangiomas are more widely distributed and involve more than 1 anatomic location.⁸ Plaque-type glomangiomas consist of numerous confluent lesions occurring either as solitary or multiple plaques.² Clinically, glomangiomas manifest as painless to mildly painful cutaneous nodules. Compared to venous malformations, glomangiomas are less compressible under external pressure.

Histopathologically, glomangiomas appear as nonencapsulated tumors with large, irregular, prominent vessels lined by glomus cells. Glomus cells may be so sparse that the distinction from venous malformations and hemangiomas becomes difficult. Immunohistochemistry can play an important role in diagnosis. As modified smooth muscle cells, glomus cells stain positive with a-smooth muscle actin, while CD34 highlights the vascular endothelium.¹The clinical differential diagnosis of multiple blue or violaceous subcutaneous nodules includes blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome, Maffucci syndrome, glomus tumor, pyogenic granuloma, hemangioma, spiradenoma, angiolipoma, leiomyoma, or hemangiopericytoma.^9-12

Different treatment modalities are available for solitary glomangiomas, including surgical excision, sclerotherapy, and laser application. Treatment of multiple glomangiomas may not be feasible, and excision of isolated symptomatic lesions may be the only option; however, it is crucial to reach the correct diagnosis in these patients to avoid improper treatments and interventions.

To the Editor:

A 32-year-old man presented to the dermatology clinic with multiple asymptomatic blue lesions on the arms and upper torso of 15 years’ duration. His medical history was notable for a recent diagnosis of malignant melanoma following excision of a mole on the upper back 4 months prior. He reported that the mole had been present since childhood, but his sister noticed that it increased in size and changed in color over the course of a year. Physical examination showed multiple blue subcutaneous nodules on the bilateral arms and lower back. The nodules were soft and nontender, and some had telangiectasia on the overlying skin.

Given the atypical distribution of nodules and the patient’s recent history of melanoma, there was concern for cutaneous metastases. A punch biopsy of one of the nodules on the right upper arm was performed. Microscopic examination of the biopsy specimen revealed a proliferation of multiple cavernous vessels surrounded by several rows of monotonous round cells with moderate eosinophilic cytoplasm and monomorphic nuclei, which was consistent with a diagnosis of glomangioma (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical analysis showed diffuse positive staining for smooth muscle actin (Figure 2); CD34 immunostain was positive in endothelial cells and negative in tumor cells (Figure 3).

Glomus tumors arise from modified smooth muscle cells located in glomus bodies. The glomus body is a component of the dermis involved in regulation of body temperature that is composed of an afferent arteriole and an efferent venule. The arterial end of this apparatus, known as the Sucquet-Hoyer canal, is surrounded by glomus cells that have a contractile capability similar to smooth muscle cells. Glomus tumors usually present as painful masses on the fingers with a typical subungual location and almost always are solitary.¹ Glomangiomas, sometimes known as glomuvenous malformations, tend to be larger and usually are painless. They mostly are found on the trunk and extremities and can appear in groups.^2,3 Histopathologically, glomus tumors are circumscribed lesions that show a predominance of glomus cells surrounding inconspicuous blood vessels. Glomangiomas are less well-circumscribed and show a more vascular architecture with prominent dilated vessels and a smaller number of glomus cells.⁴

We present a case of a patient with multiple glomangiomas. There are few reports of multiple glomangiomas in the literature. This case is particularly interesting in that our patient had a history of malignant melanoma, and there was a concern for skin metastases. Despite the patient’s personal history of blue lesions that predated the diagnosis of melanoma for many years, we could not exclude the possibility of cutaneous metastases without performing biopsies.

Tumors of glomus cell origin usually are benign. It has been suggested to replace the term glomangioma with glomuvenous malformations to emphasize the hamartomatous nature of these lesions.⁵ Glomuvenous malformations, or glomangiomas, can occur sporadically or can be inherited as a familial disorder. Inheritable glomangioma has been linked to the chromosome 1p21-22 locus and mutations in the glomulin gene, GLMN, with variable penetrance.⁶ Our patient did not report a family history of such lesions.

Glomangiomas typically are solitary but rarely can present as multiple lesions in fewer than 10% of cases.⁷ Multiple glomangiomas are classified into 3 subtypes: localized, disseminated, and congenital plaque type. Localized multiple glomangiomas present as blue nodules confined to 1 anatomic location such as the hand or arm. Disseminated glomangiomas are more widely distributed and involve more than 1 anatomic location.⁸ Plaque-type glomangiomas consist of numerous confluent lesions occurring either as solitary or multiple plaques.² Clinically, glomangiomas manifest as painless to mildly painful cutaneous nodules. Compared to venous malformations, glomangiomas are less compressible under external pressure.

Histopathologically, glomangiomas appear as nonencapsulated tumors with large, irregular, prominent vessels lined by glomus cells. Glomus cells may be so sparse that the distinction from venous malformations and hemangiomas becomes difficult. Immunohistochemistry can play an important role in diagnosis. As modified smooth muscle cells, glomus cells stain positive with a-smooth muscle actin, while CD34 highlights the vascular endothelium.¹The clinical differential diagnosis of multiple blue or violaceous subcutaneous nodules includes blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome, Maffucci syndrome, glomus tumor, pyogenic granuloma, hemangioma, spiradenoma, angiolipoma, leiomyoma, or hemangiopericytoma.^9-12

Different treatment modalities are available for solitary glomangiomas, including surgical excision, sclerotherapy, and laser application. Treatment of multiple glomangiomas may not be feasible, and excision of isolated symptomatic lesions may be the only option; however, it is crucial to reach the correct diagnosis in these patients to avoid improper treatments and interventions.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

A neoadjuvant strategy combining two immunostimulatory agents with differing mechanisms of action is efficacious and safe in patients with high-risk, resectable melanoma, according to final results of the phase 2 Neo-C-Nivo trial.

The two agents are the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and CMP-001, an investigational Toll-like receptor 9 agonist that activates tumor-associated plasmacytoid dendritic cells.

CMP-001 and nivolumab produced a major pathologic response in 60% of patients, and these patients had a 1-year relapse-free survival rate of 89%. About 23% of patients had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, and there were no grade 4-5 treatment-related events.

These data were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Stage III melanoma is a very, very high risk disease. Despite appropriate management, which involves surgical resection followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, a large number of patients still relapse,” noted study author Diwakar Davar, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center.

“Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in this setting enhances the systemic T-cell response to tumor antigens,” he explained. “As a result, there is greater detection and killing of micrometastatic disease. And, indeed, neoadjuvant immunotherapy with anti–[programmed death–1] monotherapy or with anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 combination therapy produces high response rates, although the combination therapy is associated with significant toxicity.”
 

Patients, treatment, and response

The Neo-C-Nivo trial enrolled 31 patients with resectable stage IIIB/C/D melanoma having clinically apparent lymph node disease.

The patients were treated with three cycles of nivolumab given every 2 weeks. They also received seven weekly injections of CMP-001 subcutaneously and then intratumorally. After surgical resection, the patients received more of the same immunotherapy.

At a median follow-up of 15 months, 60% of patients had a major pathologic response, 50% had a complete response, and 10% had a major response. Some 70% of patients (after additionally including partial responders) had any pathologic response.

“More than half of the patients that we treated had more than one injectable lesion,” Dr. Davar noted. “I want to emphasize that only one lesion was injected, so the results we got illustrate that the rest of the patients who had more than one injectable lesion had regression in their injected and uninjected lesions.”

Biomarker analyses showed that response was associated with evidence of immune activation, both in the tumor and in the blood. With immunotherapy, the density of CD8 tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes increased by a median of 10.3-fold in pathologic responders as compared with only 0.8-fold in nonresponders (P < .05). In addition, responders had evidence of activated CD8-positive T cells peripherally, as well as presence of plasmacytoid dendritic cells within the tumor microenvironment.
 

Survival and safety

Patients had better median relapse-free survival if they attained a major pathologic response (not reached in either group, P = .0106) or any pathologic response (not reached vs. 5 months, P = .0001).

The landmark 1-year relapse-free survival rate was 89% for major pathologic responders and 90% for all pathologic responders.

Overall, 22.6% of patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, the majority of which did not require medical intervention and none of which delayed planned surgery. There were no grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events.

Cytokine release syndrome was uncommon, seen in 16.1% of patients, possibly because the cohort received prophylaxis, Dr. Davar proposed.
 

Another treatment option?

“Intratumoral CMP-001 increases clinical efficacy of PD-1 blockade with minimal additional toxicity in patients with regionally advanced melanoma. Further study of this combination in high-risk resectable melanoma is planned,” Dr. Davar concluded.

“This combination achieved high response rates and certainly should be considered for a larger trial,” agreed session cochair Brian Gastman, MD, of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.

However, long-term outcomes are pending, and it is not clear how efficacy of the studied combination will ultimately stack up against that of other treatment options, Dr. Gastman cautioned in an interview. “For example, it’s hard to tell if this will lead to better results versus, say, T-VEC [talimogene laherparepvec] with an anti-PD-1 agent,” he elaborated.

Nonetheless, “the implication of these findings is that there is another potential injectable option that can be combined with checkpoint inhibitors, and it may be useful for patients with refractory disease,” Dr. Gastman concluded.

The trial was funded by Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Davar disclosed relationships with Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Array Biopharma, Merck, Shionogi, Vedanta, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CellSight Technologies, GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro, and Medpacto. Dr. Gastman disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Davar D et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 303.

A neoadjuvant strategy combining two immunostimulatory agents with differing mechanisms of action is efficacious and safe in patients with high-risk, resectable melanoma, according to final results of the phase 2 Neo-C-Nivo trial.

The two agents are the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and CMP-001, an investigational Toll-like receptor 9 agonist that activates tumor-associated plasmacytoid dendritic cells.

CMP-001 and nivolumab produced a major pathologic response in 60% of patients, and these patients had a 1-year relapse-free survival rate of 89%. About 23% of patients had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, and there were no grade 4-5 treatment-related events.

These data were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Stage III melanoma is a very, very high risk disease. Despite appropriate management, which involves surgical resection followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, a large number of patients still relapse,” noted study author Diwakar Davar, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center.

“Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in this setting enhances the systemic T-cell response to tumor antigens,” he explained. “As a result, there is greater detection and killing of micrometastatic disease. And, indeed, neoadjuvant immunotherapy with anti–[programmed death–1] monotherapy or with anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 combination therapy produces high response rates, although the combination therapy is associated with significant toxicity.”
 

Patients, treatment, and response

The Neo-C-Nivo trial enrolled 31 patients with resectable stage IIIB/C/D melanoma having clinically apparent lymph node disease.

The patients were treated with three cycles of nivolumab given every 2 weeks. They also received seven weekly injections of CMP-001 subcutaneously and then intratumorally. After surgical resection, the patients received more of the same immunotherapy.

At a median follow-up of 15 months, 60% of patients had a major pathologic response, 50% had a complete response, and 10% had a major response. Some 70% of patients (after additionally including partial responders) had any pathologic response.

“More than half of the patients that we treated had more than one injectable lesion,” Dr. Davar noted. “I want to emphasize that only one lesion was injected, so the results we got illustrate that the rest of the patients who had more than one injectable lesion had regression in their injected and uninjected lesions.”

Biomarker analyses showed that response was associated with evidence of immune activation, both in the tumor and in the blood. With immunotherapy, the density of CD8 tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes increased by a median of 10.3-fold in pathologic responders as compared with only 0.8-fold in nonresponders (P < .05). In addition, responders had evidence of activated CD8-positive T cells peripherally, as well as presence of plasmacytoid dendritic cells within the tumor microenvironment.
 

Survival and safety

Patients had better median relapse-free survival if they attained a major pathologic response (not reached in either group, P = .0106) or any pathologic response (not reached vs. 5 months, P = .0001).

The landmark 1-year relapse-free survival rate was 89% for major pathologic responders and 90% for all pathologic responders.

Overall, 22.6% of patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, the majority of which did not require medical intervention and none of which delayed planned surgery. There were no grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events.

Cytokine release syndrome was uncommon, seen in 16.1% of patients, possibly because the cohort received prophylaxis, Dr. Davar proposed.
 

Another treatment option?

“Intratumoral CMP-001 increases clinical efficacy of PD-1 blockade with minimal additional toxicity in patients with regionally advanced melanoma. Further study of this combination in high-risk resectable melanoma is planned,” Dr. Davar concluded.

“This combination achieved high response rates and certainly should be considered for a larger trial,” agreed session cochair Brian Gastman, MD, of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.

However, long-term outcomes are pending, and it is not clear how efficacy of the studied combination will ultimately stack up against that of other treatment options, Dr. Gastman cautioned in an interview. “For example, it’s hard to tell if this will lead to better results versus, say, T-VEC [talimogene laherparepvec] with an anti-PD-1 agent,” he elaborated.

Nonetheless, “the implication of these findings is that there is another potential injectable option that can be combined with checkpoint inhibitors, and it may be useful for patients with refractory disease,” Dr. Gastman concluded.

The trial was funded by Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Davar disclosed relationships with Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Array Biopharma, Merck, Shionogi, Vedanta, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CellSight Technologies, GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro, and Medpacto. Dr. Gastman disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Davar D et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 303.

A neoadjuvant strategy combining two immunostimulatory agents with differing mechanisms of action is efficacious and safe in patients with high-risk, resectable melanoma, according to final results of the phase 2 Neo-C-Nivo trial.

The two agents are the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and CMP-001, an investigational Toll-like receptor 9 agonist that activates tumor-associated plasmacytoid dendritic cells.

CMP-001 and nivolumab produced a major pathologic response in 60% of patients, and these patients had a 1-year relapse-free survival rate of 89%. About 23% of patients had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, and there were no grade 4-5 treatment-related events.

These data were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Stage III melanoma is a very, very high risk disease. Despite appropriate management, which involves surgical resection followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, a large number of patients still relapse,” noted study author Diwakar Davar, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center.

“Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in this setting enhances the systemic T-cell response to tumor antigens,” he explained. “As a result, there is greater detection and killing of micrometastatic disease. And, indeed, neoadjuvant immunotherapy with anti–[programmed death–1] monotherapy or with anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 combination therapy produces high response rates, although the combination therapy is associated with significant toxicity.”
 

Patients, treatment, and response

The Neo-C-Nivo trial enrolled 31 patients with resectable stage IIIB/C/D melanoma having clinically apparent lymph node disease.

The patients were treated with three cycles of nivolumab given every 2 weeks. They also received seven weekly injections of CMP-001 subcutaneously and then intratumorally. After surgical resection, the patients received more of the same immunotherapy.

At a median follow-up of 15 months, 60% of patients had a major pathologic response, 50% had a complete response, and 10% had a major response. Some 70% of patients (after additionally including partial responders) had any pathologic response.

“More than half of the patients that we treated had more than one injectable lesion,” Dr. Davar noted. “I want to emphasize that only one lesion was injected, so the results we got illustrate that the rest of the patients who had more than one injectable lesion had regression in their injected and uninjected lesions.”

Biomarker analyses showed that response was associated with evidence of immune activation, both in the tumor and in the blood. With immunotherapy, the density of CD8 tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes increased by a median of 10.3-fold in pathologic responders as compared with only 0.8-fold in nonresponders (P < .05). In addition, responders had evidence of activated CD8-positive T cells peripherally, as well as presence of plasmacytoid dendritic cells within the tumor microenvironment.
 

Survival and safety

Patients had better median relapse-free survival if they attained a major pathologic response (not reached in either group, P = .0106) or any pathologic response (not reached vs. 5 months, P = .0001).

The landmark 1-year relapse-free survival rate was 89% for major pathologic responders and 90% for all pathologic responders.

Overall, 22.6% of patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, the majority of which did not require medical intervention and none of which delayed planned surgery. There were no grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events.

Cytokine release syndrome was uncommon, seen in 16.1% of patients, possibly because the cohort received prophylaxis, Dr. Davar proposed.
 

Another treatment option?

“Intratumoral CMP-001 increases clinical efficacy of PD-1 blockade with minimal additional toxicity in patients with regionally advanced melanoma. Further study of this combination in high-risk resectable melanoma is planned,” Dr. Davar concluded.

“This combination achieved high response rates and certainly should be considered for a larger trial,” agreed session cochair Brian Gastman, MD, of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.

However, long-term outcomes are pending, and it is not clear how efficacy of the studied combination will ultimately stack up against that of other treatment options, Dr. Gastman cautioned in an interview. “For example, it’s hard to tell if this will lead to better results versus, say, T-VEC [talimogene laherparepvec] with an anti-PD-1 agent,” he elaborated.

Nonetheless, “the implication of these findings is that there is another potential injectable option that can be combined with checkpoint inhibitors, and it may be useful for patients with refractory disease,” Dr. Gastman concluded.

The trial was funded by Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Davar disclosed relationships with Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Array Biopharma, Merck, Shionogi, Vedanta, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CellSight Technologies, GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro, and Medpacto. Dr. Gastman disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Davar D et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 303.

Combining the recombinant Flt3 ligand CDX-301 with the dendritic cell–targeted vaccine CDX-1401 enhanced vaccine-induced immune responses in patients with high-risk melanoma, according to results from a phase 2 trial.

“[This] study supports the potential of combining [the] CDX-1401 vaccine and CDX-301 with checkpoint inhibitors, which are standard-of-care therapy,” study author Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The team described their study in Nature Cancer.

The multicenter, open-label, randomized study included 60 patients with resected stage IIb-IV melanoma, all of whom had not received any prior treatment, including radiotherapy, biologics, and chemotherapy.

Patients randomized to the combination arm (cohort 1; n = 30) received the anti–DEC-205-NY-ESO-1 vaccine CDX-1401 and were pretreated with CDX-301, while those in the comparator arm (cohort 2; n = 30) received CDX-1401 alone.

Serial blood samples were collected to evaluate response to the vaccine antigen (NY-ESO-1) before each cycle, as well as 4 weeks and 12 weeks after the last vaccination. The primary endpoint was immune response prior to the third vaccination.

T-cell responses were detected in 76% of patients who received CDX-301 and 33% of patients who did not (P < .0011). In addition, the magnitude of response was significantly higher with the combination than with CDX-1401 alone (mean of 41 and 17 corrected spots per well, respectively; P = .032).

“All 30 (100%) cohort 1 participants had NY-ESO-1–specific T-cell responses for at least one time point, whereas 8 (27%) cohort 2 participants had no responses at any time point,” the researchers wrote.

Responses were maintained up to 12 weeks after the final vaccination, but there was no statistically significant difference between cohorts 1 and 2 at 12 weeks (54% and 38%, respectively; P = .2).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this trial was that it was not sized to evaluate relapse or overall survival.

“Given that ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab are approved as adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, vaccines incorporating CDX-301 and suitable antigen-containing platforms merit clinical investigation in the adjuvant setting in combination with immune checkpoint blockade,” the authors wrote.

“I am hopeful that highly immunogenic cancer vaccines can be added to currently approved immunotherapies, thus boosting an individual’s anticancer immune response even further,” Dr. Bhardwaj said in an interview.

This study was supported by grant funding from the National Cancer Institute. Some authors reported financial affiliations with Celldex Therapeutics, NanoString Technologies, and Oncovir. Dr. Bhardwaj disclosed relationships with Celldex and Oncovir.

SOURCE: Bhardwaj N et al. Nat Cancer. 2020 Nov 16. doi: 10.1038/s43018-020-00143-y.

Combining the recombinant Flt3 ligand CDX-301 with the dendritic cell–targeted vaccine CDX-1401 enhanced vaccine-induced immune responses in patients with high-risk melanoma, according to results from a phase 2 trial.

“[This] study supports the potential of combining [the] CDX-1401 vaccine and CDX-301 with checkpoint inhibitors, which are standard-of-care therapy,” study author Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The team described their study in Nature Cancer.

The multicenter, open-label, randomized study included 60 patients with resected stage IIb-IV melanoma, all of whom had not received any prior treatment, including radiotherapy, biologics, and chemotherapy.

Patients randomized to the combination arm (cohort 1; n = 30) received the anti–DEC-205-NY-ESO-1 vaccine CDX-1401 and were pretreated with CDX-301, while those in the comparator arm (cohort 2; n = 30) received CDX-1401 alone.

Serial blood samples were collected to evaluate response to the vaccine antigen (NY-ESO-1) before each cycle, as well as 4 weeks and 12 weeks after the last vaccination. The primary endpoint was immune response prior to the third vaccination.

T-cell responses were detected in 76% of patients who received CDX-301 and 33% of patients who did not (P < .0011). In addition, the magnitude of response was significantly higher with the combination than with CDX-1401 alone (mean of 41 and 17 corrected spots per well, respectively; P = .032).

“All 30 (100%) cohort 1 participants had NY-ESO-1–specific T-cell responses for at least one time point, whereas 8 (27%) cohort 2 participants had no responses at any time point,” the researchers wrote.

Responses were maintained up to 12 weeks after the final vaccination, but there was no statistically significant difference between cohorts 1 and 2 at 12 weeks (54% and 38%, respectively; P = .2).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this trial was that it was not sized to evaluate relapse or overall survival.

“Given that ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab are approved as adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, vaccines incorporating CDX-301 and suitable antigen-containing platforms merit clinical investigation in the adjuvant setting in combination with immune checkpoint blockade,” the authors wrote.

“I am hopeful that highly immunogenic cancer vaccines can be added to currently approved immunotherapies, thus boosting an individual’s anticancer immune response even further,” Dr. Bhardwaj said in an interview.

This study was supported by grant funding from the National Cancer Institute. Some authors reported financial affiliations with Celldex Therapeutics, NanoString Technologies, and Oncovir. Dr. Bhardwaj disclosed relationships with Celldex and Oncovir.

SOURCE: Bhardwaj N et al. Nat Cancer. 2020 Nov 16. doi: 10.1038/s43018-020-00143-y.

Combining the recombinant Flt3 ligand CDX-301 with the dendritic cell–targeted vaccine CDX-1401 enhanced vaccine-induced immune responses in patients with high-risk melanoma, according to results from a phase 2 trial.

“[This] study supports the potential of combining [the] CDX-1401 vaccine and CDX-301 with checkpoint inhibitors, which are standard-of-care therapy,” study author Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The team described their study in Nature Cancer.

The multicenter, open-label, randomized study included 60 patients with resected stage IIb-IV melanoma, all of whom had not received any prior treatment, including radiotherapy, biologics, and chemotherapy.

Patients randomized to the combination arm (cohort 1; n = 30) received the anti–DEC-205-NY-ESO-1 vaccine CDX-1401 and were pretreated with CDX-301, while those in the comparator arm (cohort 2; n = 30) received CDX-1401 alone.

Serial blood samples were collected to evaluate response to the vaccine antigen (NY-ESO-1) before each cycle, as well as 4 weeks and 12 weeks after the last vaccination. The primary endpoint was immune response prior to the third vaccination.

T-cell responses were detected in 76% of patients who received CDX-301 and 33% of patients who did not (P < .0011). In addition, the magnitude of response was significantly higher with the combination than with CDX-1401 alone (mean of 41 and 17 corrected spots per well, respectively; P = .032).

“All 30 (100%) cohort 1 participants had NY-ESO-1–specific T-cell responses for at least one time point, whereas 8 (27%) cohort 2 participants had no responses at any time point,” the researchers wrote.

Responses were maintained up to 12 weeks after the final vaccination, but there was no statistically significant difference between cohorts 1 and 2 at 12 weeks (54% and 38%, respectively; P = .2).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this trial was that it was not sized to evaluate relapse or overall survival.

“Given that ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab are approved as adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, vaccines incorporating CDX-301 and suitable antigen-containing platforms merit clinical investigation in the adjuvant setting in combination with immune checkpoint blockade,” the authors wrote.

“I am hopeful that highly immunogenic cancer vaccines can be added to currently approved immunotherapies, thus boosting an individual’s anticancer immune response even further,” Dr. Bhardwaj said in an interview.

This study was supported by grant funding from the National Cancer Institute. Some authors reported financial affiliations with Celldex Therapeutics, NanoString Technologies, and Oncovir. Dr. Bhardwaj disclosed relationships with Celldex and Oncovir.

SOURCE: Bhardwaj N et al. Nat Cancer. 2020 Nov 16. doi: 10.1038/s43018-020-00143-y.

Mitotic rate, properly applied, has a prognostic impact in melanoma comparable to that of lesional ulceration, Mohammed Kashani-Sabet, MD, reported at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet, a dermatologist, director of the melanoma research program, and senior scientist at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, was first author of a large recently published study that made a strong case for reincorporation of mitotic index into the American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) melanoma staging system.

Mitotic index was included in the 7th edition of the AJCC classification system, but was dropped from the current 8th edition in part because of concern it could potentially lead to overtreatment of patients with very thin melanomas of less than 0.5-mm thickness.

However, mitotic rate, like tumor thickness, is a continuous variable. And like tumor thickness, mitotic rate has a nonlinear relationship with survival. That’s why the AJCC staging system utilizes unequally spaced tumor thickness cut points of 1, 2, and 4 mm to define T1-T4 disease. But until the study led by Dr. Kashani-Sabet, optimal cut points for mitotic rate hadn’t been defined.

He and his coinvestigators at Melanoma Institute Australia collected a dataset comprising 5,050 patients with primary cutaneous melanoma in Australia and Northern California, all of whom either died of metastatic melanoma or remained distant metastasis–free for at least 8 years of follow-up. Median follow-up of the cohort was 9.5 years.

The investigators developed computer-generated cut points for mitotic rate and its impact on survival for each melanoma T category, then assessed their value in randomly split training and validation sets from their large cohort. For T1 melanoma, the optimal cut point proved to be 2 mitoses/mm²; more than two was independently associated with increased mortality risk. For T2 disease, the optimal cut point was 4, for T3 it was 6, and for T4 it was 7 mitoses/mm².

A key study finding: In a multivariate regression analysis, tumor thickness was associated with survival, with an odds ratio of 1.58, ulceration had an odds ratio of 1.55, and mitotic rate by cut point had an odds ratio of 5.38. Each of these three characteristics was independently associated with survival (P < .00005). Dr. Kashani-Sabet said that, despite the more than threefold greater odds ratio for mitotic rate, compared with ulceration, in a Kaplan-Meier analysis, the survival impact of ulceration being present was “virtually identical” to an elevated mitotic rate in each T category.

He and his coinvestigators proposed a revised T-category system which incorporates this new insight. There is no change in tumor thickness to define T1-T4 melanoma: T1 is less than 1.0 mm, T2 is greater than 1-2.0 mm, T3 is greater than 2.01-4.0 mm, and T4 is greater than 4.0 mm. But now, within each T category the proposal is that the “a” designation indicates neither ulceration nor an elevated mitotic rate is present, while “b” means ulceration and/or an elevated mitotic rate using the optimal cut point for that T category is present. In their Australian/Northern California dataset, these new T categories showed a distinct separation in cumulative survival.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet and coworkers have submitted a proposal to validate their results using the AJCC database. Based upon a first look at the numbers, “We think it’s really very likely that these observations can be reproduced in this most important of datasets,” he predicted.

During a panel discussion, Sancy Leachman, MD, PhD, offered a recent example from her own practice where an elevated mitotic index as defined by Dr. Kashani-Sabet and coworkers served as a red flag.

“I had a patient with a 0.3-mm melanoma with three mitoses. I did a sentinel lymph node biopsy on the patient, and she was positive,” said Dr. Leachman, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet commented that, while an elevated mitotic index is clearly not an absolute requirement for metastasis, when present it’s a prognostically important finding.

Moreover, as adjuvant therapies of proven value in node-positive disease increasingly come under study in node-negative melanoma, it will be critical to identify the high-risk node-negative subgroup for whom such therapies should be targeted.

“While T4 tumors and ulcerated melanomas are clearly high risk, they’re not going to capture every patient who has a very high risk of distant metastases and death. I think mitotic rate is another pathway to identify patients who very well might benefit and should be candidates for inclusion in those adjuvant therapy trials as we’re moving more into node-negative patients,” according to Dr. Kashani-Sabet.

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

[email protected]

Mitotic rate, properly applied, has a prognostic impact in melanoma comparable to that of lesional ulceration, Mohammed Kashani-Sabet, MD, reported at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet, a dermatologist, director of the melanoma research program, and senior scientist at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, was first author of a large recently published study that made a strong case for reincorporation of mitotic index into the American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) melanoma staging system.

Mitotic index was included in the 7th edition of the AJCC classification system, but was dropped from the current 8th edition in part because of concern it could potentially lead to overtreatment of patients with very thin melanomas of less than 0.5-mm thickness.

However, mitotic rate, like tumor thickness, is a continuous variable. And like tumor thickness, mitotic rate has a nonlinear relationship with survival. That’s why the AJCC staging system utilizes unequally spaced tumor thickness cut points of 1, 2, and 4 mm to define T1-T4 disease. But until the study led by Dr. Kashani-Sabet, optimal cut points for mitotic rate hadn’t been defined.

He and his coinvestigators at Melanoma Institute Australia collected a dataset comprising 5,050 patients with primary cutaneous melanoma in Australia and Northern California, all of whom either died of metastatic melanoma or remained distant metastasis–free for at least 8 years of follow-up. Median follow-up of the cohort was 9.5 years.

The investigators developed computer-generated cut points for mitotic rate and its impact on survival for each melanoma T category, then assessed their value in randomly split training and validation sets from their large cohort. For T1 melanoma, the optimal cut point proved to be 2 mitoses/mm²; more than two was independently associated with increased mortality risk. For T2 disease, the optimal cut point was 4, for T3 it was 6, and for T4 it was 7 mitoses/mm².

A key study finding: In a multivariate regression analysis, tumor thickness was associated with survival, with an odds ratio of 1.58, ulceration had an odds ratio of 1.55, and mitotic rate by cut point had an odds ratio of 5.38. Each of these three characteristics was independently associated with survival (P < .00005). Dr. Kashani-Sabet said that, despite the more than threefold greater odds ratio for mitotic rate, compared with ulceration, in a Kaplan-Meier analysis, the survival impact of ulceration being present was “virtually identical” to an elevated mitotic rate in each T category.

He and his coinvestigators proposed a revised T-category system which incorporates this new insight. There is no change in tumor thickness to define T1-T4 melanoma: T1 is less than 1.0 mm, T2 is greater than 1-2.0 mm, T3 is greater than 2.01-4.0 mm, and T4 is greater than 4.0 mm. But now, within each T category the proposal is that the “a” designation indicates neither ulceration nor an elevated mitotic rate is present, while “b” means ulceration and/or an elevated mitotic rate using the optimal cut point for that T category is present. In their Australian/Northern California dataset, these new T categories showed a distinct separation in cumulative survival.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet and coworkers have submitted a proposal to validate their results using the AJCC database. Based upon a first look at the numbers, “We think it’s really very likely that these observations can be reproduced in this most important of datasets,” he predicted.

During a panel discussion, Sancy Leachman, MD, PhD, offered a recent example from her own practice where an elevated mitotic index as defined by Dr. Kashani-Sabet and coworkers served as a red flag.

“I had a patient with a 0.3-mm melanoma with three mitoses. I did a sentinel lymph node biopsy on the patient, and she was positive,” said Dr. Leachman, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet commented that, while an elevated mitotic index is clearly not an absolute requirement for metastasis, when present it’s a prognostically important finding.

Moreover, as adjuvant therapies of proven value in node-positive disease increasingly come under study in node-negative melanoma, it will be critical to identify the high-risk node-negative subgroup for whom such therapies should be targeted.

“While T4 tumors and ulcerated melanomas are clearly high risk, they’re not going to capture every patient who has a very high risk of distant metastases and death. I think mitotic rate is another pathway to identify patients who very well might benefit and should be candidates for inclusion in those adjuvant therapy trials as we’re moving more into node-negative patients,” according to Dr. Kashani-Sabet.

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

[email protected]

Mitotic rate, properly applied, has a prognostic impact in melanoma comparable to that of lesional ulceration, Mohammed Kashani-Sabet, MD, reported at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet, a dermatologist, director of the melanoma research program, and senior scientist at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, was first author of a large recently published study that made a strong case for reincorporation of mitotic index into the American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) melanoma staging system.

Mitotic index was included in the 7th edition of the AJCC classification system, but was dropped from the current 8th edition in part because of concern it could potentially lead to overtreatment of patients with very thin melanomas of less than 0.5-mm thickness.

However, mitotic rate, like tumor thickness, is a continuous variable. And like tumor thickness, mitotic rate has a nonlinear relationship with survival. That’s why the AJCC staging system utilizes unequally spaced tumor thickness cut points of 1, 2, and 4 mm to define T1-T4 disease. But until the study led by Dr. Kashani-Sabet, optimal cut points for mitotic rate hadn’t been defined.

He and his coinvestigators at Melanoma Institute Australia collected a dataset comprising 5,050 patients with primary cutaneous melanoma in Australia and Northern California, all of whom either died of metastatic melanoma or remained distant metastasis–free for at least 8 years of follow-up. Median follow-up of the cohort was 9.5 years.

The investigators developed computer-generated cut points for mitotic rate and its impact on survival for each melanoma T category, then assessed their value in randomly split training and validation sets from their large cohort. For T1 melanoma, the optimal cut point proved to be 2 mitoses/mm²; more than two was independently associated with increased mortality risk. For T2 disease, the optimal cut point was 4, for T3 it was 6, and for T4 it was 7 mitoses/mm².

A key study finding: In a multivariate regression analysis, tumor thickness was associated with survival, with an odds ratio of 1.58, ulceration had an odds ratio of 1.55, and mitotic rate by cut point had an odds ratio of 5.38. Each of these three characteristics was independently associated with survival (P < .00005). Dr. Kashani-Sabet said that, despite the more than threefold greater odds ratio for mitotic rate, compared with ulceration, in a Kaplan-Meier analysis, the survival impact of ulceration being present was “virtually identical” to an elevated mitotic rate in each T category.

He and his coinvestigators proposed a revised T-category system which incorporates this new insight. There is no change in tumor thickness to define T1-T4 melanoma: T1 is less than 1.0 mm, T2 is greater than 1-2.0 mm, T3 is greater than 2.01-4.0 mm, and T4 is greater than 4.0 mm. But now, within each T category the proposal is that the “a” designation indicates neither ulceration nor an elevated mitotic rate is present, while “b” means ulceration and/or an elevated mitotic rate using the optimal cut point for that T category is present. In their Australian/Northern California dataset, these new T categories showed a distinct separation in cumulative survival.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet and coworkers have submitted a proposal to validate their results using the AJCC database. Based upon a first look at the numbers, “We think it’s really very likely that these observations can be reproduced in this most important of datasets,” he predicted.

During a panel discussion, Sancy Leachman, MD, PhD, offered a recent example from her own practice where an elevated mitotic index as defined by Dr. Kashani-Sabet and coworkers served as a red flag.

“I had a patient with a 0.3-mm melanoma with three mitoses. I did a sentinel lymph node biopsy on the patient, and she was positive,” said Dr. Leachman, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet commented that, while an elevated mitotic index is clearly not an absolute requirement for metastasis, when present it’s a prognostically important finding.

Moreover, as adjuvant therapies of proven value in node-positive disease increasingly come under study in node-negative melanoma, it will be critical to identify the high-risk node-negative subgroup for whom such therapies should be targeted.

“While T4 tumors and ulcerated melanomas are clearly high risk, they’re not going to capture every patient who has a very high risk of distant metastases and death. I think mitotic rate is another pathway to identify patients who very well might benefit and should be candidates for inclusion in those adjuvant therapy trials as we’re moving more into node-negative patients,” according to Dr. Kashani-Sabet.

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

[email protected]

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

Having a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions on the vulva may identify melanoma early, according to a lecture at virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Pigmented brown or black vulvar lesions occur in approximately 10% of women, and they may be normal and benign.

“Often we will see a pigmented lesion on the vulva and think that there is nothing to worry about,” said Melissa Mauskar, MD.

Lesions could be angiokeratomas, petechiae, purpura, melanosis, and nevi, for example. Seborrheic keratoses can mimic melanoma. “If it looks odd, don’t be afraid to biopsy it,” said Dr. Mauskar, assistant professor of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Characteristics of melanoma, covered by the mnemonic ABCDE, include asymmetry, borders that are irregular, coloring that is uneven, diameter greater than 7 mm, and evolution over time.

When biopsying a lesion because of concerns about melanoma, the goal is to remove the whole lesion at once, Dr. Mauskar said.

In a recent U.S. population-based study of more than 1,800 patients with malignant melanoma of the vulva or vagina (including 1,400 patients with vulvar melanoma and 463 patients with vaginal melanoma), median disease-specific survival was 99 months for vulvar melanoma and 19 months for vaginal melanoma.

Patients with vaginal melanoma were more likely than patients with vulvar melanoma to have nodular lesions. The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system predicts vulvar melanoma outcomes, the researchers found. In addition, lymph node status and mitotic rate were important predictors of survival.

A wide local excision is the mainstay of therapy for melanoma. Other therapeutic advances are “changing the survival curves for these patients, especially when we can find things early,” Dr. Mauskar said.

Photographing lesions can help doctors monitor them over time, she added.

It is important for dermatologists to include the vulva in skin exams and for gynecologists to have a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions, Dr. Mauskar said. “Having a very low threshold for biopsy ... will increase our chances of finding these lesions when they are more at the superficial spreading phase as opposed to the nodular phase,” she said.

Capturing the depth of a tumor within the confines of a biopsy may help accurately stage malignant melanoma, Jason Reutter, MD, a pathologist in Hickory, N.C., said in a separate presentation. He suggested trying to get around the lesion with a punch biopsy if possible. A shave biopsy may be advantageous for larger macular lesions. To diagnose one melanoma, doctors may have to biopsy many lesions, Dr. Reutter noted.

At one institution, the number of skin biopsies needed to diagnose skin cancer ranged from 2.82 to 6.55, depending on the type of clinician, according to a recent study. The number of biopsies needed to detect one melanoma was greater – between 14 and 54 – depending on type of clinician.

For larger lesions, scouting biopsies of different areas may be the best approach, Dr. Reutter said.

Dr. Mauskar and Dr. Reutter had no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Having a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions on the vulva may identify melanoma early, according to a lecture at virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Pigmented brown or black vulvar lesions occur in approximately 10% of women, and they may be normal and benign.

“Often we will see a pigmented lesion on the vulva and think that there is nothing to worry about,” said Melissa Mauskar, MD.

Lesions could be angiokeratomas, petechiae, purpura, melanosis, and nevi, for example. Seborrheic keratoses can mimic melanoma. “If it looks odd, don’t be afraid to biopsy it,” said Dr. Mauskar, assistant professor of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Characteristics of melanoma, covered by the mnemonic ABCDE, include asymmetry, borders that are irregular, coloring that is uneven, diameter greater than 7 mm, and evolution over time.

When biopsying a lesion because of concerns about melanoma, the goal is to remove the whole lesion at once, Dr. Mauskar said.

In a recent U.S. population-based study of more than 1,800 patients with malignant melanoma of the vulva or vagina (including 1,400 patients with vulvar melanoma and 463 patients with vaginal melanoma), median disease-specific survival was 99 months for vulvar melanoma and 19 months for vaginal melanoma.

Patients with vaginal melanoma were more likely than patients with vulvar melanoma to have nodular lesions. The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system predicts vulvar melanoma outcomes, the researchers found. In addition, lymph node status and mitotic rate were important predictors of survival.

A wide local excision is the mainstay of therapy for melanoma. Other therapeutic advances are “changing the survival curves for these patients, especially when we can find things early,” Dr. Mauskar said.

Photographing lesions can help doctors monitor them over time, she added.

It is important for dermatologists to include the vulva in skin exams and for gynecologists to have a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions, Dr. Mauskar said. “Having a very low threshold for biopsy ... will increase our chances of finding these lesions when they are more at the superficial spreading phase as opposed to the nodular phase,” she said.

Capturing the depth of a tumor within the confines of a biopsy may help accurately stage malignant melanoma, Jason Reutter, MD, a pathologist in Hickory, N.C., said in a separate presentation. He suggested trying to get around the lesion with a punch biopsy if possible. A shave biopsy may be advantageous for larger macular lesions. To diagnose one melanoma, doctors may have to biopsy many lesions, Dr. Reutter noted.

At one institution, the number of skin biopsies needed to diagnose skin cancer ranged from 2.82 to 6.55, depending on the type of clinician, according to a recent study. The number of biopsies needed to detect one melanoma was greater – between 14 and 54 – depending on type of clinician.

For larger lesions, scouting biopsies of different areas may be the best approach, Dr. Reutter said.

Dr. Mauskar and Dr. Reutter had no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Having a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions on the vulva may identify melanoma early, according to a lecture at virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Pigmented brown or black vulvar lesions occur in approximately 10% of women, and they may be normal and benign.

“Often we will see a pigmented lesion on the vulva and think that there is nothing to worry about,” said Melissa Mauskar, MD.

Lesions could be angiokeratomas, petechiae, purpura, melanosis, and nevi, for example. Seborrheic keratoses can mimic melanoma. “If it looks odd, don’t be afraid to biopsy it,” said Dr. Mauskar, assistant professor of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Characteristics of melanoma, covered by the mnemonic ABCDE, include asymmetry, borders that are irregular, coloring that is uneven, diameter greater than 7 mm, and evolution over time.

When biopsying a lesion because of concerns about melanoma, the goal is to remove the whole lesion at once, Dr. Mauskar said.

In a recent U.S. population-based study of more than 1,800 patients with malignant melanoma of the vulva or vagina (including 1,400 patients with vulvar melanoma and 463 patients with vaginal melanoma), median disease-specific survival was 99 months for vulvar melanoma and 19 months for vaginal melanoma.

Patients with vaginal melanoma were more likely than patients with vulvar melanoma to have nodular lesions. The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system predicts vulvar melanoma outcomes, the researchers found. In addition, lymph node status and mitotic rate were important predictors of survival.

A wide local excision is the mainstay of therapy for melanoma. Other therapeutic advances are “changing the survival curves for these patients, especially when we can find things early,” Dr. Mauskar said.

Photographing lesions can help doctors monitor them over time, she added.

It is important for dermatologists to include the vulva in skin exams and for gynecologists to have a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions, Dr. Mauskar said. “Having a very low threshold for biopsy ... will increase our chances of finding these lesions when they are more at the superficial spreading phase as opposed to the nodular phase,” she said.

Capturing the depth of a tumor within the confines of a biopsy may help accurately stage malignant melanoma, Jason Reutter, MD, a pathologist in Hickory, N.C., said in a separate presentation. He suggested trying to get around the lesion with a punch biopsy if possible. A shave biopsy may be advantageous for larger macular lesions. To diagnose one melanoma, doctors may have to biopsy many lesions, Dr. Reutter noted.

At one institution, the number of skin biopsies needed to diagnose skin cancer ranged from 2.82 to 6.55, depending on the type of clinician, according to a recent study. The number of biopsies needed to detect one melanoma was greater – between 14 and 54 – depending on type of clinician.

For larger lesions, scouting biopsies of different areas may be the best approach, Dr. Reutter said.

Dr. Mauskar and Dr. Reutter had no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

Initial evidence suggests that the deliberate delays in melanoma care that occurred during the COVID-19 shelter-in-place lockdown last spring had a significant negative impact on patient outcomes, Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, MPH, said at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medication Education.

This is not what National Comprehensive Cancer Network officials expected when they issued short-term recommendations on how to manage cutaneous melanoma during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Those recommendations for restriction of care, which Dr. Hartman characterized as “pretty significant changes from how we typically practice melanoma care in the U.S.,” came at a time when there was justifiable concern that the first COVID-19 surge would strain the U.S. health care system beyond the breaking point.

The rationale given for the NCCN recommendations was that most time-to-treat studies have shown no adverse patient outcomes for 90-day delays in treatment, even for thicker melanomas. But those studies, all retrospective, have been called into question. And the first real-world data on the impact of care restrictions during the lockdown, reported by Italian dermatologists, highlights adverse effects with potentially far-reaching consequences, noted Dr. Hartman, director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a dermatologist, Harvard University, Boston.

Analysis of the impact of lockdown-induced delays in melanoma care is not merely an academic exercise, she added. While everyone hopes that the spring 2020 COVID-19 shelter-in-place was a once-in-a-lifetime event, there’s no guarantee that will be the case. Moreover, the lockdown provides a natural experiment addressing the possible consequences of melanoma care delays on patient outcomes, a topic that for ethical reasons could never be addressed in a randomized trial.

The short-term NCCN recommendations included the use of excisional biopsies for melanoma diagnosis whenever possible; and delay of up to 3 months for wide local excision of in situ melanoma, any invasive melanoma with negative margins, and even T1 melanomas with positive margins provided the bulk of the lesion had been excised. The guidance also suggested delaying sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), along with increased use of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with clinically palpable regional lymph nodes in order to delay surgery for up to 8 weeks. Single-agent systemic therapy at the least-frequent dosing was advised in order to minimize toxicity and reduce the need for additional health care resources: for example, nivolumab (Opdivo) at 480 mg every 4 weeks instead of every 2 weeks, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) at 400 mg every 6 weeks, rather than every 3 weeks.

So, that’s what the NCCN recommended. Here’s what actually happened during shelter-in-place as captured in Dr. Hartman’s survey of 18 U.S. members of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group, all practicing dermatology in centers particularly hard-hit in the first wave of the pandemic: In-person new melanoma patient visits plunged from an average of 4.83 per week per provider to 0.83 per week. Telemedicine visits with new melanoma patients went from zero prepandemic to 0.67 visits per week per provider, which doesn’t come close to making up for the drop in in-person visits. Interestingly, two respondents reported turning to gene-expression profile testing for patient prognostication because of delays in SLNB.

Wide local excision was delayed by an average of 6 weeks in roughly one-third of melanoma patients with early tumor stage disease, regardless of margin status. For patients with stage T1b disease, wide local excision was typically performed on time during shelter-in-place; however, SLNB was delayed by an average of 5 weeks in 22% of patients with positive margins and 28% of those with negative margins. In contrast, 80% of patients with more advanced T2-T4 melanoma underwent on-schedule definitive management with wide local excision and SLNB, Dr. Hartman reported.

Critics have taken issue with the NCCN’s conclusion that most time-to-treatment studies show no harm arising from 90-day treatment delays. A review of the relevant published literature by Dr. Hartman’s Harvard colleagues, published in July, found that the evidence is mixed. “There is insufficient evidence to definitively conclude that delayed wide resection after gross removal of the primary melanoma is without harm,” they concluded in the review.

Spanish dermatologists performed a modeling study in order to estimate the potential impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on 5- and 10-year survival of melanoma patients. Using the growth rate of a random sample of 1,000 melanomas to model estimates of tumor thickness after various delays, coupled with American Joint Committee on Cancer survival data for different T stages, they estimated that 5-year survival would be reduced from 94.2% to 92.3% with a 90-day delay in diagnosis, and that 10-year survival would drop from 90.0% to 87.6%.

But that’s merely modeling. Francesco Ricci, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the melanoma unit at the Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata, Rome, have provided a first look at the real-world impact of the lockdown. In the prelockdown period of January through March 9th, 2020, the referral center averaged 2.3 new melanoma diagnoses per day. During the Rome lockdown, from March 10th through May 3rd, this figure dropped to a mean of 0.6 melanoma diagnoses per day. Postlockdown, from May 4th to June 6th, the average climbed to 1.3 per day. The rate of newly diagnosed nodular melanoma was 5.5-fold greater postlockdown, compared with prelockdown; the rate of ulcerated melanoma was 4.9-fold greater.

“We can hypothesize that this may have been due to delays in diagnosis and care,” Dr. Hartman commented. “This is important because we know that nodular melanoma as well as ulceration tend to have a worse prognosis in terms of mortality.”

The mean Breslow thickness of newly diagnosed melanomas was 0.88 mm prelockdown, 0.66 mm during lockdown, and 1.96 mm postlockdown. The investigators speculated that the reduced Breslow thickness of melanomas diagnosed during lockdown might be explained by a greater willingness of more health-conscious people to defy the shelter-in-place instructions because of their concern about a suspicious skin lesion. “Though it is way too early to gauge the consequences of such diagnostic delay, should this issue be neglected, dermatologists and their patients may pay a higher price later with increased morbidity, mortality, and financial burden,” according to the investigators.

Dr. Hartman observed that it will be important to learn whether similar experiences occurred elsewhere during lockdown.

Another speaker, John M. Kirkwood, MD, said he has seen several melanoma patients referred from outside centers who had delays of up to 3 months in sentinel lymph node management of T2 and T3 tumors during lockdown who now have widespread metastatic disease.

“Now, is that anecdotal? I don’t know, it’s just worrisome to me,” commented Dr. Kirkwood, professor of medicine, dermatology, and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh.

Merrick Ross, MD, professor of surgical oncology at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recalled, “There was a period of time [during the lockdown] when we weren’t allowed to do certain elective procedures, if you want to call cancer surgery elective.”

“It’s too soon to talk about outcomes because a lot of patients are still in the process of being treated after what I would consider a significant delay in diagnosis,” the surgeon added.

An audience member asked if there will be an opportunity to see data on the damage done by delaying melanoma management as compared to lives saved through the lockdown for COVID-19. Dr. Ross replied that M.D. Anderson is in the midst of an institution-wide study analyzing the delay in diagnosis of a range of cancers.

“In our melanoma center it is absolutely clear, although we’re still collecting data, that the median tumor thickness is much higher since the lockdown,” Dr. Ross commented.

Dr. Hartman said she and her coinvestigators in the Melanoma Prevention Working Group are attempting to tally up the damage done via the lockdown by delaying melanoma diagnosis and treatment. But she agreed with the questioner that the most important thing is overall net lives saved through shelter-in-place.

“I’m sure that, separately, nondermatologists – perhaps infectious disease doctors and internists – are looking at how many lives were saved by the lockdown policy. So I do think all that data will come out,” Dr. Hartman predicted.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hartman, R. Cutaneous malignancies forum.

Initial evidence suggests that the deliberate delays in melanoma care that occurred during the COVID-19 shelter-in-place lockdown last spring had a significant negative impact on patient outcomes, Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, MPH, said at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medication Education.

This is not what National Comprehensive Cancer Network officials expected when they issued short-term recommendations on how to manage cutaneous melanoma during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Those recommendations for restriction of care, which Dr. Hartman characterized as “pretty significant changes from how we typically practice melanoma care in the U.S.,” came at a time when there was justifiable concern that the first COVID-19 surge would strain the U.S. health care system beyond the breaking point.

The rationale given for the NCCN recommendations was that most time-to-treat studies have shown no adverse patient outcomes for 90-day delays in treatment, even for thicker melanomas. But those studies, all retrospective, have been called into question. And the first real-world data on the impact of care restrictions during the lockdown, reported by Italian dermatologists, highlights adverse effects with potentially far-reaching consequences, noted Dr. Hartman, director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a dermatologist, Harvard University, Boston.

Analysis of the impact of lockdown-induced delays in melanoma care is not merely an academic exercise, she added. While everyone hopes that the spring 2020 COVID-19 shelter-in-place was a once-in-a-lifetime event, there’s no guarantee that will be the case. Moreover, the lockdown provides a natural experiment addressing the possible consequences of melanoma care delays on patient outcomes, a topic that for ethical reasons could never be addressed in a randomized trial.

The short-term NCCN recommendations included the use of excisional biopsies for melanoma diagnosis whenever possible; and delay of up to 3 months for wide local excision of in situ melanoma, any invasive melanoma with negative margins, and even T1 melanomas with positive margins provided the bulk of the lesion had been excised. The guidance also suggested delaying sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), along with increased use of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with clinically palpable regional lymph nodes in order to delay surgery for up to 8 weeks. Single-agent systemic therapy at the least-frequent dosing was advised in order to minimize toxicity and reduce the need for additional health care resources: for example, nivolumab (Opdivo) at 480 mg every 4 weeks instead of every 2 weeks, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) at 400 mg every 6 weeks, rather than every 3 weeks.

So, that’s what the NCCN recommended. Here’s what actually happened during shelter-in-place as captured in Dr. Hartman’s survey of 18 U.S. members of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group, all practicing dermatology in centers particularly hard-hit in the first wave of the pandemic: In-person new melanoma patient visits plunged from an average of 4.83 per week per provider to 0.83 per week. Telemedicine visits with new melanoma patients went from zero prepandemic to 0.67 visits per week per provider, which doesn’t come close to making up for the drop in in-person visits. Interestingly, two respondents reported turning to gene-expression profile testing for patient prognostication because of delays in SLNB.

Wide local excision was delayed by an average of 6 weeks in roughly one-third of melanoma patients with early tumor stage disease, regardless of margin status. For patients with stage T1b disease, wide local excision was typically performed on time during shelter-in-place; however, SLNB was delayed by an average of 5 weeks in 22% of patients with positive margins and 28% of those with negative margins. In contrast, 80% of patients with more advanced T2-T4 melanoma underwent on-schedule definitive management with wide local excision and SLNB, Dr. Hartman reported.

Critics have taken issue with the NCCN’s conclusion that most time-to-treatment studies show no harm arising from 90-day treatment delays. A review of the relevant published literature by Dr. Hartman’s Harvard colleagues, published in July, found that the evidence is mixed. “There is insufficient evidence to definitively conclude that delayed wide resection after gross removal of the primary melanoma is without harm,” they concluded in the review.

Spanish dermatologists performed a modeling study in order to estimate the potential impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on 5- and 10-year survival of melanoma patients. Using the growth rate of a random sample of 1,000 melanomas to model estimates of tumor thickness after various delays, coupled with American Joint Committee on Cancer survival data for different T stages, they estimated that 5-year survival would be reduced from 94.2% to 92.3% with a 90-day delay in diagnosis, and that 10-year survival would drop from 90.0% to 87.6%.

But that’s merely modeling. Francesco Ricci, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the melanoma unit at the Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata, Rome, have provided a first look at the real-world impact of the lockdown. In the prelockdown period of January through March 9th, 2020, the referral center averaged 2.3 new melanoma diagnoses per day. During the Rome lockdown, from March 10th through May 3rd, this figure dropped to a mean of 0.6 melanoma diagnoses per day. Postlockdown, from May 4th to June 6th, the average climbed to 1.3 per day. The rate of newly diagnosed nodular melanoma was 5.5-fold greater postlockdown, compared with prelockdown; the rate of ulcerated melanoma was 4.9-fold greater.

“We can hypothesize that this may have been due to delays in diagnosis and care,” Dr. Hartman commented. “This is important because we know that nodular melanoma as well as ulceration tend to have a worse prognosis in terms of mortality.”

The mean Breslow thickness of newly diagnosed melanomas was 0.88 mm prelockdown, 0.66 mm during lockdown, and 1.96 mm postlockdown. The investigators speculated that the reduced Breslow thickness of melanomas diagnosed during lockdown might be explained by a greater willingness of more health-conscious people to defy the shelter-in-place instructions because of their concern about a suspicious skin lesion. “Though it is way too early to gauge the consequences of such diagnostic delay, should this issue be neglected, dermatologists and their patients may pay a higher price later with increased morbidity, mortality, and financial burden,” according to the investigators.

Dr. Hartman observed that it will be important to learn whether similar experiences occurred elsewhere during lockdown.

Another speaker, John M. Kirkwood, MD, said he has seen several melanoma patients referred from outside centers who had delays of up to 3 months in sentinel lymph node management of T2 and T3 tumors during lockdown who now have widespread metastatic disease.

“Now, is that anecdotal? I don’t know, it’s just worrisome to me,” commented Dr. Kirkwood, professor of medicine, dermatology, and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh.

Merrick Ross, MD, professor of surgical oncology at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recalled, “There was a period of time [during the lockdown] when we weren’t allowed to do certain elective procedures, if you want to call cancer surgery elective.”

“It’s too soon to talk about outcomes because a lot of patients are still in the process of being treated after what I would consider a significant delay in diagnosis,” the surgeon added.

An audience member asked if there will be an opportunity to see data on the damage done by delaying melanoma management as compared to lives saved through the lockdown for COVID-19. Dr. Ross replied that M.D. Anderson is in the midst of an institution-wide study analyzing the delay in diagnosis of a range of cancers.

“In our melanoma center it is absolutely clear, although we’re still collecting data, that the median tumor thickness is much higher since the lockdown,” Dr. Ross commented.

Dr. Hartman said she and her coinvestigators in the Melanoma Prevention Working Group are attempting to tally up the damage done via the lockdown by delaying melanoma diagnosis and treatment. But she agreed with the questioner that the most important thing is overall net lives saved through shelter-in-place.

“I’m sure that, separately, nondermatologists – perhaps infectious disease doctors and internists – are looking at how many lives were saved by the lockdown policy. So I do think all that data will come out,” Dr. Hartman predicted.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hartman, R. Cutaneous malignancies forum.

Initial evidence suggests that the deliberate delays in melanoma care that occurred during the COVID-19 shelter-in-place lockdown last spring had a significant negative impact on patient outcomes, Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, MPH, said at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medication Education.

This is not what National Comprehensive Cancer Network officials expected when they issued short-term recommendations on how to manage cutaneous melanoma during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Those recommendations for restriction of care, which Dr. Hartman characterized as “pretty significant changes from how we typically practice melanoma care in the U.S.,” came at a time when there was justifiable concern that the first COVID-19 surge would strain the U.S. health care system beyond the breaking point.

The rationale given for the NCCN recommendations was that most time-to-treat studies have shown no adverse patient outcomes for 90-day delays in treatment, even for thicker melanomas. But those studies, all retrospective, have been called into question. And the first real-world data on the impact of care restrictions during the lockdown, reported by Italian dermatologists, highlights adverse effects with potentially far-reaching consequences, noted Dr. Hartman, director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a dermatologist, Harvard University, Boston.

Analysis of the impact of lockdown-induced delays in melanoma care is not merely an academic exercise, she added. While everyone hopes that the spring 2020 COVID-19 shelter-in-place was a once-in-a-lifetime event, there’s no guarantee that will be the case. Moreover, the lockdown provides a natural experiment addressing the possible consequences of melanoma care delays on patient outcomes, a topic that for ethical reasons could never be addressed in a randomized trial.

The short-term NCCN recommendations included the use of excisional biopsies for melanoma diagnosis whenever possible; and delay of up to 3 months for wide local excision of in situ melanoma, any invasive melanoma with negative margins, and even T1 melanomas with positive margins provided the bulk of the lesion had been excised. The guidance also suggested delaying sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), along with increased use of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with clinically palpable regional lymph nodes in order to delay surgery for up to 8 weeks. Single-agent systemic therapy at the least-frequent dosing was advised in order to minimize toxicity and reduce the need for additional health care resources: for example, nivolumab (Opdivo) at 480 mg every 4 weeks instead of every 2 weeks, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) at 400 mg every 6 weeks, rather than every 3 weeks.

So, that’s what the NCCN recommended. Here’s what actually happened during shelter-in-place as captured in Dr. Hartman’s survey of 18 U.S. members of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group, all practicing dermatology in centers particularly hard-hit in the first wave of the pandemic: In-person new melanoma patient visits plunged from an average of 4.83 per week per provider to 0.83 per week. Telemedicine visits with new melanoma patients went from zero prepandemic to 0.67 visits per week per provider, which doesn’t come close to making up for the drop in in-person visits. Interestingly, two respondents reported turning to gene-expression profile testing for patient prognostication because of delays in SLNB.

Wide local excision was delayed by an average of 6 weeks in roughly one-third of melanoma patients with early tumor stage disease, regardless of margin status. For patients with stage T1b disease, wide local excision was typically performed on time during shelter-in-place; however, SLNB was delayed by an average of 5 weeks in 22% of patients with positive margins and 28% of those with negative margins. In contrast, 80% of patients with more advanced T2-T4 melanoma underwent on-schedule definitive management with wide local excision and SLNB, Dr. Hartman reported.

Critics have taken issue with the NCCN’s conclusion that most time-to-treatment studies show no harm arising from 90-day treatment delays. A review of the relevant published literature by Dr. Hartman’s Harvard colleagues, published in July, found that the evidence is mixed. “There is insufficient evidence to definitively conclude that delayed wide resection after gross removal of the primary melanoma is without harm,” they concluded in the review.

Spanish dermatologists performed a modeling study in order to estimate the potential impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on 5- and 10-year survival of melanoma patients. Using the growth rate of a random sample of 1,000 melanomas to model estimates of tumor thickness after various delays, coupled with American Joint Committee on Cancer survival data for different T stages, they estimated that 5-year survival would be reduced from 94.2% to 92.3% with a 90-day delay in diagnosis, and that 10-year survival would drop from 90.0% to 87.6%.

But that’s merely modeling. Francesco Ricci, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the melanoma unit at the Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata, Rome, have provided a first look at the real-world impact of the lockdown. In the prelockdown period of January through March 9th, 2020, the referral center averaged 2.3 new melanoma diagnoses per day. During the Rome lockdown, from March 10th through May 3rd, this figure dropped to a mean of 0.6 melanoma diagnoses per day. Postlockdown, from May 4th to June 6th, the average climbed to 1.3 per day. The rate of newly diagnosed nodular melanoma was 5.5-fold greater postlockdown, compared with prelockdown; the rate of ulcerated melanoma was 4.9-fold greater.

“We can hypothesize that this may have been due to delays in diagnosis and care,” Dr. Hartman commented. “This is important because we know that nodular melanoma as well as ulceration tend to have a worse prognosis in terms of mortality.”

The mean Breslow thickness of newly diagnosed melanomas was 0.88 mm prelockdown, 0.66 mm during lockdown, and 1.96 mm postlockdown. The investigators speculated that the reduced Breslow thickness of melanomas diagnosed during lockdown might be explained by a greater willingness of more health-conscious people to defy the shelter-in-place instructions because of their concern about a suspicious skin lesion. “Though it is way too early to gauge the consequences of such diagnostic delay, should this issue be neglected, dermatologists and their patients may pay a higher price later with increased morbidity, mortality, and financial burden,” according to the investigators.

Dr. Hartman observed that it will be important to learn whether similar experiences occurred elsewhere during lockdown.

Another speaker, John M. Kirkwood, MD, said he has seen several melanoma patients referred from outside centers who had delays of up to 3 months in sentinel lymph node management of T2 and T3 tumors during lockdown who now have widespread metastatic disease.

“Now, is that anecdotal? I don’t know, it’s just worrisome to me,” commented Dr. Kirkwood, professor of medicine, dermatology, and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh.

Merrick Ross, MD, professor of surgical oncology at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recalled, “There was a period of time [during the lockdown] when we weren’t allowed to do certain elective procedures, if you want to call cancer surgery elective.”

“It’s too soon to talk about outcomes because a lot of patients are still in the process of being treated after what I would consider a significant delay in diagnosis,” the surgeon added.

An audience member asked if there will be an opportunity to see data on the damage done by delaying melanoma management as compared to lives saved through the lockdown for COVID-19. Dr. Ross replied that M.D. Anderson is in the midst of an institution-wide study analyzing the delay in diagnosis of a range of cancers.

“In our melanoma center it is absolutely clear, although we’re still collecting data, that the median tumor thickness is much higher since the lockdown,” Dr. Ross commented.

Dr. Hartman said she and her coinvestigators in the Melanoma Prevention Working Group are attempting to tally up the damage done via the lockdown by delaying melanoma diagnosis and treatment. But she agreed with the questioner that the most important thing is overall net lives saved through shelter-in-place.

“I’m sure that, separately, nondermatologists – perhaps infectious disease doctors and internists – are looking at how many lives were saved by the lockdown policy. So I do think all that data will come out,” Dr. Hartman predicted.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hartman, R. Cutaneous malignancies forum.

Practice Gap

Nonmelanoma skin cancers most commonly are found on the head and neck. In these locations, many of these malignancies will meet criteria to undergo treatment with Mohs micrographic surgery. It is becoming increasingly common for patients to have multiple lesions treated at the same time, and sometimes these lesions can be in close proximity to one another. The final size of the adjacent defects, along with the amount of normal tissue remaining between them, will determine how to best repair both defects.¹ Many times, repair options are limited to the use of a larger and more extensive repair such as a flap or graft. We present a novel option to increase the options for surgical repair.

The Technique

We present a case of 2 large adjacent postsurgical defects where intraoperative tissue relaxation allowed for successful primary linear closure of both defects under notably decreased tension from baseline. A 70-year-old man presented for treatment of 2 adjacent invasive squamous cell carcinomas on the left temple and left frontal scalp. The initial lesion sizes were 2.0×1.0 and 2.0×2.0 cm, respectively. Mohs micrographic surgery was performed on both lesions, and the final defect sizes measured 2.0×1.4 and 3.0×1.6 cm, respectively. The island of normal tissue between the defects measured 2.3-cm wide. Different repair options were discussed with the patient, including allowing 1 or both lesions to heal via secondary intention, creating 1 large wound to repair with a full-thickness skin graft, using a large skin flap to cover both wounds, or utilizing a 2-to-Z flap.² We also discussed using an intraoperative skin relaxation device to stretch the skin around 1 or both defects and close both defects in a linear fashion; the patient opted for the latter treatment option.

The left temple had adequate mobility to perform a primary closure oriented horizontally along the long axis of the defect. Although it would have been a simple repair for this lesion, the superior defect on the frontal scalp would have been subjected to increased downward tension. The scalp defect was already under considerable tension with limited tissue mobility, so closing the temple defect horizontally would have required repair of the scalp defect using a skin graft or leaving it open to heal on its own. Similarly, the force necessary to close the frontal scalp wound first would have prevented primary closure of the temple defect.

A SUTUREGARD ISR device (Sutureguard Medical Inc) was secured centrally over both defects at a 90° angle to one another to provide intraoperative tissue relaxation without undermining. The devices were held in place by a US Pharmacopeia 2-0 nylon suture and allowed to sit for 60 minutes (Figure 1).³

Practice Implications

The methods of repairing 2 adjacent postsurgical defects are numerous and vary depending on the size of the individual defects, the location of the defects, and the amount of normal skin remaining between them. Various methods of closure for the adjacent defects include healing by secondary intention, primary linear closure, skin grafts, skin flaps, creating 1 larger wound to be repaired, or a combination of these approaches.^1,2,4,5

In our patient, closing the high-tension wound of the scalp would have prevented both wounds from being closed in a linear fashion without first stretching the tissue. Although Zitelli⁵ has cited that many wounds will heal well on their own despite a large size, many patients prefer the cosmetic appearance and shorter healing time of wounds that have been closed with sutures, particularly if those defects are greater than 8-mm wide. In contrast, patients preferred the cosmetic appearance of 4-mm wounds that healed via secondary intention.⁶ In our case, we closed the majority of the wound and left a small 4-mm-wide portion to heal on its own. The overall outcome was excellent and healed much quicker than leaving the entire scalp defect to heal by secondary intention.

The other methods of closure, such as a 2-to-Z flap, would have been difficult given the orientation of the lesions and the island between them.² To create this flap, an extensive amount of undermining would have been necessary, leading to serious disruption of the blood and nerve supply and an increased risk for flap necrosis. Creating 1 large wound and repairing with a flap would have similar requirements and complications.

Intraoperative tissue relaxation can be used to allow primary closure of adjacent wounds without the need for undermining. Prior research has shown that 30 minutes of stress relaxation with 20 Newtons of applied tension yields a 65% reduction in wound-closure tension.⁷ Orienting the devices between 45° to 90° angles to one another creates opposing tension vectors so that the closure of one defect does not prevent the closure of the other defect. Even in cases in which the defects cannot be completely approximated, closing the wound edges to create a smaller central defect can decrease healing time and lead to an excellent cosmetic outcome without the need for a flap or graft.

The SUTUREGARD ISR suture retention bridge also is cost-effective for the surgeon and the patient. The device and suture-guide washer are included in a set that retails for $35 each or $300 for a box of 12.⁸ The suture most commonly used to secure the device in our practice is 2-0 nylon and retails for approximately $34 for a box of 12,⁹ which brings the total cost with the device to around $38 per use. The updated Current Procedural Terminology guidelines from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services define that an intermediate repair requires a layered closure and may include, but does not require, limited undermining. A complex linear closure must meet criteria for an intermediate closure plus at least 1 additional criterion, such as exposure of cartilage, bone, or tendons within the defect; extensive undermining; wound-edge debridement; involvement of free margins; or use of a retention suture.¹⁰ Use of a suture retention bridge such as the SUTUREGARD ISR device and therefore a retention suture qualifies the repair as a complex linear closure. Overall, use of the device expands the surgeon’s choices for surgical closures and helps to limit the need for larger, more invasive repair procedures.

Practice Gap

Nonmelanoma skin cancers most commonly are found on the head and neck. In these locations, many of these malignancies will meet criteria to undergo treatment with Mohs micrographic surgery. It is becoming increasingly common for patients to have multiple lesions treated at the same time, and sometimes these lesions can be in close proximity to one another. The final size of the adjacent defects, along with the amount of normal tissue remaining between them, will determine how to best repair both defects.¹ Many times, repair options are limited to the use of a larger and more extensive repair such as a flap or graft. We present a novel option to increase the options for surgical repair.

The Technique

We present a case of 2 large adjacent postsurgical defects where intraoperative tissue relaxation allowed for successful primary linear closure of both defects under notably decreased tension from baseline. A 70-year-old man presented for treatment of 2 adjacent invasive squamous cell carcinomas on the left temple and left frontal scalp. The initial lesion sizes were 2.0×1.0 and 2.0×2.0 cm, respectively. Mohs micrographic surgery was performed on both lesions, and the final defect sizes measured 2.0×1.4 and 3.0×1.6 cm, respectively. The island of normal tissue between the defects measured 2.3-cm wide. Different repair options were discussed with the patient, including allowing 1 or both lesions to heal via secondary intention, creating 1 large wound to repair with a full-thickness skin graft, using a large skin flap to cover both wounds, or utilizing a 2-to-Z flap.² We also discussed using an intraoperative skin relaxation device to stretch the skin around 1 or both defects and close both defects in a linear fashion; the patient opted for the latter treatment option.

The left temple had adequate mobility to perform a primary closure oriented horizontally along the long axis of the defect. Although it would have been a simple repair for this lesion, the superior defect on the frontal scalp would have been subjected to increased downward tension. The scalp defect was already under considerable tension with limited tissue mobility, so closing the temple defect horizontally would have required repair of the scalp defect using a skin graft or leaving it open to heal on its own. Similarly, the force necessary to close the frontal scalp wound first would have prevented primary closure of the temple defect.

A SUTUREGARD ISR device (Sutureguard Medical Inc) was secured centrally over both defects at a 90° angle to one another to provide intraoperative tissue relaxation without undermining. The devices were held in place by a US Pharmacopeia 2-0 nylon suture and allowed to sit for 60 minutes (Figure 1).³

Practice Implications

The methods of repairing 2 adjacent postsurgical defects are numerous and vary depending on the size of the individual defects, the location of the defects, and the amount of normal skin remaining between them. Various methods of closure for the adjacent defects include healing by secondary intention, primary linear closure, skin grafts, skin flaps, creating 1 larger wound to be repaired, or a combination of these approaches.^1,2,4,5

In our patient, closing the high-tension wound of the scalp would have prevented both wounds from being closed in a linear fashion without first stretching the tissue. Although Zitelli⁵ has cited that many wounds will heal well on their own despite a large size, many patients prefer the cosmetic appearance and shorter healing time of wounds that have been closed with sutures, particularly if those defects are greater than 8-mm wide. In contrast, patients preferred the cosmetic appearance of 4-mm wounds that healed via secondary intention.⁶ In our case, we closed the majority of the wound and left a small 4-mm-wide portion to heal on its own. The overall outcome was excellent and healed much quicker than leaving the entire scalp defect to heal by secondary intention.

The other methods of closure, such as a 2-to-Z flap, would have been difficult given the orientation of the lesions and the island between them.² To create this flap, an extensive amount of undermining would have been necessary, leading to serious disruption of the blood and nerve supply and an increased risk for flap necrosis. Creating 1 large wound and repairing with a flap would have similar requirements and complications.

Intraoperative tissue relaxation can be used to allow primary closure of adjacent wounds without the need for undermining. Prior research has shown that 30 minutes of stress relaxation with 20 Newtons of applied tension yields a 65% reduction in wound-closure tension.⁷ Orienting the devices between 45° to 90° angles to one another creates opposing tension vectors so that the closure of one defect does not prevent the closure of the other defect. Even in cases in which the defects cannot be completely approximated, closing the wound edges to create a smaller central defect can decrease healing time and lead to an excellent cosmetic outcome without the need for a flap or graft.

The SUTUREGARD ISR suture retention bridge also is cost-effective for the surgeon and the patient. The device and suture-guide washer are included in a set that retails for $35 each or $300 for a box of 12.⁸ The suture most commonly used to secure the device in our practice is 2-0 nylon and retails for approximately $34 for a box of 12,⁹ which brings the total cost with the device to around $38 per use. The updated Current Procedural Terminology guidelines from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services define that an intermediate repair requires a layered closure and may include, but does not require, limited undermining. A complex linear closure must meet criteria for an intermediate closure plus at least 1 additional criterion, such as exposure of cartilage, bone, or tendons within the defect; extensive undermining; wound-edge debridement; involvement of free margins; or use of a retention suture.¹⁰ Use of a suture retention bridge such as the SUTUREGARD ISR device and therefore a retention suture qualifies the repair as a complex linear closure. Overall, use of the device expands the surgeon’s choices for surgical closures and helps to limit the need for larger, more invasive repair procedures.

Practice Gap

Nonmelanoma skin cancers most commonly are found on the head and neck. In these locations, many of these malignancies will meet criteria to undergo treatment with Mohs micrographic surgery. It is becoming increasingly common for patients to have multiple lesions treated at the same time, and sometimes these lesions can be in close proximity to one another. The final size of the adjacent defects, along with the amount of normal tissue remaining between them, will determine how to best repair both defects.¹ Many times, repair options are limited to the use of a larger and more extensive repair such as a flap or graft. We present a novel option to increase the options for surgical repair.

The Technique

We present a case of 2 large adjacent postsurgical defects where intraoperative tissue relaxation allowed for successful primary linear closure of both defects under notably decreased tension from baseline. A 70-year-old man presented for treatment of 2 adjacent invasive squamous cell carcinomas on the left temple and left frontal scalp. The initial lesion sizes were 2.0×1.0 and 2.0×2.0 cm, respectively. Mohs micrographic surgery was performed on both lesions, and the final defect sizes measured 2.0×1.4 and 3.0×1.6 cm, respectively. The island of normal tissue between the defects measured 2.3-cm wide. Different repair options were discussed with the patient, including allowing 1 or both lesions to heal via secondary intention, creating 1 large wound to repair with a full-thickness skin graft, using a large skin flap to cover both wounds, or utilizing a 2-to-Z flap.² We also discussed using an intraoperative skin relaxation device to stretch the skin around 1 or both defects and close both defects in a linear fashion; the patient opted for the latter treatment option.

The left temple had adequate mobility to perform a primary closure oriented horizontally along the long axis of the defect. Although it would have been a simple repair for this lesion, the superior defect on the frontal scalp would have been subjected to increased downward tension. The scalp defect was already under considerable tension with limited tissue mobility, so closing the temple defect horizontally would have required repair of the scalp defect using a skin graft or leaving it open to heal on its own. Similarly, the force necessary to close the frontal scalp wound first would have prevented primary closure of the temple defect.

A SUTUREGARD ISR device (Sutureguard Medical Inc) was secured centrally over both defects at a 90° angle to one another to provide intraoperative tissue relaxation without undermining. The devices were held in place by a US Pharmacopeia 2-0 nylon suture and allowed to sit for 60 minutes (Figure 1).³

Practice Implications

The methods of repairing 2 adjacent postsurgical defects are numerous and vary depending on the size of the individual defects, the location of the defects, and the amount of normal skin remaining between them. Various methods of closure for the adjacent defects include healing by secondary intention, primary linear closure, skin grafts, skin flaps, creating 1 larger wound to be repaired, or a combination of these approaches.^1,2,4,5

In our patient, closing the high-tension wound of the scalp would have prevented both wounds from being closed in a linear fashion without first stretching the tissue. Although Zitelli⁵ has cited that many wounds will heal well on their own despite a large size, many patients prefer the cosmetic appearance and shorter healing time of wounds that have been closed with sutures, particularly if those defects are greater than 8-mm wide. In contrast, patients preferred the cosmetic appearance of 4-mm wounds that healed via secondary intention.⁶ In our case, we closed the majority of the wound and left a small 4-mm-wide portion to heal on its own. The overall outcome was excellent and healed much quicker than leaving the entire scalp defect to heal by secondary intention.

The other methods of closure, such as a 2-to-Z flap, would have been difficult given the orientation of the lesions and the island between them.² To create this flap, an extensive amount of undermining would have been necessary, leading to serious disruption of the blood and nerve supply and an increased risk for flap necrosis. Creating 1 large wound and repairing with a flap would have similar requirements and complications.

Intraoperative tissue relaxation can be used to allow primary closure of adjacent wounds without the need for undermining. Prior research has shown that 30 minutes of stress relaxation with 20 Newtons of applied tension yields a 65% reduction in wound-closure tension.⁷ Orienting the devices between 45° to 90° angles to one another creates opposing tension vectors so that the closure of one defect does not prevent the closure of the other defect. Even in cases in which the defects cannot be completely approximated, closing the wound edges to create a smaller central defect can decrease healing time and lead to an excellent cosmetic outcome without the need for a flap or graft.

The SUTUREGARD ISR suture retention bridge also is cost-effective for the surgeon and the patient. The device and suture-guide washer are included in a set that retails for $35 each or $300 for a box of 12.⁸ The suture most commonly used to secure the device in our practice is 2-0 nylon and retails for approximately $34 for a box of 12,⁹ which brings the total cost with the device to around $38 per use. The updated Current Procedural Terminology guidelines from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services define that an intermediate repair requires a layered closure and may include, but does not require, limited undermining. A complex linear closure must meet criteria for an intermediate closure plus at least 1 additional criterion, such as exposure of cartilage, bone, or tendons within the defect; extensive undermining; wound-edge debridement; involvement of free margins; or use of a retention suture.¹⁰ Use of a suture retention bridge such as the SUTUREGARD ISR device and therefore a retention suture qualifies the repair as a complex linear closure. Overall, use of the device expands the surgeon’s choices for surgical closures and helps to limit the need for larger, more invasive repair procedures.