Melanoma

Pediatric melanoma remains a rare diagnosis – representing just 1%-4% of all melanomas – and it continues to be poorly understood.

“There are many questions about its biology, histopathology, and clinical behavior,” Teresa S. Wright, MD, said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “This diagnosis can be very difficult to establish. These lesions can be very unusual and require several different expert opinions to arrive at a diagnosis. Oftentimes, there may be an initial misdiagnosis or disagreement about diagnosis. This frequently results in a delay of treatment.”

Dr. Wright, chief of pediatric dermatology at LeBonheur Children’s Hospital and associate professor of dermatology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, added that once a diagnosis of pediatric melanoma has been established, things don’t get any easier because of the lack of evidence-based guidelines for management. “There are really no standard recommendations regarding the workup, treatment, or follow-up for these patients,” she said.



Referral Clinic Launched

In 2016, under the direction of Alberto Pappo, MD, director of the solid tumor division at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Dr. Wright and several colleagues at St. Jude and the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, launched a 2-day twice-yearly multidisciplinary Pediatric and Adolescent Melanoma Referral Clinic, in an effort to offer a second opinion and guidance for management of complex cases. “As a group, we address questions surrounding the diagnosis and pathology of the patient’s lesion, as well as therapy and follow-up for each individual patient,” Dr. Wright said.

Members of the clinic team include a pediatric oncologist, an adult oncologist, and a surgical oncologist (all with melanoma expertise); a pediatric surgeon, a pediatric dermatologist, a pediatric radiologist, a pathologist, and a nursing team, which includes a pediatric nurse practitioner, three registered nurses, and other support staff, including those that provide genetic counseling and child life specialists. To be eligible for the clinic, which typically is scheduled in April and November every year, patients must be no older than 21 years, must be referred by a physician, and must have a diagnosis of melanoma or Spitzoid melanoma, not including ocular melanoma. They must be currently undergoing treatment or followed by a physician who requests or supports a consult to optimize clinical management of the patient. St. Jude foots the bill for all travel, housing, and meal expenses. All pertinent materials are collected in advance of the 2-day clinic, including medical records, lab results, histology slides, tissue samples, and radiographic studies. The pathologist performs an initial review of the histology slides and additional genomic studies are performed based on the pathologist’s diagnosis.

Patients typically arrive on a Wednesday evening and have their first clinic visit Thursday morning. First, the oncology team performs a thorough history and physical examination, then Dr. Wright performs a thorough skin examination and a professional photographer captures images of relevant skin lesions. That afternoon, members of the multidisciplinary team meet to review each patient’s entire course, including previous surgeries and any medical therapies.

“We review their pathology, including histology slides and results of any genomic studies,” Dr. Wright said. “We also review all the radiographic studies they’ve had, which may include plain films, CT scans, PET scans, MRIs, and ultrasounds. Then we form a consensus opinion regarding a diagnosis. Sometimes we feel a change in diagnosis is warranted.” For example, she added, “we have had a number of patients referred to us with an initial diagnosis of Spitzoid melanoma where, after review, we felt that a diagnosis of atypical Spitzoid tumor was more appropriate for them. We also talk about any treatment they’ve had in the past and decide if any additional surgical or medical treatment is indicated at this time. Lastly, we make recommendations for follow-up or surveillance.”

On Thursday evening, the clinic sponsors a casual dinner for families, which features an educational presentation by one or more faculty members. Topics covered in the past include sun protection, melanoma in children, and an overview of melanoma research.

The next morning, each family meets with the panel of specialists. “The team members introduce themselves and describe their roles within the team, and family members introduce themselves and tell their child’s story. “Then, each team member describes their findings and gives their overall assessment. The family receives recommendations for any additional testing, therapy, and follow-up, and the patient and family’s questions are answered.”

Families are also offered the opportunity to participate in research. “They can donate samples to a tissue bank, and patients may qualify for future clinical trials at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital,” Dr. Wright said.

To date, 20 female and 18 male patients have traveled to the Pediatric and Adolescent Melanoma Referral Clinic from 21 states and Puerto Rico for assessment and consultation. They ranged in age from 6 months to 18 years, and their average age is 9 years. Members of the clinic team have seen 13 patients with a diagnosis of Spitzoid melanoma, 10 with malignant melanoma, 8 with atypical melanocytic neoplasm, 3 with congenital melanoma, 3 with atypical Spitz tumor, and 1 with congenital melanocytic nevus.

The median age at diagnosis was 12 years for malignant melanoma and 9 years for Spitzoid melanoma; and the male to female ratio is 7:3 for malignant melanoma and 4:9 for Spitzoid melanoma. These are the patients who have come to the multidisciplinary clinic, these specialists see other patients with a diagnosis of pediatric or adolescent melanoma at other times of the year, Dr. Wright noted.

A common refrain she hears from pediatric melanoma patients and their families is that the initial skin lesion appears to be unremarkable. “Many times, this is a skin-colored or pink papule, which starts out looking very much like a molluscum or a wart or an insect bite, or something else that nobody’s worried about,” Dr. Wright said. “But over time, something happens, and the common factor is rapid growth. Time and again when I ask parents, ‘What changed? What got your attention?’ The answer is nearly always rapid growth.”

She emphasized that patients frequently arrive at the clinic with multiple opinions about their diagnosis. “It’s not unusual for a significant amount of time to pass between the initial biopsy and the final diagnosis,” she said. “Given the lack of evidence-based guidelines for children, a delay in diagnosis can make decisions about management even more difficult. Because pediatric melanoma is so rare, and there are no standard guidelines for management, there’s a major lack of consistency in terms of how patients are evaluated, treated, and followed.”

Dr. Wright said the team’s goals are to continue the biannual clinic and collect more data and tissue samples for further genomic studies on pediatric melanoma. “Ultimately, we would like to hold a consensus summit meeting of experts to develop and publish evidence-based guidelines for the management of pediatric and adolescent melanoma.”

Dr. Wright reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Pediatric melanoma remains a rare diagnosis – representing just 1%-4% of all melanomas – and it continues to be poorly understood.

“There are many questions about its biology, histopathology, and clinical behavior,” Teresa S. Wright, MD, said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “This diagnosis can be very difficult to establish. These lesions can be very unusual and require several different expert opinions to arrive at a diagnosis. Oftentimes, there may be an initial misdiagnosis or disagreement about diagnosis. This frequently results in a delay of treatment.”

Dr. Wright, chief of pediatric dermatology at LeBonheur Children’s Hospital and associate professor of dermatology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, added that once a diagnosis of pediatric melanoma has been established, things don’t get any easier because of the lack of evidence-based guidelines for management. “There are really no standard recommendations regarding the workup, treatment, or follow-up for these patients,” she said.



Referral Clinic Launched

In 2016, under the direction of Alberto Pappo, MD, director of the solid tumor division at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Dr. Wright and several colleagues at St. Jude and the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, launched a 2-day twice-yearly multidisciplinary Pediatric and Adolescent Melanoma Referral Clinic, in an effort to offer a second opinion and guidance for management of complex cases. “As a group, we address questions surrounding the diagnosis and pathology of the patient’s lesion, as well as therapy and follow-up for each individual patient,” Dr. Wright said.

Members of the clinic team include a pediatric oncologist, an adult oncologist, and a surgical oncologist (all with melanoma expertise); a pediatric surgeon, a pediatric dermatologist, a pediatric radiologist, a pathologist, and a nursing team, which includes a pediatric nurse practitioner, three registered nurses, and other support staff, including those that provide genetic counseling and child life specialists. To be eligible for the clinic, which typically is scheduled in April and November every year, patients must be no older than 21 years, must be referred by a physician, and must have a diagnosis of melanoma or Spitzoid melanoma, not including ocular melanoma. They must be currently undergoing treatment or followed by a physician who requests or supports a consult to optimize clinical management of the patient. St. Jude foots the bill for all travel, housing, and meal expenses. All pertinent materials are collected in advance of the 2-day clinic, including medical records, lab results, histology slides, tissue samples, and radiographic studies. The pathologist performs an initial review of the histology slides and additional genomic studies are performed based on the pathologist’s diagnosis.

Patients typically arrive on a Wednesday evening and have their first clinic visit Thursday morning. First, the oncology team performs a thorough history and physical examination, then Dr. Wright performs a thorough skin examination and a professional photographer captures images of relevant skin lesions. That afternoon, members of the multidisciplinary team meet to review each patient’s entire course, including previous surgeries and any medical therapies.

“We review their pathology, including histology slides and results of any genomic studies,” Dr. Wright said. “We also review all the radiographic studies they’ve had, which may include plain films, CT scans, PET scans, MRIs, and ultrasounds. Then we form a consensus opinion regarding a diagnosis. Sometimes we feel a change in diagnosis is warranted.” For example, she added, “we have had a number of patients referred to us with an initial diagnosis of Spitzoid melanoma where, after review, we felt that a diagnosis of atypical Spitzoid tumor was more appropriate for them. We also talk about any treatment they’ve had in the past and decide if any additional surgical or medical treatment is indicated at this time. Lastly, we make recommendations for follow-up or surveillance.”

On Thursday evening, the clinic sponsors a casual dinner for families, which features an educational presentation by one or more faculty members. Topics covered in the past include sun protection, melanoma in children, and an overview of melanoma research.

The next morning, each family meets with the panel of specialists. “The team members introduce themselves and describe their roles within the team, and family members introduce themselves and tell their child’s story. “Then, each team member describes their findings and gives their overall assessment. The family receives recommendations for any additional testing, therapy, and follow-up, and the patient and family’s questions are answered.”

Families are also offered the opportunity to participate in research. “They can donate samples to a tissue bank, and patients may qualify for future clinical trials at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital,” Dr. Wright said.

To date, 20 female and 18 male patients have traveled to the Pediatric and Adolescent Melanoma Referral Clinic from 21 states and Puerto Rico for assessment and consultation. They ranged in age from 6 months to 18 years, and their average age is 9 years. Members of the clinic team have seen 13 patients with a diagnosis of Spitzoid melanoma, 10 with malignant melanoma, 8 with atypical melanocytic neoplasm, 3 with congenital melanoma, 3 with atypical Spitz tumor, and 1 with congenital melanocytic nevus.

The median age at diagnosis was 12 years for malignant melanoma and 9 years for Spitzoid melanoma; and the male to female ratio is 7:3 for malignant melanoma and 4:9 for Spitzoid melanoma. These are the patients who have come to the multidisciplinary clinic, these specialists see other patients with a diagnosis of pediatric or adolescent melanoma at other times of the year, Dr. Wright noted.

A common refrain she hears from pediatric melanoma patients and their families is that the initial skin lesion appears to be unremarkable. “Many times, this is a skin-colored or pink papule, which starts out looking very much like a molluscum or a wart or an insect bite, or something else that nobody’s worried about,” Dr. Wright said. “But over time, something happens, and the common factor is rapid growth. Time and again when I ask parents, ‘What changed? What got your attention?’ The answer is nearly always rapid growth.”

She emphasized that patients frequently arrive at the clinic with multiple opinions about their diagnosis. “It’s not unusual for a significant amount of time to pass between the initial biopsy and the final diagnosis,” she said. “Given the lack of evidence-based guidelines for children, a delay in diagnosis can make decisions about management even more difficult. Because pediatric melanoma is so rare, and there are no standard guidelines for management, there’s a major lack of consistency in terms of how patients are evaluated, treated, and followed.”

Dr. Wright said the team’s goals are to continue the biannual clinic and collect more data and tissue samples for further genomic studies on pediatric melanoma. “Ultimately, we would like to hold a consensus summit meeting of experts to develop and publish evidence-based guidelines for the management of pediatric and adolescent melanoma.”

Dr. Wright reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Pediatric melanoma remains a rare diagnosis – representing just 1%-4% of all melanomas – and it continues to be poorly understood.

“There are many questions about its biology, histopathology, and clinical behavior,” Teresa S. Wright, MD, said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “This diagnosis can be very difficult to establish. These lesions can be very unusual and require several different expert opinions to arrive at a diagnosis. Oftentimes, there may be an initial misdiagnosis or disagreement about diagnosis. This frequently results in a delay of treatment.”

Dr. Wright, chief of pediatric dermatology at LeBonheur Children’s Hospital and associate professor of dermatology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, added that once a diagnosis of pediatric melanoma has been established, things don’t get any easier because of the lack of evidence-based guidelines for management. “There are really no standard recommendations regarding the workup, treatment, or follow-up for these patients,” she said.



Referral Clinic Launched

In 2016, under the direction of Alberto Pappo, MD, director of the solid tumor division at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Dr. Wright and several colleagues at St. Jude and the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, launched a 2-day twice-yearly multidisciplinary Pediatric and Adolescent Melanoma Referral Clinic, in an effort to offer a second opinion and guidance for management of complex cases. “As a group, we address questions surrounding the diagnosis and pathology of the patient’s lesion, as well as therapy and follow-up for each individual patient,” Dr. Wright said.

Members of the clinic team include a pediatric oncologist, an adult oncologist, and a surgical oncologist (all with melanoma expertise); a pediatric surgeon, a pediatric dermatologist, a pediatric radiologist, a pathologist, and a nursing team, which includes a pediatric nurse practitioner, three registered nurses, and other support staff, including those that provide genetic counseling and child life specialists. To be eligible for the clinic, which typically is scheduled in April and November every year, patients must be no older than 21 years, must be referred by a physician, and must have a diagnosis of melanoma or Spitzoid melanoma, not including ocular melanoma. They must be currently undergoing treatment or followed by a physician who requests or supports a consult to optimize clinical management of the patient. St. Jude foots the bill for all travel, housing, and meal expenses. All pertinent materials are collected in advance of the 2-day clinic, including medical records, lab results, histology slides, tissue samples, and radiographic studies. The pathologist performs an initial review of the histology slides and additional genomic studies are performed based on the pathologist’s diagnosis.

Patients typically arrive on a Wednesday evening and have their first clinic visit Thursday morning. First, the oncology team performs a thorough history and physical examination, then Dr. Wright performs a thorough skin examination and a professional photographer captures images of relevant skin lesions. That afternoon, members of the multidisciplinary team meet to review each patient’s entire course, including previous surgeries and any medical therapies.

“We review their pathology, including histology slides and results of any genomic studies,” Dr. Wright said. “We also review all the radiographic studies they’ve had, which may include plain films, CT scans, PET scans, MRIs, and ultrasounds. Then we form a consensus opinion regarding a diagnosis. Sometimes we feel a change in diagnosis is warranted.” For example, she added, “we have had a number of patients referred to us with an initial diagnosis of Spitzoid melanoma where, after review, we felt that a diagnosis of atypical Spitzoid tumor was more appropriate for them. We also talk about any treatment they’ve had in the past and decide if any additional surgical or medical treatment is indicated at this time. Lastly, we make recommendations for follow-up or surveillance.”

On Thursday evening, the clinic sponsors a casual dinner for families, which features an educational presentation by one or more faculty members. Topics covered in the past include sun protection, melanoma in children, and an overview of melanoma research.

The next morning, each family meets with the panel of specialists. “The team members introduce themselves and describe their roles within the team, and family members introduce themselves and tell their child’s story. “Then, each team member describes their findings and gives their overall assessment. The family receives recommendations for any additional testing, therapy, and follow-up, and the patient and family’s questions are answered.”

Families are also offered the opportunity to participate in research. “They can donate samples to a tissue bank, and patients may qualify for future clinical trials at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital,” Dr. Wright said.

To date, 20 female and 18 male patients have traveled to the Pediatric and Adolescent Melanoma Referral Clinic from 21 states and Puerto Rico for assessment and consultation. They ranged in age from 6 months to 18 years, and their average age is 9 years. Members of the clinic team have seen 13 patients with a diagnosis of Spitzoid melanoma, 10 with malignant melanoma, 8 with atypical melanocytic neoplasm, 3 with congenital melanoma, 3 with atypical Spitz tumor, and 1 with congenital melanocytic nevus.

The median age at diagnosis was 12 years for malignant melanoma and 9 years for Spitzoid melanoma; and the male to female ratio is 7:3 for malignant melanoma and 4:9 for Spitzoid melanoma. These are the patients who have come to the multidisciplinary clinic, these specialists see other patients with a diagnosis of pediatric or adolescent melanoma at other times of the year, Dr. Wright noted.

A common refrain she hears from pediatric melanoma patients and their families is that the initial skin lesion appears to be unremarkable. “Many times, this is a skin-colored or pink papule, which starts out looking very much like a molluscum or a wart or an insect bite, or something else that nobody’s worried about,” Dr. Wright said. “But over time, something happens, and the common factor is rapid growth. Time and again when I ask parents, ‘What changed? What got your attention?’ The answer is nearly always rapid growth.”

She emphasized that patients frequently arrive at the clinic with multiple opinions about their diagnosis. “It’s not unusual for a significant amount of time to pass between the initial biopsy and the final diagnosis,” she said. “Given the lack of evidence-based guidelines for children, a delay in diagnosis can make decisions about management even more difficult. Because pediatric melanoma is so rare, and there are no standard guidelines for management, there’s a major lack of consistency in terms of how patients are evaluated, treated, and followed.”

Dr. Wright said the team’s goals are to continue the biannual clinic and collect more data and tissue samples for further genomic studies on pediatric melanoma. “Ultimately, we would like to hold a consensus summit meeting of experts to develop and publish evidence-based guidelines for the management of pediatric and adolescent melanoma.”

Dr. Wright reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

The proportion of Americans who’ve experienced two or more sunburns in the past year rose significantly during a recent 10-year period, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.

More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.

For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.

Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.

Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.

In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.

In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.

A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

The proportion of Americans who’ve experienced two or more sunburns in the past year rose significantly during a recent 10-year period, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.

More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.

For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.

Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.

Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.

In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.

In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.

A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

The proportion of Americans who’ve experienced two or more sunburns in the past year rose significantly during a recent 10-year period, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.

More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.

For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.

Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.

Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.

In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.

In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.

A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

To the Editor: 

We read with interest the commentary by Srivastava et al,¹ "The Dayanara Effect: Increasing Skin Cancer Awareness in the Hispanic Community," concerning former Miss Universe Dayanara Torres and her diagnosis of metastatic melanoma; however, we believe it misses the mark. A quick Google search shows that Ms. Torres has fair skin and blue eyes. She has lived most of her life in Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and California--places where sun exposure is high and may have contributed to her diagnosis. Factors that have been linked to an increased risk for melanoma are fair skin, red or blonde hair, blue or green eyes, intense intermittent sun exposure and sunburns, a weakened immune system, and a family history of skin cancer.² Although we do not know her complete medical history, Ms. Torres' skin phenotype and likely chronic UV exposure made her a candidate for skin cancer. Although Srivastava et al¹ acknowledged that the Hispanic community encompasses a wide variety of individuals with varying levels of skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity, they overlooked Ms. Torres' risk for skin cancer because of her ethnic background. This form of generalization may negatively affect patient care and safety. By 2060, Hispanics are projected to account for almost 30% of the US population,³ and we must acknowledge the flaws that exist in our overall methodology for assessing skin cancer risk among this population to provide patients with unbiased care.  

In the early 1970s, the United States adopted the ethnonym Hispanic as a way of conglomerating Spanish-speaking individuals from Spain, the Caribbean, and Central and South America.⁴ The goal was to implement a common identifier that enabled the US Government to study the economic and social development of these groups. Nevertheless, considerable differences exist among distinct Hispanic communities, and variations in skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity are no exception. Although Hispanic countries are an amalgam of diverse races due to colonization, some have stronger European, African, or Amerindian influences, limiting the use of ethnicity during melanoma risk assessment. Another misconception reflected in the commentary by Srivastava et al¹ is the belief that the terms white and Hispanic are mutually exclusive. A study examining melanoma rates in the Chilean population supports this claim.⁵ The genetic composition of the Chilean high socioeconomic strata is 5% Amerindian and 95% white, while the low socioeconomic strata is approximately 40% Amerindian and 60% white. Patients from the low socioeconomic strata had higher rates of acral malignant melanoma, which typically is seen in patients with skin of color. On the other hand, males from the high socioeconomic strata had higher rates of truncal melanoma, which is more common among the white population.⁵ These results suggest that while both groups are considered Hispanic, it is ancestral origin that contributes to the differential rates and types of malignant melanoma.  

When analyzing data regarding melanoma rates in Hispanics, particularly data collected in the United States, we must question if the results are representative of the entire population. One point worth emphasizing is that melanoma data in the Hispanic community often is flawed. The North American Association of Central Cancer Registries considers Europeans such as Spaniards, as well as citizens of Andorra, the Canary Islands, and the Balearic Islands as Hispanic.⁶ Additionally, the Florida Cancer Data System uses data such as country of birth, ethnicity, and surname or maiden name recorded by the hospital tumor registry to identify Hispanic patients with melanoma.⁷ In 2006, Hu et al⁷ used the Florida Cancer Data System to analyze melanoma data in Miami-Dade County in South Florida, which has the second largest Hispanic community in the United States. One limitation to such data is that ethnicity often is self-reported by patients or assigned by a health care provider. In addition, women whose maiden names are not available may be misclassified through marriage depending on whether their husbands have Spanish or non-Spanish last names.⁷ Finally, with societal norms evolving, Americans are now more accepting of interracial marriages. In 2017, the Pew Research Center reported that 17% of all newlyweds in the United States were intermarried and 42% of these marriages were between a white individual and a Hispanic individual, comprising the most prevalent form of intermarriage reported.⁸ In 2015, 27% of newlywed Hispanics were intermarried. This percentage varied depending on whether they were born in the United States or abroad. Although 15% of Hispanic immigrants married a spouse from another race, 39% of Hispanics born in the United States married a non-Hispanic (eg, white, black, Asian, or Native American who is not Hispanic).⁸ This type of marriage and subsequent offspring might lead to an increase in the white genetic pool. As a result, the risk for melanoma development may be increased or misrepresented. Remaining aware of these changes in the population is crucial, as it exemplifies why the current methodology for gathering and reporting melanoma data is unreliable. 

Labeling Ms. Torres as Hispanic due to her Puerto Rican nationality did not tell us anything about her risk for developing melanoma. To correctly assess the risk for melanoma among Hispanics, it is imperative that we re-evaluate our approach. We agree with He et al⁹ that our efforts should be dedicated to better understanding the impact of pigmentation, race, genetics, and sunburn on the risk for melanoma. Until we know more about this possible correlation, we should reconsider how we study melanoma using Hispanics as an ethnicity. We may have it all wrong.  

1. Srivastava R, Wassef C, Rao BK. The Dayanara effect: increasing skin cancer awareness in the Hispanic community. Cutis. 2019;103:257-258. 
    
2. Curiel-Lewandrowski C. Risk factors for the development of melanoma. UpToDate. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/risk-factors-for-the-development-of-melanoma. Updated February 27, 2020. Accessed April 16, 2020. 
    
3. Colby SL, Ortman JM. Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. United States Census Bureau website. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.html. Published March 3, 2015. Accessed April 16, 2020. 
    
4. National Research Council (US) Panel on Hispanics in the United States; Tienda M, Mitchell F, editors. Multiple Origins, Uncertain Destinies: Hispanics and the American Future. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2006. 3, Defining Hispanicity: E Pluribus Unum or E Pluribus Plures? Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19811/ 
    
5. Zemelman VB, Valenzuela CY, Sazunic I, et al. Malignant melanoma in Chile: different site distribution between private and state patients. Biol Res. 2014;47:34. 
    
6. NAACCR Race and Ethnicity Work Group. NAACCR guideline for enhancing Hispanic-Latino identification: revised NAACCR Hispanic/Latino identification algorithm [NHIA v2.2.1]. NAACCR website. https://www.naaccr.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/NHIA_v2_2_1_09122011.pdf. Revised September 12, 2011. Accessed April 15, 2020.  
    
7. Hu S, Soza-Vento RM, Parker DF, et al. Comparison of stage at diagnosis of melanoma among Hispanic, black, and white patients in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142:704-708. 
    
8. Livingston G, Brown A. Intermarriage in the U.S. 50 years after Loving v. Virginia. Pew Research Center website. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/05/18/intermarriage-in-the-u-s-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/. Published May 18, 2017. Accessed April 15, 2020. 
    
9. He SY, McCulloch CE, Boscardin WJ, et al. Self-reported pigmentary phenotypes and race are significant but incomplete predictors of Fitzpatrick skin phototype in an ethnically diverse population. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:731-737. 

Authors' Response 

While Ms. Cruzval-O'Reilly and Dr. Lugo-Somolinos highlight many important points on conducting meaningful research for the Hispanic community, they seem to have misunderstood the overall purpose of our commentary,¹ which was to highlight the increased skin cancer awareness that a notable and vocal member of the Hispanic community brought to our academic dermatology clinic, rather than to discuss skin types within the Hispanic community. As the authors mentioned, the term Hispanic is a descriptor of ethnicity rather than race, and Hispanic patients may have varying levels of skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity. While Dayanara Torres may have risk factors for developing melanoma, minimizing her connection with the Hispanic community because of her fair skin and light eyes would be a mistake. It not only isolates members of the Hispanic community that are of skin types I and II, but it also discounts the power of her story and language in raising awareness. We observed an increase in Hispanic patients presenting to our clinic who were concerned about skin cancer after Ms. Torres shared her diagnosis of metastatic melanoma through social media, followed by Spanish language educational videos on melanoma.  

Several studies have described disparities among Hispanic patients diagnosed with melanoma as compared to their non-Hispanic white counterparts, including younger age at diagnosis, later stage of presentation, increased presence of regional involvement, and worse mortality.^2-6 Furthermore, a small study of high school students by Ma et al⁷ showed disparities in skin cancer knowledge, perceived risk, and sun-protective behaviors among Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic whites, which remained significant (P<.05) after controlling for skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity. We agree with the authors that further analysis of skin type, race, genetics, and other risk factors may help refine the research on skin cancer disparities within the Hispanic community. We suspect that disparities may persist even when examining these factors. There have been several studies showing that knowledge-based interventions, especially when delivered in Spanish, improve understanding of skin cancer, personal risk, and self-examinations, and we support Ms. Torres' efforts in utilizing her platform to provide information about melanoma in Spanish.^8-12  

Radhika Srivastava, MD; Cindy Wassef, MD; Babar K. Rao, MD 
 
From the Department of Dermatology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Somerset, New Jersey.  

The authors report no conflict of interest. 

Correspondence: Radhika Srivastava, MD, 1 World's Fair Dr, Ste 2400, Somerset, NJ 08873 ([email protected]). 

References

1. Srivastava R, Wassef C, Rao BK. The Dayanara effect: increasing skin cancer awareness in the Hispanic community. Cutis. 2019;103:257-258. 
    
2. Perez MI. Skin cancer in Hispanics in the United States. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18:s117-s120.  
    
3. Higgins S, Nazemi A, Feinstein S, et al. Clinical presentations of melanoma in African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. Dermatol Surg. 2019;45:791-801. 
    
4. Harvey VM, Oldfield CW, Chen JT, et al. Melanoma disparities among US Hispanics: use of the social ecological model to contextualize reasons for inequitable outcomes and frame a research agenda [published online August 29, 2016]. J Skin Cancer. doi:10.1155/2016/4635740 
    
5. Garnett E, Townsend J, Steele B, et al. Characteristics, rates, and trends of melanoma incidence among Hispanics in the USA. Cancer Causes Control. 2016;27:647-659. 
    
6. Rouhani P, Hu S, Kirsner RS. Melanoma in Hispanic and black Americans. Cancer Control. 2008;15:248-253. 
    
7. Ma F, Collado-Mesa F, Hu S, et al. Skin cancer awareness and sun protection behaviors in white Hispanic and white non-Hispanic high school students in Miami, Florida. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143:983-988. 
    
8. Kundu RV, Kamaria M, Ortiz S, et al. Effectiveness of a knowledge-based intervention for melanoma among those with ethnic skin. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:777-784. 
    
9. Kailas A, Botwin AL, Pritchett EN, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of knowledge-based interventions in increasing skin cancer awareness, knowledge, and protective behaviors in skin of color populations. Cutis. 2017;100:235-240. 
    
10. Roman CJ, Guan X, Barnholtz-Sloan J, et al. A trial online educational melanoma program aimed at the Hispanic population improves knowledge and behaviors. Dermatol Surg. 2016;42:672-676. 
     
11. Hernandez C, Kim H, Mauleon G, et al. A pilot program in collaboration with community centers to increase awareness and participation in skin cancer screening among Latinos in Chicago. J Cancer Educ. 2013;28:342-345. 
     
12. Chung GY, Brown G, Gibson D. Increasing melanoma screening among Hispanic/Latino Americans: a community-based educational intervention. Health Educ Behav. 2015;42:627-632.

To the Editor: 

We read with interest the commentary by Srivastava et al,¹ "The Dayanara Effect: Increasing Skin Cancer Awareness in the Hispanic Community," concerning former Miss Universe Dayanara Torres and her diagnosis of metastatic melanoma; however, we believe it misses the mark. A quick Google search shows that Ms. Torres has fair skin and blue eyes. She has lived most of her life in Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and California--places where sun exposure is high and may have contributed to her diagnosis. Factors that have been linked to an increased risk for melanoma are fair skin, red or blonde hair, blue or green eyes, intense intermittent sun exposure and sunburns, a weakened immune system, and a family history of skin cancer.² Although we do not know her complete medical history, Ms. Torres' skin phenotype and likely chronic UV exposure made her a candidate for skin cancer. Although Srivastava et al¹ acknowledged that the Hispanic community encompasses a wide variety of individuals with varying levels of skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity, they overlooked Ms. Torres' risk for skin cancer because of her ethnic background. This form of generalization may negatively affect patient care and safety. By 2060, Hispanics are projected to account for almost 30% of the US population,³ and we must acknowledge the flaws that exist in our overall methodology for assessing skin cancer risk among this population to provide patients with unbiased care.  

In the early 1970s, the United States adopted the ethnonym Hispanic as a way of conglomerating Spanish-speaking individuals from Spain, the Caribbean, and Central and South America.⁴ The goal was to implement a common identifier that enabled the US Government to study the economic and social development of these groups. Nevertheless, considerable differences exist among distinct Hispanic communities, and variations in skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity are no exception. Although Hispanic countries are an amalgam of diverse races due to colonization, some have stronger European, African, or Amerindian influences, limiting the use of ethnicity during melanoma risk assessment. Another misconception reflected in the commentary by Srivastava et al¹ is the belief that the terms white and Hispanic are mutually exclusive. A study examining melanoma rates in the Chilean population supports this claim.⁵ The genetic composition of the Chilean high socioeconomic strata is 5% Amerindian and 95% white, while the low socioeconomic strata is approximately 40% Amerindian and 60% white. Patients from the low socioeconomic strata had higher rates of acral malignant melanoma, which typically is seen in patients with skin of color. On the other hand, males from the high socioeconomic strata had higher rates of truncal melanoma, which is more common among the white population.⁵ These results suggest that while both groups are considered Hispanic, it is ancestral origin that contributes to the differential rates and types of malignant melanoma.  

When analyzing data regarding melanoma rates in Hispanics, particularly data collected in the United States, we must question if the results are representative of the entire population. One point worth emphasizing is that melanoma data in the Hispanic community often is flawed. The North American Association of Central Cancer Registries considers Europeans such as Spaniards, as well as citizens of Andorra, the Canary Islands, and the Balearic Islands as Hispanic.⁶ Additionally, the Florida Cancer Data System uses data such as country of birth, ethnicity, and surname or maiden name recorded by the hospital tumor registry to identify Hispanic patients with melanoma.⁷ In 2006, Hu et al⁷ used the Florida Cancer Data System to analyze melanoma data in Miami-Dade County in South Florida, which has the second largest Hispanic community in the United States. One limitation to such data is that ethnicity often is self-reported by patients or assigned by a health care provider. In addition, women whose maiden names are not available may be misclassified through marriage depending on whether their husbands have Spanish or non-Spanish last names.⁷ Finally, with societal norms evolving, Americans are now more accepting of interracial marriages. In 2017, the Pew Research Center reported that 17% of all newlyweds in the United States were intermarried and 42% of these marriages were between a white individual and a Hispanic individual, comprising the most prevalent form of intermarriage reported.⁸ In 2015, 27% of newlywed Hispanics were intermarried. This percentage varied depending on whether they were born in the United States or abroad. Although 15% of Hispanic immigrants married a spouse from another race, 39% of Hispanics born in the United States married a non-Hispanic (eg, white, black, Asian, or Native American who is not Hispanic).⁸ This type of marriage and subsequent offspring might lead to an increase in the white genetic pool. As a result, the risk for melanoma development may be increased or misrepresented. Remaining aware of these changes in the population is crucial, as it exemplifies why the current methodology for gathering and reporting melanoma data is unreliable. 

Labeling Ms. Torres as Hispanic due to her Puerto Rican nationality did not tell us anything about her risk for developing melanoma. To correctly assess the risk for melanoma among Hispanics, it is imperative that we re-evaluate our approach. We agree with He et al⁹ that our efforts should be dedicated to better understanding the impact of pigmentation, race, genetics, and sunburn on the risk for melanoma. Until we know more about this possible correlation, we should reconsider how we study melanoma using Hispanics as an ethnicity. We may have it all wrong.  

1. Srivastava R, Wassef C, Rao BK. The Dayanara effect: increasing skin cancer awareness in the Hispanic community. Cutis. 2019;103:257-258. 
    
2. Curiel-Lewandrowski C. Risk factors for the development of melanoma. UpToDate. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/risk-factors-for-the-development-of-melanoma. Updated February 27, 2020. Accessed April 16, 2020. 
    
3. Colby SL, Ortman JM. Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. United States Census Bureau website. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.html. Published March 3, 2015. Accessed April 16, 2020. 
    
4. National Research Council (US) Panel on Hispanics in the United States; Tienda M, Mitchell F, editors. Multiple Origins, Uncertain Destinies: Hispanics and the American Future. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2006. 3, Defining Hispanicity: E Pluribus Unum or E Pluribus Plures? Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19811/ 
    
5. Zemelman VB, Valenzuela CY, Sazunic I, et al. Malignant melanoma in Chile: different site distribution between private and state patients. Biol Res. 2014;47:34. 
    
6. NAACCR Race and Ethnicity Work Group. NAACCR guideline for enhancing Hispanic-Latino identification: revised NAACCR Hispanic/Latino identification algorithm [NHIA v2.2.1]. NAACCR website. https://www.naaccr.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/NHIA_v2_2_1_09122011.pdf. Revised September 12, 2011. Accessed April 15, 2020.  
    
7. Hu S, Soza-Vento RM, Parker DF, et al. Comparison of stage at diagnosis of melanoma among Hispanic, black, and white patients in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142:704-708. 
    
8. Livingston G, Brown A. Intermarriage in the U.S. 50 years after Loving v. Virginia. Pew Research Center website. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/05/18/intermarriage-in-the-u-s-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/. Published May 18, 2017. Accessed April 15, 2020. 
    
9. He SY, McCulloch CE, Boscardin WJ, et al. Self-reported pigmentary phenotypes and race are significant but incomplete predictors of Fitzpatrick skin phototype in an ethnically diverse population. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:731-737. 

Authors' Response 

While Ms. Cruzval-O'Reilly and Dr. Lugo-Somolinos highlight many important points on conducting meaningful research for the Hispanic community, they seem to have misunderstood the overall purpose of our commentary,¹ which was to highlight the increased skin cancer awareness that a notable and vocal member of the Hispanic community brought to our academic dermatology clinic, rather than to discuss skin types within the Hispanic community. As the authors mentioned, the term Hispanic is a descriptor of ethnicity rather than race, and Hispanic patients may have varying levels of skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity. While Dayanara Torres may have risk factors for developing melanoma, minimizing her connection with the Hispanic community because of her fair skin and light eyes would be a mistake. It not only isolates members of the Hispanic community that are of skin types I and II, but it also discounts the power of her story and language in raising awareness. We observed an increase in Hispanic patients presenting to our clinic who were concerned about skin cancer after Ms. Torres shared her diagnosis of metastatic melanoma through social media, followed by Spanish language educational videos on melanoma.  

Several studies have described disparities among Hispanic patients diagnosed with melanoma as compared to their non-Hispanic white counterparts, including younger age at diagnosis, later stage of presentation, increased presence of regional involvement, and worse mortality.^2-6 Furthermore, a small study of high school students by Ma et al⁷ showed disparities in skin cancer knowledge, perceived risk, and sun-protective behaviors among Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic whites, which remained significant (P<.05) after controlling for skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity. We agree with the authors that further analysis of skin type, race, genetics, and other risk factors may help refine the research on skin cancer disparities within the Hispanic community. We suspect that disparities may persist even when examining these factors. There have been several studies showing that knowledge-based interventions, especially when delivered in Spanish, improve understanding of skin cancer, personal risk, and self-examinations, and we support Ms. Torres' efforts in utilizing her platform to provide information about melanoma in Spanish.^8-12  

Radhika Srivastava, MD; Cindy Wassef, MD; Babar K. Rao, MD 
 
From the Department of Dermatology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Somerset, New Jersey.  

The authors report no conflict of interest. 

Correspondence: Radhika Srivastava, MD, 1 World's Fair Dr, Ste 2400, Somerset, NJ 08873 ([email protected]). 

References

1. Srivastava R, Wassef C, Rao BK. The Dayanara effect: increasing skin cancer awareness in the Hispanic community. Cutis. 2019;103:257-258. 
    
2. Perez MI. Skin cancer in Hispanics in the United States. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18:s117-s120.  
    
3. Higgins S, Nazemi A, Feinstein S, et al. Clinical presentations of melanoma in African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. Dermatol Surg. 2019;45:791-801. 
    
4. Harvey VM, Oldfield CW, Chen JT, et al. Melanoma disparities among US Hispanics: use of the social ecological model to contextualize reasons for inequitable outcomes and frame a research agenda [published online August 29, 2016]. J Skin Cancer. doi:10.1155/2016/4635740 
    
5. Garnett E, Townsend J, Steele B, et al. Characteristics, rates, and trends of melanoma incidence among Hispanics in the USA. Cancer Causes Control. 2016;27:647-659. 
    
6. Rouhani P, Hu S, Kirsner RS. Melanoma in Hispanic and black Americans. Cancer Control. 2008;15:248-253. 
    
7. Ma F, Collado-Mesa F, Hu S, et al. Skin cancer awareness and sun protection behaviors in white Hispanic and white non-Hispanic high school students in Miami, Florida. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143:983-988. 
    
8. Kundu RV, Kamaria M, Ortiz S, et al. Effectiveness of a knowledge-based intervention for melanoma among those with ethnic skin. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:777-784. 
    
9. Kailas A, Botwin AL, Pritchett EN, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of knowledge-based interventions in increasing skin cancer awareness, knowledge, and protective behaviors in skin of color populations. Cutis. 2017;100:235-240. 
    
10. Roman CJ, Guan X, Barnholtz-Sloan J, et al. A trial online educational melanoma program aimed at the Hispanic population improves knowledge and behaviors. Dermatol Surg. 2016;42:672-676. 
     
11. Hernandez C, Kim H, Mauleon G, et al. A pilot program in collaboration with community centers to increase awareness and participation in skin cancer screening among Latinos in Chicago. J Cancer Educ. 2013;28:342-345. 
     
12. Chung GY, Brown G, Gibson D. Increasing melanoma screening among Hispanic/Latino Americans: a community-based educational intervention. Health Educ Behav. 2015;42:627-632.

To the Editor: 

We read with interest the commentary by Srivastava et al,¹ "The Dayanara Effect: Increasing Skin Cancer Awareness in the Hispanic Community," concerning former Miss Universe Dayanara Torres and her diagnosis of metastatic melanoma; however, we believe it misses the mark. A quick Google search shows that Ms. Torres has fair skin and blue eyes. She has lived most of her life in Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and California--places where sun exposure is high and may have contributed to her diagnosis. Factors that have been linked to an increased risk for melanoma are fair skin, red or blonde hair, blue or green eyes, intense intermittent sun exposure and sunburns, a weakened immune system, and a family history of skin cancer.² Although we do not know her complete medical history, Ms. Torres' skin phenotype and likely chronic UV exposure made her a candidate for skin cancer. Although Srivastava et al¹ acknowledged that the Hispanic community encompasses a wide variety of individuals with varying levels of skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity, they overlooked Ms. Torres' risk for skin cancer because of her ethnic background. This form of generalization may negatively affect patient care and safety. By 2060, Hispanics are projected to account for almost 30% of the US population,³ and we must acknowledge the flaws that exist in our overall methodology for assessing skin cancer risk among this population to provide patients with unbiased care.  

In the early 1970s, the United States adopted the ethnonym Hispanic as a way of conglomerating Spanish-speaking individuals from Spain, the Caribbean, and Central and South America.⁴ The goal was to implement a common identifier that enabled the US Government to study the economic and social development of these groups. Nevertheless, considerable differences exist among distinct Hispanic communities, and variations in skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity are no exception. Although Hispanic countries are an amalgam of diverse races due to colonization, some have stronger European, African, or Amerindian influences, limiting the use of ethnicity during melanoma risk assessment. Another misconception reflected in the commentary by Srivastava et al¹ is the belief that the terms white and Hispanic are mutually exclusive. A study examining melanoma rates in the Chilean population supports this claim.⁵ The genetic composition of the Chilean high socioeconomic strata is 5% Amerindian and 95% white, while the low socioeconomic strata is approximately 40% Amerindian and 60% white. Patients from the low socioeconomic strata had higher rates of acral malignant melanoma, which typically is seen in patients with skin of color. On the other hand, males from the high socioeconomic strata had higher rates of truncal melanoma, which is more common among the white population.⁵ These results suggest that while both groups are considered Hispanic, it is ancestral origin that contributes to the differential rates and types of malignant melanoma.  

When analyzing data regarding melanoma rates in Hispanics, particularly data collected in the United States, we must question if the results are representative of the entire population. One point worth emphasizing is that melanoma data in the Hispanic community often is flawed. The North American Association of Central Cancer Registries considers Europeans such as Spaniards, as well as citizens of Andorra, the Canary Islands, and the Balearic Islands as Hispanic.⁶ Additionally, the Florida Cancer Data System uses data such as country of birth, ethnicity, and surname or maiden name recorded by the hospital tumor registry to identify Hispanic patients with melanoma.⁷ In 2006, Hu et al⁷ used the Florida Cancer Data System to analyze melanoma data in Miami-Dade County in South Florida, which has the second largest Hispanic community in the United States. One limitation to such data is that ethnicity often is self-reported by patients or assigned by a health care provider. In addition, women whose maiden names are not available may be misclassified through marriage depending on whether their husbands have Spanish or non-Spanish last names.⁷ Finally, with societal norms evolving, Americans are now more accepting of interracial marriages. In 2017, the Pew Research Center reported that 17% of all newlyweds in the United States were intermarried and 42% of these marriages were between a white individual and a Hispanic individual, comprising the most prevalent form of intermarriage reported.⁸ In 2015, 27% of newlywed Hispanics were intermarried. This percentage varied depending on whether they were born in the United States or abroad. Although 15% of Hispanic immigrants married a spouse from another race, 39% of Hispanics born in the United States married a non-Hispanic (eg, white, black, Asian, or Native American who is not Hispanic).⁸ This type of marriage and subsequent offspring might lead to an increase in the white genetic pool. As a result, the risk for melanoma development may be increased or misrepresented. Remaining aware of these changes in the population is crucial, as it exemplifies why the current methodology for gathering and reporting melanoma data is unreliable. 

Labeling Ms. Torres as Hispanic due to her Puerto Rican nationality did not tell us anything about her risk for developing melanoma. To correctly assess the risk for melanoma among Hispanics, it is imperative that we re-evaluate our approach. We agree with He et al⁹ that our efforts should be dedicated to better understanding the impact of pigmentation, race, genetics, and sunburn on the risk for melanoma. Until we know more about this possible correlation, we should reconsider how we study melanoma using Hispanics as an ethnicity. We may have it all wrong.  

1. Srivastava R, Wassef C, Rao BK. The Dayanara effect: increasing skin cancer awareness in the Hispanic community. Cutis. 2019;103:257-258. 
    
2. Curiel-Lewandrowski C. Risk factors for the development of melanoma. UpToDate. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/risk-factors-for-the-development-of-melanoma. Updated February 27, 2020. Accessed April 16, 2020. 
    
3. Colby SL, Ortman JM. Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. United States Census Bureau website. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.html. Published March 3, 2015. Accessed April 16, 2020. 
    
4. National Research Council (US) Panel on Hispanics in the United States; Tienda M, Mitchell F, editors. Multiple Origins, Uncertain Destinies: Hispanics and the American Future. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2006. 3, Defining Hispanicity: E Pluribus Unum or E Pluribus Plures? Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19811/ 
    
5. Zemelman VB, Valenzuela CY, Sazunic I, et al. Malignant melanoma in Chile: different site distribution between private and state patients. Biol Res. 2014;47:34. 
    
6. NAACCR Race and Ethnicity Work Group. NAACCR guideline for enhancing Hispanic-Latino identification: revised NAACCR Hispanic/Latino identification algorithm [NHIA v2.2.1]. NAACCR website. https://www.naaccr.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/NHIA_v2_2_1_09122011.pdf. Revised September 12, 2011. Accessed April 15, 2020.  
    
7. Hu S, Soza-Vento RM, Parker DF, et al. Comparison of stage at diagnosis of melanoma among Hispanic, black, and white patients in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142:704-708. 
    
8. Livingston G, Brown A. Intermarriage in the U.S. 50 years after Loving v. Virginia. Pew Research Center website. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/05/18/intermarriage-in-the-u-s-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/. Published May 18, 2017. Accessed April 15, 2020. 
    
9. He SY, McCulloch CE, Boscardin WJ, et al. Self-reported pigmentary phenotypes and race are significant but incomplete predictors of Fitzpatrick skin phototype in an ethnically diverse population. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:731-737. 

Authors' Response 

While Ms. Cruzval-O'Reilly and Dr. Lugo-Somolinos highlight many important points on conducting meaningful research for the Hispanic community, they seem to have misunderstood the overall purpose of our commentary,¹ which was to highlight the increased skin cancer awareness that a notable and vocal member of the Hispanic community brought to our academic dermatology clinic, rather than to discuss skin types within the Hispanic community. As the authors mentioned, the term Hispanic is a descriptor of ethnicity rather than race, and Hispanic patients may have varying levels of skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity. While Dayanara Torres may have risk factors for developing melanoma, minimizing her connection with the Hispanic community because of her fair skin and light eyes would be a mistake. It not only isolates members of the Hispanic community that are of skin types I and II, but it also discounts the power of her story and language in raising awareness. We observed an increase in Hispanic patients presenting to our clinic who were concerned about skin cancer after Ms. Torres shared her diagnosis of metastatic melanoma through social media, followed by Spanish language educational videos on melanoma.  

Several studies have described disparities among Hispanic patients diagnosed with melanoma as compared to their non-Hispanic white counterparts, including younger age at diagnosis, later stage of presentation, increased presence of regional involvement, and worse mortality.^2-6 Furthermore, a small study of high school students by Ma et al⁷ showed disparities in skin cancer knowledge, perceived risk, and sun-protective behaviors among Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic whites, which remained significant (P<.05) after controlling for skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity. We agree with the authors that further analysis of skin type, race, genetics, and other risk factors may help refine the research on skin cancer disparities within the Hispanic community. We suspect that disparities may persist even when examining these factors. There have been several studies showing that knowledge-based interventions, especially when delivered in Spanish, improve understanding of skin cancer, personal risk, and self-examinations, and we support Ms. Torres' efforts in utilizing her platform to provide information about melanoma in Spanish.^8-12  

Radhika Srivastava, MD; Cindy Wassef, MD; Babar K. Rao, MD 
 
From the Department of Dermatology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Somerset, New Jersey.  

The authors report no conflict of interest. 

Correspondence: Radhika Srivastava, MD, 1 World's Fair Dr, Ste 2400, Somerset, NJ 08873 ([email protected]). 

References

1. Srivastava R, Wassef C, Rao BK. The Dayanara effect: increasing skin cancer awareness in the Hispanic community. Cutis. 2019;103:257-258. 
    
2. Perez MI. Skin cancer in Hispanics in the United States. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18:s117-s120.  
    
3. Higgins S, Nazemi A, Feinstein S, et al. Clinical presentations of melanoma in African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. Dermatol Surg. 2019;45:791-801. 
    
4. Harvey VM, Oldfield CW, Chen JT, et al. Melanoma disparities among US Hispanics: use of the social ecological model to contextualize reasons for inequitable outcomes and frame a research agenda [published online August 29, 2016]. J Skin Cancer. doi:10.1155/2016/4635740 
    
5. Garnett E, Townsend J, Steele B, et al. Characteristics, rates, and trends of melanoma incidence among Hispanics in the USA. Cancer Causes Control. 2016;27:647-659. 
    
6. Rouhani P, Hu S, Kirsner RS. Melanoma in Hispanic and black Americans. Cancer Control. 2008;15:248-253. 
    
7. Ma F, Collado-Mesa F, Hu S, et al. Skin cancer awareness and sun protection behaviors in white Hispanic and white non-Hispanic high school students in Miami, Florida. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143:983-988. 
    
8. Kundu RV, Kamaria M, Ortiz S, et al. Effectiveness of a knowledge-based intervention for melanoma among those with ethnic skin. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:777-784. 
    
9. Kailas A, Botwin AL, Pritchett EN, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of knowledge-based interventions in increasing skin cancer awareness, knowledge, and protective behaviors in skin of color populations. Cutis. 2017;100:235-240. 
    
10. Roman CJ, Guan X, Barnholtz-Sloan J, et al. A trial online educational melanoma program aimed at the Hispanic population improves knowledge and behaviors. Dermatol Surg. 2016;42:672-676. 
     
11. Hernandez C, Kim H, Mauleon G, et al. A pilot program in collaboration with community centers to increase awareness and participation in skin cancer screening among Latinos in Chicago. J Cancer Educ. 2013;28:342-345. 
     
12. Chung GY, Brown G, Gibson D. Increasing melanoma screening among Hispanic/Latino Americans: a community-based educational intervention. Health Educ Behav. 2015;42:627-632.

There are several mechanisms by which the aging microenvironment can drive cancer and influence response to therapy, according to a plenary presentation at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Ashani T. Weeraratna, PhD, highlighted research showing how the aging microenvironment affects tumor cell metabolism, angiogenesis, and treatment resistance in melanoma.

Dr. Weeraratna, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, first described a study showing how fibroblasts in the aged microenvironment contribute to tumor progression in models of melanoma (Nature. 2016 Apr 14;532[7598]:250-4).

Dr. Weeraratna and colleagues isolated dermal fibroblasts from young human donors (aged 25-35 years) and older donors (55-65 years) and used these cells to produce artificial skin.

Melanoma cells placed in the artificial skin created with young fibroblasts remained “very tightly nested at the surface,” Dr. Weeraratna said. On the other hand, melanoma cells migrated “very rapidly” through the artificial dermis created from aged fibroblasts.

In mouse models of melanoma, tumors grew much faster in young mice (6-8 weeks) than in old mice (12-18 months). However, tumors metastasized to the lung at a “much greater rate in the aged mice than in the young mice,” Dr. Weeraratna said.
 

Angiogenesis, SFRP2, and VEGF

Dr. Weeraratna went on to explain how a member of her lab conducted proteomic analyses of young and aged lung fibroblasts. The results were compared with results from prior analyses of young and aged skin fibroblasts.

The results showed that aged skin fibroblasts promote noncanonical WNT signaling via expression of SFRP2, SERPINE2, DKK1, Wnt5A, and ROR2. On the other hand, aged lung fibroblasts promote canonical WNT signaling via some of the same family members, including SFRP1, DKK3, and ROR1.

Research by another group showed that SFRP2 stimulates angiogenesis via a calcineurin/NFAT signaling pathway (Cancer Res. 2009 Jun 1;69[11]:4621-8).

Research in Dr. Weeraratna’s lab showed that SFRP2 and VEGF are inversely correlated with aging. Tumors in aged mice had an abundance of SFRP2 but little VEGF. Tumors in young mice had an abundance of VEGF but little SFRP2.

Dr. Weeraratna’s team wanted to determine if results would be similar in melanoma patients, so the researchers analyzed data from the TCGA database. They found that VEGF and two of its key receptors are decreased in older melanoma patients, in comparison with younger melanoma patients.

The clinical relevancy of this finding is reflected in an analysis of data from the AVAST-M study (Ann Oncol. 2019;30[12]:2013-4). When compared with observation, bevacizumab did not improve survival overall or for older patients, but the EGFR inhibitor was associated with longer survival in patients younger than 45 years.

Dr. Weeraratna said this finding and her group’s prior findings suggest younger melanoma patients have more VEGF but less angiogenesis than older patients. The older patients have less VEGF and more SFRP2, which drives angiogenesis.

Dr. Weeraratna’s lab then conducted experiments in young mice, which suggested that an anti-VEGF antibody can reduce angiogenesis, but not in the presence of SFRP2.

Lipid metabolism and treatment resistance

A recently published study by Dr. Weeraratna and colleagues tied changes in aged fibroblast lipid metabolism to treatment resistance in melanoma (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jun 4;CD-20-0329).

The research showed that melanoma cells accumulate lipids when incubated with aged, rather than young, fibroblasts in vitro.

Lipid uptake is mediated by fatty acid transporters (FATPs), and the researchers found that most FATPs were unchanged by age. However, FATP2 was elevated in melanoma cells exposed to aged media, aged mice, and melanoma patients older than 50 years of age.

When melanoma cells were incubated with conditioned media from aged fibroblasts and a FATP2 inhibitor, they no longer took up lipids.

When FATP2 was knocked down in aged mice with melanoma, BRAF and MEK inhibitors (which are not very effective ordinarily) caused dramatic and prolonged tumor regression. These effects were not seen with FATP2 inhibition in young mice.

These results suggest FATP2 is a key transporter of lipids in the aged microenvironment, and inhibiting FATP2 can delay the onset of treatment resistance.

Striving to understand a complex system

For many years, the dogma was that cancer cells behaved like unwelcome invaders, co-opting the metabolic machinery of the sites of spread, with crowding of the normal structures within those organs.

To say that concept was primitive is an understatement. Clearly, the relationship between tumor cells and the surrounding stroma is complex. Changes that occur in an aging microenvironment can influence cancer outcomes in older adults.

Dr. Weeraratna’s presentation adds further impetus to efforts to broaden eligibility criteria for clinical trials so the median age and the metabolic milieu of trial participants more closely parallels the general population.

She highlighted the importance of data analysis by age cohorts and the need to design preclinical studies so that investigators can study the microenvironment of cancer cells in in vitro models and in young and older laboratory animals.

As management expert W. Edwards Deming is believed to have said, “Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” Cancer is likely not an independent, hostile invader, overtaking the failing machinery of aging cells. To understand the intersection of cancer and aging, we need a more perfect understanding of the system in which tumors develop and are treated.

Dr. Weeraratna reported having no disclosures.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Weeraratna A. AACR 2020. Age against the machine: How the aging microenvironment governs response to therapy.

There are several mechanisms by which the aging microenvironment can drive cancer and influence response to therapy, according to a plenary presentation at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Ashani T. Weeraratna, PhD, highlighted research showing how the aging microenvironment affects tumor cell metabolism, angiogenesis, and treatment resistance in melanoma.

Dr. Weeraratna, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, first described a study showing how fibroblasts in the aged microenvironment contribute to tumor progression in models of melanoma (Nature. 2016 Apr 14;532[7598]:250-4).

Dr. Weeraratna and colleagues isolated dermal fibroblasts from young human donors (aged 25-35 years) and older donors (55-65 years) and used these cells to produce artificial skin.

Melanoma cells placed in the artificial skin created with young fibroblasts remained “very tightly nested at the surface,” Dr. Weeraratna said. On the other hand, melanoma cells migrated “very rapidly” through the artificial dermis created from aged fibroblasts.

In mouse models of melanoma, tumors grew much faster in young mice (6-8 weeks) than in old mice (12-18 months). However, tumors metastasized to the lung at a “much greater rate in the aged mice than in the young mice,” Dr. Weeraratna said.
 

Angiogenesis, SFRP2, and VEGF

Dr. Weeraratna went on to explain how a member of her lab conducted proteomic analyses of young and aged lung fibroblasts. The results were compared with results from prior analyses of young and aged skin fibroblasts.

The results showed that aged skin fibroblasts promote noncanonical WNT signaling via expression of SFRP2, SERPINE2, DKK1, Wnt5A, and ROR2. On the other hand, aged lung fibroblasts promote canonical WNT signaling via some of the same family members, including SFRP1, DKK3, and ROR1.

Research by another group showed that SFRP2 stimulates angiogenesis via a calcineurin/NFAT signaling pathway (Cancer Res. 2009 Jun 1;69[11]:4621-8).

Research in Dr. Weeraratna’s lab showed that SFRP2 and VEGF are inversely correlated with aging. Tumors in aged mice had an abundance of SFRP2 but little VEGF. Tumors in young mice had an abundance of VEGF but little SFRP2.

Dr. Weeraratna’s team wanted to determine if results would be similar in melanoma patients, so the researchers analyzed data from the TCGA database. They found that VEGF and two of its key receptors are decreased in older melanoma patients, in comparison with younger melanoma patients.

The clinical relevancy of this finding is reflected in an analysis of data from the AVAST-M study (Ann Oncol. 2019;30[12]:2013-4). When compared with observation, bevacizumab did not improve survival overall or for older patients, but the EGFR inhibitor was associated with longer survival in patients younger than 45 years.

Dr. Weeraratna said this finding and her group’s prior findings suggest younger melanoma patients have more VEGF but less angiogenesis than older patients. The older patients have less VEGF and more SFRP2, which drives angiogenesis.

Dr. Weeraratna’s lab then conducted experiments in young mice, which suggested that an anti-VEGF antibody can reduce angiogenesis, but not in the presence of SFRP2.

Lipid metabolism and treatment resistance

A recently published study by Dr. Weeraratna and colleagues tied changes in aged fibroblast lipid metabolism to treatment resistance in melanoma (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jun 4;CD-20-0329).

The research showed that melanoma cells accumulate lipids when incubated with aged, rather than young, fibroblasts in vitro.

Lipid uptake is mediated by fatty acid transporters (FATPs), and the researchers found that most FATPs were unchanged by age. However, FATP2 was elevated in melanoma cells exposed to aged media, aged mice, and melanoma patients older than 50 years of age.

When melanoma cells were incubated with conditioned media from aged fibroblasts and a FATP2 inhibitor, they no longer took up lipids.

When FATP2 was knocked down in aged mice with melanoma, BRAF and MEK inhibitors (which are not very effective ordinarily) caused dramatic and prolonged tumor regression. These effects were not seen with FATP2 inhibition in young mice.

These results suggest FATP2 is a key transporter of lipids in the aged microenvironment, and inhibiting FATP2 can delay the onset of treatment resistance.

Striving to understand a complex system

For many years, the dogma was that cancer cells behaved like unwelcome invaders, co-opting the metabolic machinery of the sites of spread, with crowding of the normal structures within those organs.

To say that concept was primitive is an understatement. Clearly, the relationship between tumor cells and the surrounding stroma is complex. Changes that occur in an aging microenvironment can influence cancer outcomes in older adults.

Dr. Weeraratna’s presentation adds further impetus to efforts to broaden eligibility criteria for clinical trials so the median age and the metabolic milieu of trial participants more closely parallels the general population.

She highlighted the importance of data analysis by age cohorts and the need to design preclinical studies so that investigators can study the microenvironment of cancer cells in in vitro models and in young and older laboratory animals.

As management expert W. Edwards Deming is believed to have said, “Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” Cancer is likely not an independent, hostile invader, overtaking the failing machinery of aging cells. To understand the intersection of cancer and aging, we need a more perfect understanding of the system in which tumors develop and are treated.

Dr. Weeraratna reported having no disclosures.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Weeraratna A. AACR 2020. Age against the machine: How the aging microenvironment governs response to therapy.

There are several mechanisms by which the aging microenvironment can drive cancer and influence response to therapy, according to a plenary presentation at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Ashani T. Weeraratna, PhD, highlighted research showing how the aging microenvironment affects tumor cell metabolism, angiogenesis, and treatment resistance in melanoma.

Dr. Weeraratna, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, first described a study showing how fibroblasts in the aged microenvironment contribute to tumor progression in models of melanoma (Nature. 2016 Apr 14;532[7598]:250-4).

Dr. Weeraratna and colleagues isolated dermal fibroblasts from young human donors (aged 25-35 years) and older donors (55-65 years) and used these cells to produce artificial skin.

Melanoma cells placed in the artificial skin created with young fibroblasts remained “very tightly nested at the surface,” Dr. Weeraratna said. On the other hand, melanoma cells migrated “very rapidly” through the artificial dermis created from aged fibroblasts.

In mouse models of melanoma, tumors grew much faster in young mice (6-8 weeks) than in old mice (12-18 months). However, tumors metastasized to the lung at a “much greater rate in the aged mice than in the young mice,” Dr. Weeraratna said.
 

Angiogenesis, SFRP2, and VEGF

Dr. Weeraratna went on to explain how a member of her lab conducted proteomic analyses of young and aged lung fibroblasts. The results were compared with results from prior analyses of young and aged skin fibroblasts.

The results showed that aged skin fibroblasts promote noncanonical WNT signaling via expression of SFRP2, SERPINE2, DKK1, Wnt5A, and ROR2. On the other hand, aged lung fibroblasts promote canonical WNT signaling via some of the same family members, including SFRP1, DKK3, and ROR1.

Research by another group showed that SFRP2 stimulates angiogenesis via a calcineurin/NFAT signaling pathway (Cancer Res. 2009 Jun 1;69[11]:4621-8).

Research in Dr. Weeraratna’s lab showed that SFRP2 and VEGF are inversely correlated with aging. Tumors in aged mice had an abundance of SFRP2 but little VEGF. Tumors in young mice had an abundance of VEGF but little SFRP2.

Dr. Weeraratna’s team wanted to determine if results would be similar in melanoma patients, so the researchers analyzed data from the TCGA database. They found that VEGF and two of its key receptors are decreased in older melanoma patients, in comparison with younger melanoma patients.

The clinical relevancy of this finding is reflected in an analysis of data from the AVAST-M study (Ann Oncol. 2019;30[12]:2013-4). When compared with observation, bevacizumab did not improve survival overall or for older patients, but the EGFR inhibitor was associated with longer survival in patients younger than 45 years.

Dr. Weeraratna said this finding and her group’s prior findings suggest younger melanoma patients have more VEGF but less angiogenesis than older patients. The older patients have less VEGF and more SFRP2, which drives angiogenesis.

Dr. Weeraratna’s lab then conducted experiments in young mice, which suggested that an anti-VEGF antibody can reduce angiogenesis, but not in the presence of SFRP2.

Lipid metabolism and treatment resistance

A recently published study by Dr. Weeraratna and colleagues tied changes in aged fibroblast lipid metabolism to treatment resistance in melanoma (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jun 4;CD-20-0329).

The research showed that melanoma cells accumulate lipids when incubated with aged, rather than young, fibroblasts in vitro.

Lipid uptake is mediated by fatty acid transporters (FATPs), and the researchers found that most FATPs were unchanged by age. However, FATP2 was elevated in melanoma cells exposed to aged media, aged mice, and melanoma patients older than 50 years of age.

When melanoma cells were incubated with conditioned media from aged fibroblasts and a FATP2 inhibitor, they no longer took up lipids.

When FATP2 was knocked down in aged mice with melanoma, BRAF and MEK inhibitors (which are not very effective ordinarily) caused dramatic and prolonged tumor regression. These effects were not seen with FATP2 inhibition in young mice.

These results suggest FATP2 is a key transporter of lipids in the aged microenvironment, and inhibiting FATP2 can delay the onset of treatment resistance.

Striving to understand a complex system

For many years, the dogma was that cancer cells behaved like unwelcome invaders, co-opting the metabolic machinery of the sites of spread, with crowding of the normal structures within those organs.

To say that concept was primitive is an understatement. Clearly, the relationship between tumor cells and the surrounding stroma is complex. Changes that occur in an aging microenvironment can influence cancer outcomes in older adults.

Dr. Weeraratna’s presentation adds further impetus to efforts to broaden eligibility criteria for clinical trials so the median age and the metabolic milieu of trial participants more closely parallels the general population.

She highlighted the importance of data analysis by age cohorts and the need to design preclinical studies so that investigators can study the microenvironment of cancer cells in in vitro models and in young and older laboratory animals.

As management expert W. Edwards Deming is believed to have said, “Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” Cancer is likely not an independent, hostile invader, overtaking the failing machinery of aging cells. To understand the intersection of cancer and aging, we need a more perfect understanding of the system in which tumors develop and are treated.

Dr. Weeraratna reported having no disclosures.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Weeraratna A. AACR 2020. Age against the machine: How the aging microenvironment governs response to therapy.

To the Editor: 

We read with interest the excellent Cutis articles on cutaneous metastases by Tarantino et al¹ and Agnetta et al.² Tarantino et al¹ reported a 59-year-old man who developed cutaneous metastases on the scalp from an esophageal adenocarcinoma. Agnetta et al² described a 76-year-old woman with metastatic melanoma mimicking eruptive keratoacanthomas.  

Cutaneous metastases are not common. They may herald the unsuspected diagnosis of a solid tumor recurrence or progression of systemic disease in an oncology patient. Occasionally, they are the primary manifestation of a visceral tumor in a previously cancer-free patient. Less often, skin lesions are the manifestation of a new or recurrent hematologic malignancy.^3,4 

The morphology of cutaneous metastases is variable. Most commonly they appear as papules and nodules. However, they can mimic bacterial (eg, erysipelas) and viral (eg, herpes zoster) infections or present as scalp alopecia.^5-7

Cutaneous metastases also can mimic benign (eg, epidermoid cysts) or malignant (eg, keratoacanthoma) neoplasms. Keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases are rare.⁸ They can present as single or multiple tumors.^9,10 

In the case reported by Tarantino et al,¹ the patient had a history of metastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. His unsuspected recurrence presented not only with a single keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastasis on the scalp but also with another metastasis-related scalp lesion that appeared as a smooth pearly papule. We also observed a 53-year-old man whose metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma presented with a keratoacanthomalike nodule on the right upper lip; additionally, the patient had other cutaneous metastases that appeared as an erythematous papule on the forehead and a cystic nodule on the scalp.⁸ Other investigators also observed a single keratoacanthomalike lesion on the left cheek of a 49-year-old man with metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma.¹¹ 

Agnetta et al² described a patient with a history of malignant melanoma on the left upper back that had been excised 2 years prior. She presented with the eruptive onset of multiple keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases on the chest, back, and right arm.² The important observation of metastatic malignant melanoma presenting as multiple keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases pointed out by Agnetta et al2 confirms a similar occurrence reported by Reed et al¹² in a patient with metastatic malignant melanoma. 

We also previously reported the case of a 68-year-old man with metastatic laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) who developed more than 10 keratoacanthomalike nodules within a radiation port that extended from the face to the mid chest.¹⁰ In addition, other researchers have noted a similar phenomenon of keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases mimicking eruptive keratoacanthomas.¹³ Gil et al¹⁴ described a 40-year-old woman whose metastatic epithelioid trophoblastic tumor initially presented as 11 keratoacanthomalike scalp nodules; interestingly, the first nodule spontaneously regressed. Araghi et al¹⁵ reported a 58-year-old woman--with a stable SCC of the larynx that had been diagnosed 2 years prior and treated with chemoradiotherapy--in whom cancer progression presented as multiple keratoacanthomalike lesions in an area of prior radiotherapy. 

In conclusion, cutaneous metastases presenting as new-onset solitary or multiple keratoacanthomalike nodules in either a cancer-free individual or a patient with a prior history of a visceral malignancy is uncommon. Although the clinical features mimic those of a single or eruptive keratoacanthomas, a biopsy will readily establish the diagnosis of cutaneous metastatic cancer. Metastatic esophageal carcinoma--either adenocarcinoma or SCC--can present, albeit rarely, with cutaneous lesions that can have various morphologies.⁸ Whether there is an increased predilection for patients with metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma to present with single keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases with or without concurrent additional skin lesions of cutaneous metastases of other morphologies remains to be determined. 

To the Editor: 

We read with interest the excellent Cutis articles on cutaneous metastases by Tarantino et al¹ and Agnetta et al.² Tarantino et al¹ reported a 59-year-old man who developed cutaneous metastases on the scalp from an esophageal adenocarcinoma. Agnetta et al² described a 76-year-old woman with metastatic melanoma mimicking eruptive keratoacanthomas.  

Cutaneous metastases are not common. They may herald the unsuspected diagnosis of a solid tumor recurrence or progression of systemic disease in an oncology patient. Occasionally, they are the primary manifestation of a visceral tumor in a previously cancer-free patient. Less often, skin lesions are the manifestation of a new or recurrent hematologic malignancy.^3,4 

The morphology of cutaneous metastases is variable. Most commonly they appear as papules and nodules. However, they can mimic bacterial (eg, erysipelas) and viral (eg, herpes zoster) infections or present as scalp alopecia.^5-7

Cutaneous metastases also can mimic benign (eg, epidermoid cysts) or malignant (eg, keratoacanthoma) neoplasms. Keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases are rare.⁸ They can present as single or multiple tumors.^9,10 

In the case reported by Tarantino et al,¹ the patient had a history of metastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. His unsuspected recurrence presented not only with a single keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastasis on the scalp but also with another metastasis-related scalp lesion that appeared as a smooth pearly papule. We also observed a 53-year-old man whose metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma presented with a keratoacanthomalike nodule on the right upper lip; additionally, the patient had other cutaneous metastases that appeared as an erythematous papule on the forehead and a cystic nodule on the scalp.⁸ Other investigators also observed a single keratoacanthomalike lesion on the left cheek of a 49-year-old man with metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma.¹¹ 

Agnetta et al² described a patient with a history of malignant melanoma on the left upper back that had been excised 2 years prior. She presented with the eruptive onset of multiple keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases on the chest, back, and right arm.² The important observation of metastatic malignant melanoma presenting as multiple keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases pointed out by Agnetta et al2 confirms a similar occurrence reported by Reed et al¹² in a patient with metastatic malignant melanoma. 

We also previously reported the case of a 68-year-old man with metastatic laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) who developed more than 10 keratoacanthomalike nodules within a radiation port that extended from the face to the mid chest.¹⁰ In addition, other researchers have noted a similar phenomenon of keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases mimicking eruptive keratoacanthomas.¹³ Gil et al¹⁴ described a 40-year-old woman whose metastatic epithelioid trophoblastic tumor initially presented as 11 keratoacanthomalike scalp nodules; interestingly, the first nodule spontaneously regressed. Araghi et al¹⁵ reported a 58-year-old woman--with a stable SCC of the larynx that had been diagnosed 2 years prior and treated with chemoradiotherapy--in whom cancer progression presented as multiple keratoacanthomalike lesions in an area of prior radiotherapy. 

In conclusion, cutaneous metastases presenting as new-onset solitary or multiple keratoacanthomalike nodules in either a cancer-free individual or a patient with a prior history of a visceral malignancy is uncommon. Although the clinical features mimic those of a single or eruptive keratoacanthomas, a biopsy will readily establish the diagnosis of cutaneous metastatic cancer. Metastatic esophageal carcinoma--either adenocarcinoma or SCC--can present, albeit rarely, with cutaneous lesions that can have various morphologies.⁸ Whether there is an increased predilection for patients with metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma to present with single keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases with or without concurrent additional skin lesions of cutaneous metastases of other morphologies remains to be determined. 

To the Editor: 

We read with interest the excellent Cutis articles on cutaneous metastases by Tarantino et al¹ and Agnetta et al.² Tarantino et al¹ reported a 59-year-old man who developed cutaneous metastases on the scalp from an esophageal adenocarcinoma. Agnetta et al² described a 76-year-old woman with metastatic melanoma mimicking eruptive keratoacanthomas.  

Cutaneous metastases are not common. They may herald the unsuspected diagnosis of a solid tumor recurrence or progression of systemic disease in an oncology patient. Occasionally, they are the primary manifestation of a visceral tumor in a previously cancer-free patient. Less often, skin lesions are the manifestation of a new or recurrent hematologic malignancy.^3,4 

The morphology of cutaneous metastases is variable. Most commonly they appear as papules and nodules. However, they can mimic bacterial (eg, erysipelas) and viral (eg, herpes zoster) infections or present as scalp alopecia.^5-7

Cutaneous metastases also can mimic benign (eg, epidermoid cysts) or malignant (eg, keratoacanthoma) neoplasms. Keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases are rare.⁸ They can present as single or multiple tumors.^9,10 

In the case reported by Tarantino et al,¹ the patient had a history of metastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. His unsuspected recurrence presented not only with a single keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastasis on the scalp but also with another metastasis-related scalp lesion that appeared as a smooth pearly papule. We also observed a 53-year-old man whose metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma presented with a keratoacanthomalike nodule on the right upper lip; additionally, the patient had other cutaneous metastases that appeared as an erythematous papule on the forehead and a cystic nodule on the scalp.⁸ Other investigators also observed a single keratoacanthomalike lesion on the left cheek of a 49-year-old man with metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma.¹¹ 

Agnetta et al² described a patient with a history of malignant melanoma on the left upper back that had been excised 2 years prior. She presented with the eruptive onset of multiple keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases on the chest, back, and right arm.² The important observation of metastatic malignant melanoma presenting as multiple keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases pointed out by Agnetta et al2 confirms a similar occurrence reported by Reed et al¹² in a patient with metastatic malignant melanoma. 

We also previously reported the case of a 68-year-old man with metastatic laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) who developed more than 10 keratoacanthomalike nodules within a radiation port that extended from the face to the mid chest.¹⁰ In addition, other researchers have noted a similar phenomenon of keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases mimicking eruptive keratoacanthomas.¹³ Gil et al¹⁴ described a 40-year-old woman whose metastatic epithelioid trophoblastic tumor initially presented as 11 keratoacanthomalike scalp nodules; interestingly, the first nodule spontaneously regressed. Araghi et al¹⁵ reported a 58-year-old woman--with a stable SCC of the larynx that had been diagnosed 2 years prior and treated with chemoradiotherapy--in whom cancer progression presented as multiple keratoacanthomalike lesions in an area of prior radiotherapy. 

In conclusion, cutaneous metastases presenting as new-onset solitary or multiple keratoacanthomalike nodules in either a cancer-free individual or a patient with a prior history of a visceral malignancy is uncommon. Although the clinical features mimic those of a single or eruptive keratoacanthomas, a biopsy will readily establish the diagnosis of cutaneous metastatic cancer. Metastatic esophageal carcinoma--either adenocarcinoma or SCC--can present, albeit rarely, with cutaneous lesions that can have various morphologies.⁸ Whether there is an increased predilection for patients with metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma to present with single keratoacanthomalike cutaneous metastases with or without concurrent additional skin lesions of cutaneous metastases of other morphologies remains to be determined. 

Immunotherapy after resection of the primary tumor improved survival in some patients with stage III melanoma in an analysis presented at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Among patients with stage IIIC disease, the 2-year survival rate was 70% in those who received immunotherapy and 59% in those who did not (P < .01). The median overall survival in this group was 32.8 months with immunotherapy and 28 months without it (P < .01).

Among patients with stage IIIA disease, the 2-year survival rate was 94% with immunotherapy and 91% without it (P = .03).

There was a trend toward a 2-year survival benefit with immunotherapy in patients with stage IIIB disease and in all 4,094 stage III patients, but the differences were not significant. The 2-year survival rate was 84% with immunotherapy and 81% without it among patients with stage IIIB disease (P = .35). The survival rates were 83% and 80%, respectively, in all stage III patients (P = .051).

This was an early analysis, noted investigator Justin Moyers, MD, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University. Ipilimumab was approved as adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma patients in 2015, the year patients from this analysis were diagnosed.

“There’s really only 2 full years of survival data,” Dr. Moyers said. “I think given time, we will see a benefit amongst all the substages.”

In the meantime, “I would definitely not use this data to say whether or not [immunotherapy] should be given,” Dr. Moyers said.

The researchers were just using the database – which captures 52% of U.S. melanoma cases – to see if “real-world data mimics the clinical trial data,” Dr. Moyers said.

Overall, the findings support “adjuvant immunotherapy in the real-world setting,” he said.

The researchers also looked at treatment patterns in 2015-2016 across 8,160 patients with stage III melanoma, 4,094 of whom were included in the aforementioned survival analysis. There were 2,260 patients (27.7%) who received immunotherapy after surgery during that time period.

Uptake of adjuvant immunotherapy “was low to start, but those patients did better than ones who did not get” it, said AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.

Immunotherapy recipients were younger, on average (54.8 years vs. 62.4 years). Patients with Charlson comorbidity scores above zero and those on Medicare were less likely to receive immunotherapy (18.4% Medicare vs. over 30% with other payers). There also were trends of decreased use with lower income and lower high school graduation rates.

The finding “highlights the negative impact of socioeconomic [factors] on access to proven therapy,” Dr. Ribas said.

As for low use among Medicare patients, uptake of new treatments, in general, “seems to be faster with private insurance,” he noted.

The study excluded patients who received systemic therapies other than immunotherapy, as well as those who received immunotherapy before surgery. Among study limitations, the specific immunotherapies patients received was unknown.

There was no external funding for this study. Dr. Moyers reported travel compensation from Astellas Pharmaceuticals in 2018. Dr. Ribas disclosed relationships with Amgen, Chugai, Merck, Sanofi, Tango, Arcus, Bioncotech, Compugen, CytomX, FLX Bio, ImaginAb, Isoplexis, Merus, Rgenix, and PACT.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moyers J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 4338.

Immunotherapy after resection of the primary tumor improved survival in some patients with stage III melanoma in an analysis presented at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Among patients with stage IIIC disease, the 2-year survival rate was 70% in those who received immunotherapy and 59% in those who did not (P < .01). The median overall survival in this group was 32.8 months with immunotherapy and 28 months without it (P < .01).

Among patients with stage IIIA disease, the 2-year survival rate was 94% with immunotherapy and 91% without it (P = .03).

There was a trend toward a 2-year survival benefit with immunotherapy in patients with stage IIIB disease and in all 4,094 stage III patients, but the differences were not significant. The 2-year survival rate was 84% with immunotherapy and 81% without it among patients with stage IIIB disease (P = .35). The survival rates were 83% and 80%, respectively, in all stage III patients (P = .051).

This was an early analysis, noted investigator Justin Moyers, MD, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University. Ipilimumab was approved as adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma patients in 2015, the year patients from this analysis were diagnosed.

“There’s really only 2 full years of survival data,” Dr. Moyers said. “I think given time, we will see a benefit amongst all the substages.”

In the meantime, “I would definitely not use this data to say whether or not [immunotherapy] should be given,” Dr. Moyers said.

The researchers were just using the database – which captures 52% of U.S. melanoma cases – to see if “real-world data mimics the clinical trial data,” Dr. Moyers said.

Overall, the findings support “adjuvant immunotherapy in the real-world setting,” he said.

The researchers also looked at treatment patterns in 2015-2016 across 8,160 patients with stage III melanoma, 4,094 of whom were included in the aforementioned survival analysis. There were 2,260 patients (27.7%) who received immunotherapy after surgery during that time period.

Uptake of adjuvant immunotherapy “was low to start, but those patients did better than ones who did not get” it, said AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.

Immunotherapy recipients were younger, on average (54.8 years vs. 62.4 years). Patients with Charlson comorbidity scores above zero and those on Medicare were less likely to receive immunotherapy (18.4% Medicare vs. over 30% with other payers). There also were trends of decreased use with lower income and lower high school graduation rates.

The finding “highlights the negative impact of socioeconomic [factors] on access to proven therapy,” Dr. Ribas said.

As for low use among Medicare patients, uptake of new treatments, in general, “seems to be faster with private insurance,” he noted.

The study excluded patients who received systemic therapies other than immunotherapy, as well as those who received immunotherapy before surgery. Among study limitations, the specific immunotherapies patients received was unknown.

There was no external funding for this study. Dr. Moyers reported travel compensation from Astellas Pharmaceuticals in 2018. Dr. Ribas disclosed relationships with Amgen, Chugai, Merck, Sanofi, Tango, Arcus, Bioncotech, Compugen, CytomX, FLX Bio, ImaginAb, Isoplexis, Merus, Rgenix, and PACT.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moyers J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 4338.

Immunotherapy after resection of the primary tumor improved survival in some patients with stage III melanoma in an analysis presented at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Among patients with stage IIIC disease, the 2-year survival rate was 70% in those who received immunotherapy and 59% in those who did not (P < .01). The median overall survival in this group was 32.8 months with immunotherapy and 28 months without it (P < .01).

Among patients with stage IIIA disease, the 2-year survival rate was 94% with immunotherapy and 91% without it (P = .03).

There was a trend toward a 2-year survival benefit with immunotherapy in patients with stage IIIB disease and in all 4,094 stage III patients, but the differences were not significant. The 2-year survival rate was 84% with immunotherapy and 81% without it among patients with stage IIIB disease (P = .35). The survival rates were 83% and 80%, respectively, in all stage III patients (P = .051).

This was an early analysis, noted investigator Justin Moyers, MD, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University. Ipilimumab was approved as adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma patients in 2015, the year patients from this analysis were diagnosed.

“There’s really only 2 full years of survival data,” Dr. Moyers said. “I think given time, we will see a benefit amongst all the substages.”

In the meantime, “I would definitely not use this data to say whether or not [immunotherapy] should be given,” Dr. Moyers said.

The researchers were just using the database – which captures 52% of U.S. melanoma cases – to see if “real-world data mimics the clinical trial data,” Dr. Moyers said.

Overall, the findings support “adjuvant immunotherapy in the real-world setting,” he said.

The researchers also looked at treatment patterns in 2015-2016 across 8,160 patients with stage III melanoma, 4,094 of whom were included in the aforementioned survival analysis. There were 2,260 patients (27.7%) who received immunotherapy after surgery during that time period.

Uptake of adjuvant immunotherapy “was low to start, but those patients did better than ones who did not get” it, said AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.

Immunotherapy recipients were younger, on average (54.8 years vs. 62.4 years). Patients with Charlson comorbidity scores above zero and those on Medicare were less likely to receive immunotherapy (18.4% Medicare vs. over 30% with other payers). There also were trends of decreased use with lower income and lower high school graduation rates.

The finding “highlights the negative impact of socioeconomic [factors] on access to proven therapy,” Dr. Ribas said.

As for low use among Medicare patients, uptake of new treatments, in general, “seems to be faster with private insurance,” he noted.

The study excluded patients who received systemic therapies other than immunotherapy, as well as those who received immunotherapy before surgery. Among study limitations, the specific immunotherapies patients received was unknown.

There was no external funding for this study. Dr. Moyers reported travel compensation from Astellas Pharmaceuticals in 2018. Dr. Ribas disclosed relationships with Amgen, Chugai, Merck, Sanofi, Tango, Arcus, Bioncotech, Compugen, CytomX, FLX Bio, ImaginAb, Isoplexis, Merus, Rgenix, and PACT.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moyers J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 4338.

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.

The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.

In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.



The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).

The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.

Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.

The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.

The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.

Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
 

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.

The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.

The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.

Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.

The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.

In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.



The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).

The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.

Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.

The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.

The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.

Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
 

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.

The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.

The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.

Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.

The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.

In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.



The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).

The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.

Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.

The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.

The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.

Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
 

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.

The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.

The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.

Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

The number of suspicious lesions needed to refer to diagnose melanoma was 31.5, while the number needed to biopsy was 7.5. At the same time, the number needed to refer to diagnose non-melanoma skin cancer was 4 and the number needed to biopsy was 1.5.

The findings come from a retrospective review of 707 patients referred to a tertiary medical center dermatology practice for suspicious lesions, presented in a poster session at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology

“Multiple studies in the dermatology literature have looked at the number needed to treat (NNT) as a quality metric for dermatology clinics, where a lower number is ‘better,’” the study’s first author, Nikolai Klebanov, MD, said in an interview following the virtual meeting. “Our particular study is unique in that we estimated both the number needed to refer and number needed to biopsy to closely examine the process of referrals for suspicious lesions from primary care settings to specialists. We also looked closely at the underlying patient-centered characteristics, which could be used by all clinicians to streamline the referral process by reducing the volume of low-risk referrals.”

Dr. Klebanov, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and his associates reviewed 707 unique patient visits to the department during July 2015–February 2016. They calculated the number needed to refer and biopsy for melanoma as the ratio of biopsy-proven melanoma diagnoses among benign and dysplastic nevi and seborrheic keratoses. For nonmelanoma skin cancer, they used the ratio of basal and squamous cell carcinoma among actinic keratoses and seborrheic keratoses.

Of the 707 patients, 54% were female, and males were slightly older than females (a mean of 58 vs. 54 years, respectively). The researchers found that lesions were more commonly benign among all age groups, while the frequency of premalignant and malignant lesions such as actinic keratoses, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and melanoma was highest for males and increased with age. Nevi were the most common benign diagnosis among patients 39 years of age and younger, while seborrheic keratoses were more common among patients aged 40 years and older.

The researchers found that the number needed to treat for melanoma was 31.5 and the number needed to biopsy was 7.5, which represents a 4.2-fold difference. Meanwhile, the number needed to refer for nonmelanoma skin cancer was 4, and the number needed to biopsy was 1.5, which represents a 2.7-fold difference. Despite variable rates of skin cancer between demographics, the biopsy rate ranged between 18% and 30%, for a mean of 23.4%.

“We found that most young patients referred for a ‘suspicious lesion’ on clinical prebiopsy assessment by the dermatologist were determined to actually have a benign nevus, and that older patients were most likely to have a seborrheic keratosis as the underlying lesion,” Dr. Klebanov said. “Among the minority of patients in each demographic group who were selected for biopsy, those lesions which were found to be benign were also largely nevi and keratoses. Even by being mindful of just the patient’s age, primary care providers can follow patients clinically with a tailored differential diagnosis in mind before referral, and dermatologists can reduce the number of biopsies they perform on patients who are being referred.”

He added that he and his colleagues were surprised that despite very low rates of skin cancer in young patients, and thus different pretest probabilities of cancer, biopsy rates across demographics were consistently around 20%. “We also found a disproportionate number of female patients younger than age 40 who were referred for suspicious lesions, while in the older age groups, the ratio of males to females was approximately equal.”

Dr. Klebanov acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center, retrospective design, and that information was not collected on patients’ family history of skin cancer, Fitzpatrick skin type, nor the clinical course of the lesion while it was followed by the primary care office. “The nuanced differences in these factors may certainly play a role in decisions for individual patients,” he said.

The study’s principal investigator was Hensin Tsao MD, PhD, clinical director of the MGH Melanoma & Pigmented Lesion Center The work was supported by the Alpha Omega Alpha Carolyn Kuckein Research Fellowship. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Klebanov N et al. AAD 20. Abstract 15881.

The number of suspicious lesions needed to refer to diagnose melanoma was 31.5, while the number needed to biopsy was 7.5. At the same time, the number needed to refer to diagnose non-melanoma skin cancer was 4 and the number needed to biopsy was 1.5.

The findings come from a retrospective review of 707 patients referred to a tertiary medical center dermatology practice for suspicious lesions, presented in a poster session at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology

“Multiple studies in the dermatology literature have looked at the number needed to treat (NNT) as a quality metric for dermatology clinics, where a lower number is ‘better,’” the study’s first author, Nikolai Klebanov, MD, said in an interview following the virtual meeting. “Our particular study is unique in that we estimated both the number needed to refer and number needed to biopsy to closely examine the process of referrals for suspicious lesions from primary care settings to specialists. We also looked closely at the underlying patient-centered characteristics, which could be used by all clinicians to streamline the referral process by reducing the volume of low-risk referrals.”

Dr. Klebanov, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and his associates reviewed 707 unique patient visits to the department during July 2015–February 2016. They calculated the number needed to refer and biopsy for melanoma as the ratio of biopsy-proven melanoma diagnoses among benign and dysplastic nevi and seborrheic keratoses. For nonmelanoma skin cancer, they used the ratio of basal and squamous cell carcinoma among actinic keratoses and seborrheic keratoses.

Of the 707 patients, 54% were female, and males were slightly older than females (a mean of 58 vs. 54 years, respectively). The researchers found that lesions were more commonly benign among all age groups, while the frequency of premalignant and malignant lesions such as actinic keratoses, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and melanoma was highest for males and increased with age. Nevi were the most common benign diagnosis among patients 39 years of age and younger, while seborrheic keratoses were more common among patients aged 40 years and older.

The researchers found that the number needed to treat for melanoma was 31.5 and the number needed to biopsy was 7.5, which represents a 4.2-fold difference. Meanwhile, the number needed to refer for nonmelanoma skin cancer was 4, and the number needed to biopsy was 1.5, which represents a 2.7-fold difference. Despite variable rates of skin cancer between demographics, the biopsy rate ranged between 18% and 30%, for a mean of 23.4%.

“We found that most young patients referred for a ‘suspicious lesion’ on clinical prebiopsy assessment by the dermatologist were determined to actually have a benign nevus, and that older patients were most likely to have a seborrheic keratosis as the underlying lesion,” Dr. Klebanov said. “Among the minority of patients in each demographic group who were selected for biopsy, those lesions which were found to be benign were also largely nevi and keratoses. Even by being mindful of just the patient’s age, primary care providers can follow patients clinically with a tailored differential diagnosis in mind before referral, and dermatologists can reduce the number of biopsies they perform on patients who are being referred.”

He added that he and his colleagues were surprised that despite very low rates of skin cancer in young patients, and thus different pretest probabilities of cancer, biopsy rates across demographics were consistently around 20%. “We also found a disproportionate number of female patients younger than age 40 who were referred for suspicious lesions, while in the older age groups, the ratio of males to females was approximately equal.”

Dr. Klebanov acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center, retrospective design, and that information was not collected on patients’ family history of skin cancer, Fitzpatrick skin type, nor the clinical course of the lesion while it was followed by the primary care office. “The nuanced differences in these factors may certainly play a role in decisions for individual patients,” he said.

The study’s principal investigator was Hensin Tsao MD, PhD, clinical director of the MGH Melanoma & Pigmented Lesion Center The work was supported by the Alpha Omega Alpha Carolyn Kuckein Research Fellowship. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Klebanov N et al. AAD 20. Abstract 15881.

The number of suspicious lesions needed to refer to diagnose melanoma was 31.5, while the number needed to biopsy was 7.5. At the same time, the number needed to refer to diagnose non-melanoma skin cancer was 4 and the number needed to biopsy was 1.5.

The findings come from a retrospective review of 707 patients referred to a tertiary medical center dermatology practice for suspicious lesions, presented in a poster session at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology

“Multiple studies in the dermatology literature have looked at the number needed to treat (NNT) as a quality metric for dermatology clinics, where a lower number is ‘better,’” the study’s first author, Nikolai Klebanov, MD, said in an interview following the virtual meeting. “Our particular study is unique in that we estimated both the number needed to refer and number needed to biopsy to closely examine the process of referrals for suspicious lesions from primary care settings to specialists. We also looked closely at the underlying patient-centered characteristics, which could be used by all clinicians to streamline the referral process by reducing the volume of low-risk referrals.”

Dr. Klebanov, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and his associates reviewed 707 unique patient visits to the department during July 2015–February 2016. They calculated the number needed to refer and biopsy for melanoma as the ratio of biopsy-proven melanoma diagnoses among benign and dysplastic nevi and seborrheic keratoses. For nonmelanoma skin cancer, they used the ratio of basal and squamous cell carcinoma among actinic keratoses and seborrheic keratoses.

Of the 707 patients, 54% were female, and males were slightly older than females (a mean of 58 vs. 54 years, respectively). The researchers found that lesions were more commonly benign among all age groups, while the frequency of premalignant and malignant lesions such as actinic keratoses, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and melanoma was highest for males and increased with age. Nevi were the most common benign diagnosis among patients 39 years of age and younger, while seborrheic keratoses were more common among patients aged 40 years and older.

The researchers found that the number needed to treat for melanoma was 31.5 and the number needed to biopsy was 7.5, which represents a 4.2-fold difference. Meanwhile, the number needed to refer for nonmelanoma skin cancer was 4, and the number needed to biopsy was 1.5, which represents a 2.7-fold difference. Despite variable rates of skin cancer between demographics, the biopsy rate ranged between 18% and 30%, for a mean of 23.4%.

“We found that most young patients referred for a ‘suspicious lesion’ on clinical prebiopsy assessment by the dermatologist were determined to actually have a benign nevus, and that older patients were most likely to have a seborrheic keratosis as the underlying lesion,” Dr. Klebanov said. “Among the minority of patients in each demographic group who were selected for biopsy, those lesions which were found to be benign were also largely nevi and keratoses. Even by being mindful of just the patient’s age, primary care providers can follow patients clinically with a tailored differential diagnosis in mind before referral, and dermatologists can reduce the number of biopsies they perform on patients who are being referred.”

He added that he and his colleagues were surprised that despite very low rates of skin cancer in young patients, and thus different pretest probabilities of cancer, biopsy rates across demographics were consistently around 20%. “We also found a disproportionate number of female patients younger than age 40 who were referred for suspicious lesions, while in the older age groups, the ratio of males to females was approximately equal.”

Dr. Klebanov acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center, retrospective design, and that information was not collected on patients’ family history of skin cancer, Fitzpatrick skin type, nor the clinical course of the lesion while it was followed by the primary care office. “The nuanced differences in these factors may certainly play a role in decisions for individual patients,” he said.

The study’s principal investigator was Hensin Tsao MD, PhD, clinical director of the MGH Melanoma & Pigmented Lesion Center The work was supported by the Alpha Omega Alpha Carolyn Kuckein Research Fellowship. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Klebanov N et al. AAD 20. Abstract 15881.