Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

Immunotherapy with pembrolizumab holds promise for improving the generally dismal outlook in patients with leptomeningeal metastases, a phase 2 trial suggests.

Results from the trial were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Unfortunately, when patients present with leptomeningeal disease, they usually have a poor prognosis. Their median survival is measured at 6-24 weeks,” commented lead study author Jarushka Naidoo, MBBCh, an adjunct assistant professor of oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and a consultant medical oncologist at Beaumont Hospital in Dublin.

“While there may be some standard approaches for how we treat leptomeningeal disease, there are no universal standard therapies that are efficacious across solid tumor types,” Dr. Naidoo added.

With this in mind, Dr. Naidoo and colleagues tested systemic pembrolizumab in a trial of patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid tumors.

The trial closed early because of poor accrual, after enrolling 13 patients: 5 with breast carcinoma, 3 with high-grade glioma, 3 with non–small cell lung cancer, 1 with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, and 1 with head and neck squamous carcinoma. Nine patients (69%) had received at least two prior lines of systemic therapy.
 

Response, safety, and biomarkers

Overall, five patients (38%) had a central nervous system response, as ascertained from radiologic response on MRI, cytologic response in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and/or clinical response in neurologic symptoms, Dr. Naidoo reported.

Two patients had a complete CNS response: a patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, who was still alive at 3 years, and a patient with non–small cell lung cancer, who survived 9 months but succumbed to metastases elsewhere.

For the entire cohort, median CNS progression-free survival was 2.9 months, and median overall survival was 4.9 months.

“This is consistent with published prospective studies of systemic agents for leptomeningeal disease,” Dr. Naidoo pointed out. “Notably, even though numbers are small, we do see the tail-on-the-curve phenomenon in both of these survival curves, which is consistent with immune checkpoint blockade prospective studies.”

The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events was 15.4%, and there were no grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events.

The number of patients was too small for formal correlational testing, but both patients who achieved a complete response developed immune-related adverse events.

The trial’s biomarker analyses showed that an aneuploidy assay using CSF tumor-derived DNA performed well at detecting leptomeningeal metastases, with sensitivity of 84.6%, compared with just 53.8% for CSF cytopathology (the current preferred method).

A multiplex assay of CSF cytokines identified similar baseline profiles for patients who went on to have responses and showed similar changes in profile (notably a reduction in proinflammatory cytokines) for the two patients who had complete responses.

Given the trial’s 38% CNS response rate, pembrolizumab “needs to be studied in larger populations of patients to confirm this result, but it could be used as a potential treatment option for patients with leptomeningeal disease from solid tumors,” Dr. Naidoo concluded. “Reassuringly, pembrolizumab was well tolerated, and this is extremely important in a patient population that is traditionally quite frail and in which other standard therapies that are used, such as high-dose methotrexate or intrathecal chemotherapy, are associated with far higher rates of toxicity.”
 

An unmet need

“Leptomeningeal metastasis is a strong unmet need, although its occurrence is fortunately quite rare,” commented Kim Margolin, MD, a clinical professor and medical oncologist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif., who was not involved in this study.

Courtesy of City of Hope

The trial is noteworthy for showing activity of programmed death–1 (PD-1) blockade given only systemically and not with additional intrathecal therapy (as has been done in a concurrent study at MD Anderson Cancer Center) and for providing insight into various biomarkers, Dr. Margolin said in an interview.

“I cannot take a stand on author conclusions other than to agree it warrants further evaluation in carefully selected patients, and it would be great to compare something like peripheral PD-1 blockade alone versus in combination with intrathecal therapy versus a combination such as CTLA4 blockade plus PD-1 blockade such as our group and others have shown to have increased activity in CNS metastases over PD-1 block alone,” Dr. Margolin said.

“The drugs in this class are already approved, so there is no reason not to try them,” she noted.

However, patients with leptomeningeal metastases of melanoma, for example, are likely to have already received anti-PD-1 immunotherapy.

“So the settings in which off-the-shelf PD-1 blockade would be useful are extremely limited,” she concluded.

The current trial was funded by Merck, the National Institutes of Health, the Lung Cancer Foundation of America, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Johns Hopkins University Seed Grants. Dr. Naidoo disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Margolin disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Naidoo J et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 788.

Immunotherapy with pembrolizumab holds promise for improving the generally dismal outlook in patients with leptomeningeal metastases, a phase 2 trial suggests.

Results from the trial were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Unfortunately, when patients present with leptomeningeal disease, they usually have a poor prognosis. Their median survival is measured at 6-24 weeks,” commented lead study author Jarushka Naidoo, MBBCh, an adjunct assistant professor of oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and a consultant medical oncologist at Beaumont Hospital in Dublin.

“While there may be some standard approaches for how we treat leptomeningeal disease, there are no universal standard therapies that are efficacious across solid tumor types,” Dr. Naidoo added.

With this in mind, Dr. Naidoo and colleagues tested systemic pembrolizumab in a trial of patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid tumors.

The trial closed early because of poor accrual, after enrolling 13 patients: 5 with breast carcinoma, 3 with high-grade glioma, 3 with non–small cell lung cancer, 1 with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, and 1 with head and neck squamous carcinoma. Nine patients (69%) had received at least two prior lines of systemic therapy.
 

Response, safety, and biomarkers

Overall, five patients (38%) had a central nervous system response, as ascertained from radiologic response on MRI, cytologic response in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and/or clinical response in neurologic symptoms, Dr. Naidoo reported.

Two patients had a complete CNS response: a patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, who was still alive at 3 years, and a patient with non–small cell lung cancer, who survived 9 months but succumbed to metastases elsewhere.

For the entire cohort, median CNS progression-free survival was 2.9 months, and median overall survival was 4.9 months.

“This is consistent with published prospective studies of systemic agents for leptomeningeal disease,” Dr. Naidoo pointed out. “Notably, even though numbers are small, we do see the tail-on-the-curve phenomenon in both of these survival curves, which is consistent with immune checkpoint blockade prospective studies.”

The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events was 15.4%, and there were no grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events.

The number of patients was too small for formal correlational testing, but both patients who achieved a complete response developed immune-related adverse events.

The trial’s biomarker analyses showed that an aneuploidy assay using CSF tumor-derived DNA performed well at detecting leptomeningeal metastases, with sensitivity of 84.6%, compared with just 53.8% for CSF cytopathology (the current preferred method).

A multiplex assay of CSF cytokines identified similar baseline profiles for patients who went on to have responses and showed similar changes in profile (notably a reduction in proinflammatory cytokines) for the two patients who had complete responses.

Given the trial’s 38% CNS response rate, pembrolizumab “needs to be studied in larger populations of patients to confirm this result, but it could be used as a potential treatment option for patients with leptomeningeal disease from solid tumors,” Dr. Naidoo concluded. “Reassuringly, pembrolizumab was well tolerated, and this is extremely important in a patient population that is traditionally quite frail and in which other standard therapies that are used, such as high-dose methotrexate or intrathecal chemotherapy, are associated with far higher rates of toxicity.”
 

An unmet need

“Leptomeningeal metastasis is a strong unmet need, although its occurrence is fortunately quite rare,” commented Kim Margolin, MD, a clinical professor and medical oncologist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif., who was not involved in this study.

Courtesy of City of Hope

The trial is noteworthy for showing activity of programmed death–1 (PD-1) blockade given only systemically and not with additional intrathecal therapy (as has been done in a concurrent study at MD Anderson Cancer Center) and for providing insight into various biomarkers, Dr. Margolin said in an interview.

“I cannot take a stand on author conclusions other than to agree it warrants further evaluation in carefully selected patients, and it would be great to compare something like peripheral PD-1 blockade alone versus in combination with intrathecal therapy versus a combination such as CTLA4 blockade plus PD-1 blockade such as our group and others have shown to have increased activity in CNS metastases over PD-1 block alone,” Dr. Margolin said.

“The drugs in this class are already approved, so there is no reason not to try them,” she noted.

However, patients with leptomeningeal metastases of melanoma, for example, are likely to have already received anti-PD-1 immunotherapy.

“So the settings in which off-the-shelf PD-1 blockade would be useful are extremely limited,” she concluded.

The current trial was funded by Merck, the National Institutes of Health, the Lung Cancer Foundation of America, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Johns Hopkins University Seed Grants. Dr. Naidoo disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Margolin disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Naidoo J et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 788.

Immunotherapy with pembrolizumab holds promise for improving the generally dismal outlook in patients with leptomeningeal metastases, a phase 2 trial suggests.

Results from the trial were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Unfortunately, when patients present with leptomeningeal disease, they usually have a poor prognosis. Their median survival is measured at 6-24 weeks,” commented lead study author Jarushka Naidoo, MBBCh, an adjunct assistant professor of oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and a consultant medical oncologist at Beaumont Hospital in Dublin.

“While there may be some standard approaches for how we treat leptomeningeal disease, there are no universal standard therapies that are efficacious across solid tumor types,” Dr. Naidoo added.

With this in mind, Dr. Naidoo and colleagues tested systemic pembrolizumab in a trial of patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid tumors.

The trial closed early because of poor accrual, after enrolling 13 patients: 5 with breast carcinoma, 3 with high-grade glioma, 3 with non–small cell lung cancer, 1 with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, and 1 with head and neck squamous carcinoma. Nine patients (69%) had received at least two prior lines of systemic therapy.
 

Response, safety, and biomarkers

Overall, five patients (38%) had a central nervous system response, as ascertained from radiologic response on MRI, cytologic response in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and/or clinical response in neurologic symptoms, Dr. Naidoo reported.

Two patients had a complete CNS response: a patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, who was still alive at 3 years, and a patient with non–small cell lung cancer, who survived 9 months but succumbed to metastases elsewhere.

For the entire cohort, median CNS progression-free survival was 2.9 months, and median overall survival was 4.9 months.

“This is consistent with published prospective studies of systemic agents for leptomeningeal disease,” Dr. Naidoo pointed out. “Notably, even though numbers are small, we do see the tail-on-the-curve phenomenon in both of these survival curves, which is consistent with immune checkpoint blockade prospective studies.”

The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events was 15.4%, and there were no grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events.

The number of patients was too small for formal correlational testing, but both patients who achieved a complete response developed immune-related adverse events.

The trial’s biomarker analyses showed that an aneuploidy assay using CSF tumor-derived DNA performed well at detecting leptomeningeal metastases, with sensitivity of 84.6%, compared with just 53.8% for CSF cytopathology (the current preferred method).

A multiplex assay of CSF cytokines identified similar baseline profiles for patients who went on to have responses and showed similar changes in profile (notably a reduction in proinflammatory cytokines) for the two patients who had complete responses.

Given the trial’s 38% CNS response rate, pembrolizumab “needs to be studied in larger populations of patients to confirm this result, but it could be used as a potential treatment option for patients with leptomeningeal disease from solid tumors,” Dr. Naidoo concluded. “Reassuringly, pembrolizumab was well tolerated, and this is extremely important in a patient population that is traditionally quite frail and in which other standard therapies that are used, such as high-dose methotrexate or intrathecal chemotherapy, are associated with far higher rates of toxicity.”
 

An unmet need

“Leptomeningeal metastasis is a strong unmet need, although its occurrence is fortunately quite rare,” commented Kim Margolin, MD, a clinical professor and medical oncologist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif., who was not involved in this study.

Courtesy of City of Hope

The trial is noteworthy for showing activity of programmed death–1 (PD-1) blockade given only systemically and not with additional intrathecal therapy (as has been done in a concurrent study at MD Anderson Cancer Center) and for providing insight into various biomarkers, Dr. Margolin said in an interview.

“I cannot take a stand on author conclusions other than to agree it warrants further evaluation in carefully selected patients, and it would be great to compare something like peripheral PD-1 blockade alone versus in combination with intrathecal therapy versus a combination such as CTLA4 blockade plus PD-1 blockade such as our group and others have shown to have increased activity in CNS metastases over PD-1 block alone,” Dr. Margolin said.

“The drugs in this class are already approved, so there is no reason not to try them,” she noted.

However, patients with leptomeningeal metastases of melanoma, for example, are likely to have already received anti-PD-1 immunotherapy.

“So the settings in which off-the-shelf PD-1 blockade would be useful are extremely limited,” she concluded.

The current trial was funded by Merck, the National Institutes of Health, the Lung Cancer Foundation of America, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Johns Hopkins University Seed Grants. Dr. Naidoo disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Margolin disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Naidoo J et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 788.

When Maryam M. Asgari, MD, reviewed results from a large population-based study published in 2017, which found that a large proportion of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas were being detected on the lower extremities of women, it caused her to reflect on her own clinical practice as a Mohs surgeon.

The best available research suggests that patients at the highest risk of KC include men and women between the ages of 60 and 89. Dr. Asgari said that she informs her patients that people in their 80s have about a 20-fold risk of BCC or SCC compared with people in their 30s. “I raise this because a lot of time the people who come in for skin cancer screenings are the ‘worried well,’ ” she said. “They can be at risk, but they’re not our highest risk subgroup. They come in proactively wanting to have those full skin screens done, but where we really need to be focusing is in people in their 60s to 80s.”

Risk factors can be shared or unique to each tumor type. Extrinsic factors include chronic UV exposure, ionizing radiation, and tanning bed use. “Acute UV exposures that give you a blistering sunburn puts you at risk for BCC, whereas chronic sun exposures puts you at risk for SCC,” she said. “Tanning bed use can increase the risk for both types, as can ionizing radiation, although it ups the risk for BCCs much more than it does for SCCs.” Intrinsic risk factors for both tumor types include fair skin, blue/green eyes, blond/red hair, male gender, having pigment gene variants, and being immunosuppressed.

By race/ethnicity, the highest risk for KC in the United States falls to non-Hispanic Whites (a rate of 150-360 per 100,000 individuals), while the rate among blacks is 3 per 100,000 individuals. “In darker skin phenotypes, sun exposure tends to be less of a risk factor,” Dr. Asgari said. “They can rise on sun-protected areas and are frequently associated with chronic inflammation, chronic wounds, or scarring.”

In a soon-to-be published study, Dr. Asgari and colleagues sought to examine the association between genetic ancestry and SCC risk. The found that people with northwestern European ancestry faced the highest risk of SCC, especially those with Irish/Scottish ancestry. Among people of Hispanic/Latino descent, the highest risk of SCC came in those who had the most European ancestry.

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

Dr. Asgari disclosed that she receives royalties from UpToDate.

[email protected]

When Maryam M. Asgari, MD, reviewed results from a large population-based study published in 2017, which found that a large proportion of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas were being detected on the lower extremities of women, it caused her to reflect on her own clinical practice as a Mohs surgeon.

The best available research suggests that patients at the highest risk of KC include men and women between the ages of 60 and 89. Dr. Asgari said that she informs her patients that people in their 80s have about a 20-fold risk of BCC or SCC compared with people in their 30s. “I raise this because a lot of time the people who come in for skin cancer screenings are the ‘worried well,’ ” she said. “They can be at risk, but they’re not our highest risk subgroup. They come in proactively wanting to have those full skin screens done, but where we really need to be focusing is in people in their 60s to 80s.”

Risk factors can be shared or unique to each tumor type. Extrinsic factors include chronic UV exposure, ionizing radiation, and tanning bed use. “Acute UV exposures that give you a blistering sunburn puts you at risk for BCC, whereas chronic sun exposures puts you at risk for SCC,” she said. “Tanning bed use can increase the risk for both types, as can ionizing radiation, although it ups the risk for BCCs much more than it does for SCCs.” Intrinsic risk factors for both tumor types include fair skin, blue/green eyes, blond/red hair, male gender, having pigment gene variants, and being immunosuppressed.

By race/ethnicity, the highest risk for KC in the United States falls to non-Hispanic Whites (a rate of 150-360 per 100,000 individuals), while the rate among blacks is 3 per 100,000 individuals. “In darker skin phenotypes, sun exposure tends to be less of a risk factor,” Dr. Asgari said. “They can rise on sun-protected areas and are frequently associated with chronic inflammation, chronic wounds, or scarring.”

In a soon-to-be published study, Dr. Asgari and colleagues sought to examine the association between genetic ancestry and SCC risk. The found that people with northwestern European ancestry faced the highest risk of SCC, especially those with Irish/Scottish ancestry. Among people of Hispanic/Latino descent, the highest risk of SCC came in those who had the most European ancestry.

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

Dr. Asgari disclosed that she receives royalties from UpToDate.

[email protected]

When Maryam M. Asgari, MD, reviewed results from a large population-based study published in 2017, which found that a large proportion of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas were being detected on the lower extremities of women, it caused her to reflect on her own clinical practice as a Mohs surgeon.

The best available research suggests that patients at the highest risk of KC include men and women between the ages of 60 and 89. Dr. Asgari said that she informs her patients that people in their 80s have about a 20-fold risk of BCC or SCC compared with people in their 30s. “I raise this because a lot of time the people who come in for skin cancer screenings are the ‘worried well,’ ” she said. “They can be at risk, but they’re not our highest risk subgroup. They come in proactively wanting to have those full skin screens done, but where we really need to be focusing is in people in their 60s to 80s.”

Risk factors can be shared or unique to each tumor type. Extrinsic factors include chronic UV exposure, ionizing radiation, and tanning bed use. “Acute UV exposures that give you a blistering sunburn puts you at risk for BCC, whereas chronic sun exposures puts you at risk for SCC,” she said. “Tanning bed use can increase the risk for both types, as can ionizing radiation, although it ups the risk for BCCs much more than it does for SCCs.” Intrinsic risk factors for both tumor types include fair skin, blue/green eyes, blond/red hair, male gender, having pigment gene variants, and being immunosuppressed.

By race/ethnicity, the highest risk for KC in the United States falls to non-Hispanic Whites (a rate of 150-360 per 100,000 individuals), while the rate among blacks is 3 per 100,000 individuals. “In darker skin phenotypes, sun exposure tends to be less of a risk factor,” Dr. Asgari said. “They can rise on sun-protected areas and are frequently associated with chronic inflammation, chronic wounds, or scarring.”

In a soon-to-be published study, Dr. Asgari and colleagues sought to examine the association between genetic ancestry and SCC risk. The found that people with northwestern European ancestry faced the highest risk of SCC, especially those with Irish/Scottish ancestry. Among people of Hispanic/Latino descent, the highest risk of SCC came in those who had the most European ancestry.

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

Dr. Asgari disclosed that she receives royalties from UpToDate.

[email protected]

Nail unit squamous cell carcinoma (NSCC) is a malignant neoplasm that can arise from any part of the nail unit. Diagnosis often is delayed due to its clinical presentation mimicking benign conditions such as onychomycosis, warts, and paronychia. Nail unit SCC has a low rate of metastasis; however, a delayed diagnosis often can result in local destruction and bone invasion. It is imperative for dermatologists who are early in their training to recognize this entity and refer for treatment. Many approaches have been used to treat NSCC, including wide local excision, digital amputation, cryotherapy, topical modalities, and recently Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). This article provides an overview of the clinical presentation and diagnosis of NSCC, the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) in NSCC pathogenesis, and the evidence supporting surgical management.

NSCC Clinical Presentation and Diagnosis

Nail unit squamous cell carcinoma is a malignant neoplasm that can arise from any part of the nail unit including the nail bed, matrix, groove, and nail fold.¹ Although NSCC is the most common malignant nail neoplasm, its diagnosis often is delayed partly due to the clinical presentation of NSCC mimicking benign conditions such as onychomycosis, warts, and paronychia.^2,3 Nail unit SCC most commonly is mistaken for verruca vulgaris, and thus it is important to exclude malignancy in nonresolving verrucae of the fingernails or toenails. Another reason for a delay in the diagnosis is the painless and often asymptomatic presentation of this tumor, which keeps patients from seeking care.⁴ While evaluating a subungual lesion, dermatologists should keep in mind red flags that would prompt a biopsy to rule out NSCC (Table 1), including chronic nonhealing lesions, nail plate nodularity, known history of infection with HPV types 16 and 18, history of radiation or arsenic exposure, and immunosuppression. Table 2 lists the differential diagnosis of a persisting or nonhealing subungual tumor.

Nail unit SCC has a low rate of metastasis; however, a delayed diagnosis often can result in local destruction and bone invasion.⁵ Based on several reports, NSCC more commonly is found in middle-aged and older individuals, has a male predilection, and more often is seen on fingernails than toenails.^1,2,6 Figure A shows an example of the clinical presentation of NSCC affecting the right thumb.

Histologic Features

A biopsy from an NSCC tumor shows features similar to cutaneous SCC in the affected areas (ie, nail bed, nail matrix, nail groove, nail fold). Characteristic histologic findings include tongues or whorls of atypical squamous epithelium that invade deeply into the dermis.¹¹ The cells appear as atypical keratinocytes, exhibit distinct intracellular bridges, and possess hyperchromatic and pleomorphic nuclei with dyskeratosis and keratin pearls within the dermis.¹² Immunoperoxidase staining for cytokeratin AE1/AE3 can be helpful to confirm the diagnosis and assess whether the depth of invasion involves the bone.¹³ Figures B and C demonstrate the histopathology of NSCC biopsied from the tumor shown in Figure A.

Role of HPV in NSCC Pathogenesis

There is no clear pathogenic etiology for NSCC; however, there have been some reports of HPV as a risk factor. Shimizu et al¹⁴ reviewed 136 cases of HPV-associated NSCC and found that half of the cases were associated with high-risk HPV. They also found that 24% of the patients with NSCC had a history of other HPV-associated diseases. As such, the authors hypothesized that there is a possibility for genitodigital HPV transmission and that NSCC could be a reservoir for sexually transmitted high-risk HPV.¹⁴ Other risk factors are radiation exposure, chemical insult, and chronic trauma.¹⁵ The higher propensity for fingernails likely is reflective of the role of UV light exposure and infection with HPV in the development of these tumors.^14,15

Treatment Options for NSCC

Several nonsurgical approaches have been suggested to treat NSCC, including topical agents, cryotherapy, CO₂ laser, and photodynamic therapy.^3,16 Unfortunately, there are no large case series to demonstrate the cure rate or effectiveness of these methods.¹⁷ In one study, the authors did not recommend use of photodynamic therapy or topical modalities such as imiquimod cream 5% or fluorouracil cream 5% as first-line treatments of NSCC due to the difficulty in ensuring complete treatment of the sulci of the lateral and proximal nail folds.¹⁸

More evidence in the literature supports surgical approaches, including wide local excision, MMS, and digital amputation. Clinicians should consider relapse rates and the impact on digital functioning when choosing a surgical approach.

For wide local excisions, the most common approach is en bloc excision of the nail unit including the lateral nail folds, the proximal nail fold, and the distal nail fold. The excision starts with a transverse incision on the base of the distal phalanx, which is then prolonged laterally and distally to the distal nail fold down to the bone. After the incision is made to the depth of the bone, the matrical horns are destroyed by electrocoagulation, and the defect is closed either by a full-thickness skin graft or secondary intent.¹⁹

Topin-Ruiz et al¹⁹ followed patients with biopsy-proven NSCC without bone invasion who underwent en bloc excision followed by full-thickness skin graft. In their consecutive series of 55 patients with 5 years of follow-up, the rate of recurrence was only 4%. There was a low rate of complications including graft infection, delayed wound healing, and severe pain in a small percentage of patients. They also reported a high patient satisfaction rate.¹⁹ Due to the low recurrence rate, this study suggested that total excision of the nail unit followed by a full-thickness skin graft is a safe and efficient treatment of NSCC without bone involvement. Similarly, in another case series, wide local excision of the entire nail apparatus had a relapse rate of only 5%, in contrast to partial excision of the nail unit with a relapse of 56%.²⁰ These studies suggest that wide nail unit excision is an acceptable and effective approach; however, in cases in which invasion cannot be ruled out, histologic clearance would be a reasonable approach.²¹ As such, several case series demonstrated the merits of MMS for NSCC. de Berker et al²² reported 8 patients with NSCC treated using slow MMS and showed tumor clearance after a mean of 3 stages over a mean period of 6.9 days. In all cases, the wounds were allowed to heal by secondary intention, and the distal phalanx was preserved. During a mean follow-up period of 3.1 years, no recurrence was seen, and involved digits remained functional.²²

Other studies tested the efficacy of MMS for NSCC. Young et al²³ reported the outcomes of 14 NSCC cases treated with MMS. In their case series, they found that the mean number of MMS surgical stages required to achieve histologic clearance was 2, while the mean number of tissue sections was 4.²³ All cases were allowed to heal by secondary intent with excellent outcomes, except for 1 patient who received primary closure of a small defect. They reported a 78% cure rate with an average time to recurrence of 47 months.²³ In a series of 42 cases of NSCC treated with MMS, Gou et al¹⁷ noted a cure rate close to 93%. In their study, recurrences were observed in only 3 patients (7.1%). These recurrent cases were then successfully treated with another round of MMS.¹⁷ This study’s cure rate was comparable to the cure rate of MMS for SCC in other cutaneous areas. Goldminz and Bennett²⁴ demonstrated a cure rate of 92% in their case series of 25 patients. Two patients developed recurrent disease and were treated again with MMS resulting in no subsequent recurrence. In this study, the authors allowed all defects to heal by secondary intention and found that there were excellent cosmetic and functional outcomes.²⁴ Dika et al²⁵ evaluated the long-term effectiveness of MMS in the treatment of NSCC, in particular its ability to reduce the number of digital amputations. Fifteen patients diagnosed with NSCC were treated with MMS as the first-line surgical approach and were followed for 2 to 5 years. They found that in utilizing MMS, they were able to avoid amputations in 13 of 15 cases with no recurrence in any of these tumors. Two cases, however, still required amputation of the distal phalanx.²⁵

Although these studies suggest that MMS achieves a high cure rate ranging from 78% to 93%, it is not yet clear in the literature whether MMS is superior to wide local excision. More studies and clinical trials comparing these 2 surgical approaches should be performed to identify which surgical approach would be the gold standard for NSCC and which select cases would benefit from MMS as first-line treatment.

Final Thoughts

Nail unit SCC is one of the most common nail unit malignancies and can mimic several benign entities. Dermatologists who are early in their training should consider biopsy of subungual lesions with certain red flags (Table 1). It is important to diagnose NSCC for early intervention. Referral for wide local excision or MMS would be ideal. There are data in the literature supporting both surgical approaches as being effective; however, there are no trials comparing both approaches. Distal amputation should be considered as a last resort when wide local excision is not reasonable or when MMS fails to achieve clear margins, thereby reducing unnecessary amputations and patient morbidity.¹⁷

Nail unit squamous cell carcinoma (NSCC) is a malignant neoplasm that can arise from any part of the nail unit. Diagnosis often is delayed due to its clinical presentation mimicking benign conditions such as onychomycosis, warts, and paronychia. Nail unit SCC has a low rate of metastasis; however, a delayed diagnosis often can result in local destruction and bone invasion. It is imperative for dermatologists who are early in their training to recognize this entity and refer for treatment. Many approaches have been used to treat NSCC, including wide local excision, digital amputation, cryotherapy, topical modalities, and recently Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). This article provides an overview of the clinical presentation and diagnosis of NSCC, the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) in NSCC pathogenesis, and the evidence supporting surgical management.

NSCC Clinical Presentation and Diagnosis

Nail unit squamous cell carcinoma is a malignant neoplasm that can arise from any part of the nail unit including the nail bed, matrix, groove, and nail fold.¹ Although NSCC is the most common malignant nail neoplasm, its diagnosis often is delayed partly due to the clinical presentation of NSCC mimicking benign conditions such as onychomycosis, warts, and paronychia.^2,3 Nail unit SCC most commonly is mistaken for verruca vulgaris, and thus it is important to exclude malignancy in nonresolving verrucae of the fingernails or toenails. Another reason for a delay in the diagnosis is the painless and often asymptomatic presentation of this tumor, which keeps patients from seeking care.⁴ While evaluating a subungual lesion, dermatologists should keep in mind red flags that would prompt a biopsy to rule out NSCC (Table 1), including chronic nonhealing lesions, nail plate nodularity, known history of infection with HPV types 16 and 18, history of radiation or arsenic exposure, and immunosuppression. Table 2 lists the differential diagnosis of a persisting or nonhealing subungual tumor.

Nail unit SCC has a low rate of metastasis; however, a delayed diagnosis often can result in local destruction and bone invasion.⁵ Based on several reports, NSCC more commonly is found in middle-aged and older individuals, has a male predilection, and more often is seen on fingernails than toenails.^1,2,6 Figure A shows an example of the clinical presentation of NSCC affecting the right thumb.

Histologic Features

A biopsy from an NSCC tumor shows features similar to cutaneous SCC in the affected areas (ie, nail bed, nail matrix, nail groove, nail fold). Characteristic histologic findings include tongues or whorls of atypical squamous epithelium that invade deeply into the dermis.¹¹ The cells appear as atypical keratinocytes, exhibit distinct intracellular bridges, and possess hyperchromatic and pleomorphic nuclei with dyskeratosis and keratin pearls within the dermis.¹² Immunoperoxidase staining for cytokeratin AE1/AE3 can be helpful to confirm the diagnosis and assess whether the depth of invasion involves the bone.¹³ Figures B and C demonstrate the histopathology of NSCC biopsied from the tumor shown in Figure A.

Role of HPV in NSCC Pathogenesis

There is no clear pathogenic etiology for NSCC; however, there have been some reports of HPV as a risk factor. Shimizu et al¹⁴ reviewed 136 cases of HPV-associated NSCC and found that half of the cases were associated with high-risk HPV. They also found that 24% of the patients with NSCC had a history of other HPV-associated diseases. As such, the authors hypothesized that there is a possibility for genitodigital HPV transmission and that NSCC could be a reservoir for sexually transmitted high-risk HPV.¹⁴ Other risk factors are radiation exposure, chemical insult, and chronic trauma.¹⁵ The higher propensity for fingernails likely is reflective of the role of UV light exposure and infection with HPV in the development of these tumors.^14,15

Treatment Options for NSCC

Several nonsurgical approaches have been suggested to treat NSCC, including topical agents, cryotherapy, CO₂ laser, and photodynamic therapy.^3,16 Unfortunately, there are no large case series to demonstrate the cure rate or effectiveness of these methods.¹⁷ In one study, the authors did not recommend use of photodynamic therapy or topical modalities such as imiquimod cream 5% or fluorouracil cream 5% as first-line treatments of NSCC due to the difficulty in ensuring complete treatment of the sulci of the lateral and proximal nail folds.¹⁸

More evidence in the literature supports surgical approaches, including wide local excision, MMS, and digital amputation. Clinicians should consider relapse rates and the impact on digital functioning when choosing a surgical approach.

For wide local excisions, the most common approach is en bloc excision of the nail unit including the lateral nail folds, the proximal nail fold, and the distal nail fold. The excision starts with a transverse incision on the base of the distal phalanx, which is then prolonged laterally and distally to the distal nail fold down to the bone. After the incision is made to the depth of the bone, the matrical horns are destroyed by electrocoagulation, and the defect is closed either by a full-thickness skin graft or secondary intent.¹⁹

Topin-Ruiz et al¹⁹ followed patients with biopsy-proven NSCC without bone invasion who underwent en bloc excision followed by full-thickness skin graft. In their consecutive series of 55 patients with 5 years of follow-up, the rate of recurrence was only 4%. There was a low rate of complications including graft infection, delayed wound healing, and severe pain in a small percentage of patients. They also reported a high patient satisfaction rate.¹⁹ Due to the low recurrence rate, this study suggested that total excision of the nail unit followed by a full-thickness skin graft is a safe and efficient treatment of NSCC without bone involvement. Similarly, in another case series, wide local excision of the entire nail apparatus had a relapse rate of only 5%, in contrast to partial excision of the nail unit with a relapse of 56%.²⁰ These studies suggest that wide nail unit excision is an acceptable and effective approach; however, in cases in which invasion cannot be ruled out, histologic clearance would be a reasonable approach.²¹ As such, several case series demonstrated the merits of MMS for NSCC. de Berker et al²² reported 8 patients with NSCC treated using slow MMS and showed tumor clearance after a mean of 3 stages over a mean period of 6.9 days. In all cases, the wounds were allowed to heal by secondary intention, and the distal phalanx was preserved. During a mean follow-up period of 3.1 years, no recurrence was seen, and involved digits remained functional.²²

Other studies tested the efficacy of MMS for NSCC. Young et al²³ reported the outcomes of 14 NSCC cases treated with MMS. In their case series, they found that the mean number of MMS surgical stages required to achieve histologic clearance was 2, while the mean number of tissue sections was 4.²³ All cases were allowed to heal by secondary intent with excellent outcomes, except for 1 patient who received primary closure of a small defect. They reported a 78% cure rate with an average time to recurrence of 47 months.²³ In a series of 42 cases of NSCC treated with MMS, Gou et al¹⁷ noted a cure rate close to 93%. In their study, recurrences were observed in only 3 patients (7.1%). These recurrent cases were then successfully treated with another round of MMS.¹⁷ This study’s cure rate was comparable to the cure rate of MMS for SCC in other cutaneous areas. Goldminz and Bennett²⁴ demonstrated a cure rate of 92% in their case series of 25 patients. Two patients developed recurrent disease and were treated again with MMS resulting in no subsequent recurrence. In this study, the authors allowed all defects to heal by secondary intention and found that there were excellent cosmetic and functional outcomes.²⁴ Dika et al²⁵ evaluated the long-term effectiveness of MMS in the treatment of NSCC, in particular its ability to reduce the number of digital amputations. Fifteen patients diagnosed with NSCC were treated with MMS as the first-line surgical approach and were followed for 2 to 5 years. They found that in utilizing MMS, they were able to avoid amputations in 13 of 15 cases with no recurrence in any of these tumors. Two cases, however, still required amputation of the distal phalanx.²⁵

Although these studies suggest that MMS achieves a high cure rate ranging from 78% to 93%, it is not yet clear in the literature whether MMS is superior to wide local excision. More studies and clinical trials comparing these 2 surgical approaches should be performed to identify which surgical approach would be the gold standard for NSCC and which select cases would benefit from MMS as first-line treatment.

Final Thoughts

Nail unit SCC is one of the most common nail unit malignancies and can mimic several benign entities. Dermatologists who are early in their training should consider biopsy of subungual lesions with certain red flags (Table 1). It is important to diagnose NSCC for early intervention. Referral for wide local excision or MMS would be ideal. There are data in the literature supporting both surgical approaches as being effective; however, there are no trials comparing both approaches. Distal amputation should be considered as a last resort when wide local excision is not reasonable or when MMS fails to achieve clear margins, thereby reducing unnecessary amputations and patient morbidity.¹⁷

Nail unit squamous cell carcinoma (NSCC) is a malignant neoplasm that can arise from any part of the nail unit. Diagnosis often is delayed due to its clinical presentation mimicking benign conditions such as onychomycosis, warts, and paronychia. Nail unit SCC has a low rate of metastasis; however, a delayed diagnosis often can result in local destruction and bone invasion. It is imperative for dermatologists who are early in their training to recognize this entity and refer for treatment. Many approaches have been used to treat NSCC, including wide local excision, digital amputation, cryotherapy, topical modalities, and recently Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). This article provides an overview of the clinical presentation and diagnosis of NSCC, the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) in NSCC pathogenesis, and the evidence supporting surgical management.

NSCC Clinical Presentation and Diagnosis

Nail unit squamous cell carcinoma is a malignant neoplasm that can arise from any part of the nail unit including the nail bed, matrix, groove, and nail fold.¹ Although NSCC is the most common malignant nail neoplasm, its diagnosis often is delayed partly due to the clinical presentation of NSCC mimicking benign conditions such as onychomycosis, warts, and paronychia.^2,3 Nail unit SCC most commonly is mistaken for verruca vulgaris, and thus it is important to exclude malignancy in nonresolving verrucae of the fingernails or toenails. Another reason for a delay in the diagnosis is the painless and often asymptomatic presentation of this tumor, which keeps patients from seeking care.⁴ While evaluating a subungual lesion, dermatologists should keep in mind red flags that would prompt a biopsy to rule out NSCC (Table 1), including chronic nonhealing lesions, nail plate nodularity, known history of infection with HPV types 16 and 18, history of radiation or arsenic exposure, and immunosuppression. Table 2 lists the differential diagnosis of a persisting or nonhealing subungual tumor.

Nail unit SCC has a low rate of metastasis; however, a delayed diagnosis often can result in local destruction and bone invasion.⁵ Based on several reports, NSCC more commonly is found in middle-aged and older individuals, has a male predilection, and more often is seen on fingernails than toenails.^1,2,6 Figure A shows an example of the clinical presentation of NSCC affecting the right thumb.

Histologic Features

A biopsy from an NSCC tumor shows features similar to cutaneous SCC in the affected areas (ie, nail bed, nail matrix, nail groove, nail fold). Characteristic histologic findings include tongues or whorls of atypical squamous epithelium that invade deeply into the dermis.¹¹ The cells appear as atypical keratinocytes, exhibit distinct intracellular bridges, and possess hyperchromatic and pleomorphic nuclei with dyskeratosis and keratin pearls within the dermis.¹² Immunoperoxidase staining for cytokeratin AE1/AE3 can be helpful to confirm the diagnosis and assess whether the depth of invasion involves the bone.¹³ Figures B and C demonstrate the histopathology of NSCC biopsied from the tumor shown in Figure A.

Role of HPV in NSCC Pathogenesis

There is no clear pathogenic etiology for NSCC; however, there have been some reports of HPV as a risk factor. Shimizu et al¹⁴ reviewed 136 cases of HPV-associated NSCC and found that half of the cases were associated with high-risk HPV. They also found that 24% of the patients with NSCC had a history of other HPV-associated diseases. As such, the authors hypothesized that there is a possibility for genitodigital HPV transmission and that NSCC could be a reservoir for sexually transmitted high-risk HPV.¹⁴ Other risk factors are radiation exposure, chemical insult, and chronic trauma.¹⁵ The higher propensity for fingernails likely is reflective of the role of UV light exposure and infection with HPV in the development of these tumors.^14,15

Treatment Options for NSCC

Several nonsurgical approaches have been suggested to treat NSCC, including topical agents, cryotherapy, CO₂ laser, and photodynamic therapy.^3,16 Unfortunately, there are no large case series to demonstrate the cure rate or effectiveness of these methods.¹⁷ In one study, the authors did not recommend use of photodynamic therapy or topical modalities such as imiquimod cream 5% or fluorouracil cream 5% as first-line treatments of NSCC due to the difficulty in ensuring complete treatment of the sulci of the lateral and proximal nail folds.¹⁸

More evidence in the literature supports surgical approaches, including wide local excision, MMS, and digital amputation. Clinicians should consider relapse rates and the impact on digital functioning when choosing a surgical approach.

For wide local excisions, the most common approach is en bloc excision of the nail unit including the lateral nail folds, the proximal nail fold, and the distal nail fold. The excision starts with a transverse incision on the base of the distal phalanx, which is then prolonged laterally and distally to the distal nail fold down to the bone. After the incision is made to the depth of the bone, the matrical horns are destroyed by electrocoagulation, and the defect is closed either by a full-thickness skin graft or secondary intent.¹⁹

Topin-Ruiz et al¹⁹ followed patients with biopsy-proven NSCC without bone invasion who underwent en bloc excision followed by full-thickness skin graft. In their consecutive series of 55 patients with 5 years of follow-up, the rate of recurrence was only 4%. There was a low rate of complications including graft infection, delayed wound healing, and severe pain in a small percentage of patients. They also reported a high patient satisfaction rate.¹⁹ Due to the low recurrence rate, this study suggested that total excision of the nail unit followed by a full-thickness skin graft is a safe and efficient treatment of NSCC without bone involvement. Similarly, in another case series, wide local excision of the entire nail apparatus had a relapse rate of only 5%, in contrast to partial excision of the nail unit with a relapse of 56%.²⁰ These studies suggest that wide nail unit excision is an acceptable and effective approach; however, in cases in which invasion cannot be ruled out, histologic clearance would be a reasonable approach.²¹ As such, several case series demonstrated the merits of MMS for NSCC. de Berker et al²² reported 8 patients with NSCC treated using slow MMS and showed tumor clearance after a mean of 3 stages over a mean period of 6.9 days. In all cases, the wounds were allowed to heal by secondary intention, and the distal phalanx was preserved. During a mean follow-up period of 3.1 years, no recurrence was seen, and involved digits remained functional.²²

Other studies tested the efficacy of MMS for NSCC. Young et al²³ reported the outcomes of 14 NSCC cases treated with MMS. In their case series, they found that the mean number of MMS surgical stages required to achieve histologic clearance was 2, while the mean number of tissue sections was 4.²³ All cases were allowed to heal by secondary intent with excellent outcomes, except for 1 patient who received primary closure of a small defect. They reported a 78% cure rate with an average time to recurrence of 47 months.²³ In a series of 42 cases of NSCC treated with MMS, Gou et al¹⁷ noted a cure rate close to 93%. In their study, recurrences were observed in only 3 patients (7.1%). These recurrent cases were then successfully treated with another round of MMS.¹⁷ This study’s cure rate was comparable to the cure rate of MMS for SCC in other cutaneous areas. Goldminz and Bennett²⁴ demonstrated a cure rate of 92% in their case series of 25 patients. Two patients developed recurrent disease and were treated again with MMS resulting in no subsequent recurrence. In this study, the authors allowed all defects to heal by secondary intention and found that there were excellent cosmetic and functional outcomes.²⁴ Dika et al²⁵ evaluated the long-term effectiveness of MMS in the treatment of NSCC, in particular its ability to reduce the number of digital amputations. Fifteen patients diagnosed with NSCC were treated with MMS as the first-line surgical approach and were followed for 2 to 5 years. They found that in utilizing MMS, they were able to avoid amputations in 13 of 15 cases with no recurrence in any of these tumors. Two cases, however, still required amputation of the distal phalanx.²⁵

Although these studies suggest that MMS achieves a high cure rate ranging from 78% to 93%, it is not yet clear in the literature whether MMS is superior to wide local excision. More studies and clinical trials comparing these 2 surgical approaches should be performed to identify which surgical approach would be the gold standard for NSCC and which select cases would benefit from MMS as first-line treatment.

Final Thoughts

Nail unit SCC is one of the most common nail unit malignancies and can mimic several benign entities. Dermatologists who are early in their training should consider biopsy of subungual lesions with certain red flags (Table 1). It is important to diagnose NSCC for early intervention. Referral for wide local excision or MMS would be ideal. There are data in the literature supporting both surgical approaches as being effective; however, there are no trials comparing both approaches. Distal amputation should be considered as a last resort when wide local excision is not reasonable or when MMS fails to achieve clear margins, thereby reducing unnecessary amputations and patient morbidity.¹⁷

Practice Gap

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

The Technique

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

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

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

Practice Implications

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

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

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

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

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

Practice Gap

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

The Technique

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

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

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

Practice Implications

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

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

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

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

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

Practice Gap

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

The Technique

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

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

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

Practice Implications

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

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

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

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

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

It’s not ready for the clinic, but new research suggests that angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) widely used to treat hypertension may improve responses to cancer immunotherapy agents targeted against the programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway.

That conclusion comes from an observational study of 597 patients with more than 3 dozen different cancer types treated in clinical trials at the US National Institutes of Health. Investigators found that both objective response rates and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were significantly higher for patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor who were on ARBs, compared with patients who weren’t taking the antihypertensive agents.

An association was also seen between higher ORR and OS rates for patients taking ACE inhibitors, but it was not statistically significant, reported Julius Strauss, MD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

All study patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and the ORR for patients treated with ARBs was 33.8%, compared with 19.5% for those treated with ACE inhibitors, and 17% for those who took neither drug. The respective complete response (CR) rates were 11.3%, 3.7%, and 3.1%.

Strauss discussed the data during an online briefing prior to his presentation of the findings during the 32nd EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, which is taking place virtually.

Several early studies have suggested that angiotensin II, in addition to its effect on blood pressure, can also affect cancer growth by leading to downstream production of two proteins: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), he explained.

“Both of these [proteins] have been linked to cancer growth and cancer resistance to immune system attack,” Strauss observed.

He also discussed the mechanics of possible effects. Angiotensin II increases VEGF and TGF-beta through binding to the AT1 receptor, but has the opposite effect when it binds to the AT2 receptor, resulting in a decrease in both of the growth factors, he added.

ACE inhibitors prevent the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II, with the result being that the drugs indirectly block both the AT1 and AT2 receptors.

In contrast, ARBs block only the AT1 receptor and leave the AT2 counter-regulatory receptor alone, said Strauss.
 

More data, including on overall survival

Strauss and colleagues examined whether ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs could have an effect on the response to PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors delivered with or without other immunotherapies, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint inhibitors, or targeted agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

They pooled data on 597 patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials for various cancers, including 71 receiving concomitant ARBs, 82 receiving an ACE inhibitor, and 444 who were not receiving either class of antihypertensives.

The above-mentioned improvement in ORR with ARBs compared with patients not receiving the drug was statistically significant (P = .001), as was the improvement in CR rates (P = .002). In contrast, neither ORR nor CR were significantly better with patients on ACE inhibitors compared with patients not taking these drugs.

In multiple regression analysis controlling for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor type, and additional therapies given, the superior ORR and CR rates with ARBs remained (P = .039 and .002, respectively), while there continued to be no significant additional benefit with ACE inhibitors.

The median overall survival was 35.2 months for patients on ARBs, 26.2 months for those on ACE inhibitors, and 18.8 months for patients on neither drug. The respective 3-year OS rates were 48.1%, 37.2%, and 31.5%, with the difference between the ARB and no-drug groups being significant (P = .0078).

In regression analysis controlling for the factors mentioned before, the OS advantage with ARBs but not ACE inhibitors remained significant (P = .006 for ARBs, and .078 for ACE inhibitors).

Strauss emphasized that further study is needed to determine if AT1 blockade can improve outcomes when combined anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapy.

It might be reasonable for patients who are taking ACE inhibitors to control blood pressure and are also receiving immunotherapy with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor to be switched to an ARB if it is deemed safe and if further research bears it out, said Strauss in response to a question from Medscape Medical News.
 

Hypothesis-generating study

Meeting cochair Emiliano Calvo, MD, PhD, from Hospital de Madrid Norte Sanchinarro in Madrid, who attended the media briefing but was not involved in the study, commented that hypothesis-generating research using drugs already on the market for other indications adds important value to cancer therapy.

James Gulley, MD, PhD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI, also a meeting cochair, agreed with Calvo.

“Thinking about utilizing the data that already exists to really get hypothesis-generating questions, it also opens up the possibility for real-world data, real-world evidence from these big datasets from [electronic medical records] that we could really interrogate and understand what we might see and get these hypothesis-generating findings that we could then prospectively evaluate,” Gulley said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Strauss and Gulley are National Cancer Institute employees. Calvo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s not ready for the clinic, but new research suggests that angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) widely used to treat hypertension may improve responses to cancer immunotherapy agents targeted against the programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway.

That conclusion comes from an observational study of 597 patients with more than 3 dozen different cancer types treated in clinical trials at the US National Institutes of Health. Investigators found that both objective response rates and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were significantly higher for patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor who were on ARBs, compared with patients who weren’t taking the antihypertensive agents.

An association was also seen between higher ORR and OS rates for patients taking ACE inhibitors, but it was not statistically significant, reported Julius Strauss, MD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

All study patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and the ORR for patients treated with ARBs was 33.8%, compared with 19.5% for those treated with ACE inhibitors, and 17% for those who took neither drug. The respective complete response (CR) rates were 11.3%, 3.7%, and 3.1%.

Strauss discussed the data during an online briefing prior to his presentation of the findings during the 32nd EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, which is taking place virtually.

Several early studies have suggested that angiotensin II, in addition to its effect on blood pressure, can also affect cancer growth by leading to downstream production of two proteins: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), he explained.

“Both of these [proteins] have been linked to cancer growth and cancer resistance to immune system attack,” Strauss observed.

He also discussed the mechanics of possible effects. Angiotensin II increases VEGF and TGF-beta through binding to the AT1 receptor, but has the opposite effect when it binds to the AT2 receptor, resulting in a decrease in both of the growth factors, he added.

ACE inhibitors prevent the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II, with the result being that the drugs indirectly block both the AT1 and AT2 receptors.

In contrast, ARBs block only the AT1 receptor and leave the AT2 counter-regulatory receptor alone, said Strauss.
 

More data, including on overall survival

Strauss and colleagues examined whether ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs could have an effect on the response to PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors delivered with or without other immunotherapies, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint inhibitors, or targeted agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

They pooled data on 597 patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials for various cancers, including 71 receiving concomitant ARBs, 82 receiving an ACE inhibitor, and 444 who were not receiving either class of antihypertensives.

The above-mentioned improvement in ORR with ARBs compared with patients not receiving the drug was statistically significant (P = .001), as was the improvement in CR rates (P = .002). In contrast, neither ORR nor CR were significantly better with patients on ACE inhibitors compared with patients not taking these drugs.

In multiple regression analysis controlling for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor type, and additional therapies given, the superior ORR and CR rates with ARBs remained (P = .039 and .002, respectively), while there continued to be no significant additional benefit with ACE inhibitors.

The median overall survival was 35.2 months for patients on ARBs, 26.2 months for those on ACE inhibitors, and 18.8 months for patients on neither drug. The respective 3-year OS rates were 48.1%, 37.2%, and 31.5%, with the difference between the ARB and no-drug groups being significant (P = .0078).

In regression analysis controlling for the factors mentioned before, the OS advantage with ARBs but not ACE inhibitors remained significant (P = .006 for ARBs, and .078 for ACE inhibitors).

Strauss emphasized that further study is needed to determine if AT1 blockade can improve outcomes when combined anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapy.

It might be reasonable for patients who are taking ACE inhibitors to control blood pressure and are also receiving immunotherapy with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor to be switched to an ARB if it is deemed safe and if further research bears it out, said Strauss in response to a question from Medscape Medical News.
 

Hypothesis-generating study

Meeting cochair Emiliano Calvo, MD, PhD, from Hospital de Madrid Norte Sanchinarro in Madrid, who attended the media briefing but was not involved in the study, commented that hypothesis-generating research using drugs already on the market for other indications adds important value to cancer therapy.

James Gulley, MD, PhD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI, also a meeting cochair, agreed with Calvo.

“Thinking about utilizing the data that already exists to really get hypothesis-generating questions, it also opens up the possibility for real-world data, real-world evidence from these big datasets from [electronic medical records] that we could really interrogate and understand what we might see and get these hypothesis-generating findings that we could then prospectively evaluate,” Gulley said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Strauss and Gulley are National Cancer Institute employees. Calvo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s not ready for the clinic, but new research suggests that angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) widely used to treat hypertension may improve responses to cancer immunotherapy agents targeted against the programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway.

That conclusion comes from an observational study of 597 patients with more than 3 dozen different cancer types treated in clinical trials at the US National Institutes of Health. Investigators found that both objective response rates and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were significantly higher for patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor who were on ARBs, compared with patients who weren’t taking the antihypertensive agents.

An association was also seen between higher ORR and OS rates for patients taking ACE inhibitors, but it was not statistically significant, reported Julius Strauss, MD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

All study patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and the ORR for patients treated with ARBs was 33.8%, compared with 19.5% for those treated with ACE inhibitors, and 17% for those who took neither drug. The respective complete response (CR) rates were 11.3%, 3.7%, and 3.1%.

Strauss discussed the data during an online briefing prior to his presentation of the findings during the 32nd EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, which is taking place virtually.

Several early studies have suggested that angiotensin II, in addition to its effect on blood pressure, can also affect cancer growth by leading to downstream production of two proteins: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), he explained.

“Both of these [proteins] have been linked to cancer growth and cancer resistance to immune system attack,” Strauss observed.

He also discussed the mechanics of possible effects. Angiotensin II increases VEGF and TGF-beta through binding to the AT1 receptor, but has the opposite effect when it binds to the AT2 receptor, resulting in a decrease in both of the growth factors, he added.

ACE inhibitors prevent the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II, with the result being that the drugs indirectly block both the AT1 and AT2 receptors.

In contrast, ARBs block only the AT1 receptor and leave the AT2 counter-regulatory receptor alone, said Strauss.
 

More data, including on overall survival

Strauss and colleagues examined whether ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs could have an effect on the response to PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors delivered with or without other immunotherapies, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint inhibitors, or targeted agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

They pooled data on 597 patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials for various cancers, including 71 receiving concomitant ARBs, 82 receiving an ACE inhibitor, and 444 who were not receiving either class of antihypertensives.

The above-mentioned improvement in ORR with ARBs compared with patients not receiving the drug was statistically significant (P = .001), as was the improvement in CR rates (P = .002). In contrast, neither ORR nor CR were significantly better with patients on ACE inhibitors compared with patients not taking these drugs.

In multiple regression analysis controlling for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor type, and additional therapies given, the superior ORR and CR rates with ARBs remained (P = .039 and .002, respectively), while there continued to be no significant additional benefit with ACE inhibitors.

The median overall survival was 35.2 months for patients on ARBs, 26.2 months for those on ACE inhibitors, and 18.8 months for patients on neither drug. The respective 3-year OS rates were 48.1%, 37.2%, and 31.5%, with the difference between the ARB and no-drug groups being significant (P = .0078).

In regression analysis controlling for the factors mentioned before, the OS advantage with ARBs but not ACE inhibitors remained significant (P = .006 for ARBs, and .078 for ACE inhibitors).

Strauss emphasized that further study is needed to determine if AT1 blockade can improve outcomes when combined anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapy.

It might be reasonable for patients who are taking ACE inhibitors to control blood pressure and are also receiving immunotherapy with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor to be switched to an ARB if it is deemed safe and if further research bears it out, said Strauss in response to a question from Medscape Medical News.
 

Hypothesis-generating study

Meeting cochair Emiliano Calvo, MD, PhD, from Hospital de Madrid Norte Sanchinarro in Madrid, who attended the media briefing but was not involved in the study, commented that hypothesis-generating research using drugs already on the market for other indications adds important value to cancer therapy.

James Gulley, MD, PhD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI, also a meeting cochair, agreed with Calvo.

“Thinking about utilizing the data that already exists to really get hypothesis-generating questions, it also opens up the possibility for real-world data, real-world evidence from these big datasets from [electronic medical records] that we could really interrogate and understand what we might see and get these hypothesis-generating findings that we could then prospectively evaluate,” Gulley said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Strauss and Gulley are National Cancer Institute employees. Calvo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical Challenge

An odontogenic cutaneous sinus tract (OCST) of dental origin is an uncommon occurrence and is most commonly caused by chronic periodontitis, specifically a periapical abscess due to chronic dental infection.^1,2 Odontogenic cutaneous sinus tract commonly is misdiagnosed due to a lack of symptoms on presentation, location, and variations in clinical appearance mimicking other lesions. Patients with OCSTs typically present with a fixed, erythematous, crusty, and nontender nodule with periodic drainage that easily can be mistaken for a pustule, furuncle, cyst, foreign-body lesion, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), basal cell carcinoma, or granulomatous disorder.³ It becomes challenging for dermatologists to correctly diagnose these lesions and refer for proper evaluation and treatment.

Practice Gap

It is estimated that half of patients with an extraoral fistula are treated with multiple dermatologic surgical operations, radiotherapy, antibiotic therapy, and chemotherapy before the correct diagnosis is made.¹ Thus, proper identification of these lesions is crucial for prognosis and treatment. The most common locations for OCSTs are the mandibular, submandibular, and cervical skin.^1,2 Given these locations, patients with OCSTs commonly present to the dermatology office for evaluation. Education regarding the clinical presentation, histopathology, and proper evaluation and further referral for treatment is essential for dermatologists.

Tools and Technique for Diagnosis

We present 2 patients with OCSTs who were referred for cutaneous surgery for an SCC and epidermal cyst, but the proper diagnosis was rendered after an index of suspicion and clinicopathologic correlation led to additional testing and eventual referral for imaging.

Patient 1
A 68-year-old woman presented for Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) of a biopsy-proven SCC on the chin. The tumor cleared after 2 MMS stages (Figure 1A). Due to notable inflammation in each stage, the slides were sent to a pathologist who confirmed clear margins. Within 2 weeks of MMS, the wound began to dehisce (Figure 1B). The patient presented 4 months later with a crusted ulcerated nodule at the MMS site (Figure 1C). A biopsy showed likely recurrence of SCC. Upon presentation to the Mohs surgeon, the nodule felt fixed to the underlying jaw, and the patient was noted to have poor dentition. The patient was sent for computed tomography (CT), which showed focal thinning of the mandible, likely postsurgical, and clear maxillary sinuses. Due to the clinical appearance and anatomic location of the lesion, a request was made for a second read of the CT, specifically looking for an OCST at the prior surgical site. With this information, the radiologist noted an OCST extending from the mandible to the lesion, reported as a periapical lucency (representing a periapical abscess) at a mandibular tooth with a dental sinus draining into the soft tissues. The patient was started on antibiotics and referred to an oral surgeon for OCST excision.

Practice Implications

Odontogenic cutaneous sinus tracts commonly are misdiagnosed due to variations in clinical presentations resembling more common cutaneous diagnoses, nonspecific histopathologic findings, and lack of dental symptoms or concerns about dentition. Clinically, an OCST presents as a fixed, red, crusty, nontender nodule with intermittent draining. With palpation of the involved area, the clinician may feel a cord of tissue connecting the skin lesion intraorally.^2,4 A clinician should have a high index of suspicion for an OCST when evaluating fixed lesions of the lower face, jawline, and neck due to the possibility of a dental origin,¹ which is important because an OCST can have similar clinical findings to lesions such as congenital fistulas, pustules, cysts, osteomyelitis, foreign-body granulomas, pyogenic granulomas, syphilis, metastatic carcinomas, basal cell carcinomas, and SCCs.^2,4 A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Mohs, MMS, chemosurgery, odontogenic sinus, odontogenic cutaneous sinus tract, and dental sinus yielded only 2 OCSTs that were referred for MMS in the last 30 years, both of which were in the nasolabial fold/medial malar cheek.^2,4 Histopathologic findings of an OCST are nonspecific; a mixed or granulomatous inflammatory infiltrate, granulation tissue, and scarring can be seen.¹ Pseudocarcinomatous/pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia of the epidermis can be seen and cause histologic misinterpretation for an SCC.² Given that these findings are nonspecific without a clinical context, even with a histopathologic diagnosis of SCC or cyst, a clinical suspicion for an OCST should lead to an intraoral examination. Imaging can be ordered to look for an OCST in the area of interest. Although panoramic or periapical radiography with or without dental probes/radiopaque markers commonly have been used, more recent literature has suggested that CT may be superior to radiographs for making an OCST diagnosis.^1,3 If imaging is not consistent with the clinically suspected OCST, we recommend directly contacting the radiologist to explain the clinical history and even refresh his/her suspicion for this diagnosis.

If a diagnosis of an OCST is made, oral antibiotics can be prescribed, though the use of antibiotics has been controversial. For severe odontogenic infections, typically beta-lactam antibiotics, cephalosporins, metronidazole, clindamycin, moxifloxacin, or erythromycin can be given for 7 days or until 3 days after symptoms have resolved.⁵ Although antibiotics can bring temporary resolution, it is imperative to treat the source of infection to prevent recurrence. It is crucial for these patients to be referred to an oral surgeon for evaluation and treatment of OCST by either a root canal or tooth extraction.

Final Thoughts

We present this pearl on the diagnosis and management of an OCST, also known as a dental sinus, to better assist clinicians in making this diagnosis. With an index of suspicion as well as intraoral and radiologic evaluations, a proper diagnosis may be rendered, potentially avoiding unnecessary cutaneous surgery. In addition, we highlight the importance of communication between the clinician and the radiologist to directly look for OCST in the area of concern and consider a re-read of the images when clinical suspicion does not correlate with the radiology report.

Clinical Challenge

An odontogenic cutaneous sinus tract (OCST) of dental origin is an uncommon occurrence and is most commonly caused by chronic periodontitis, specifically a periapical abscess due to chronic dental infection.^1,2 Odontogenic cutaneous sinus tract commonly is misdiagnosed due to a lack of symptoms on presentation, location, and variations in clinical appearance mimicking other lesions. Patients with OCSTs typically present with a fixed, erythematous, crusty, and nontender nodule with periodic drainage that easily can be mistaken for a pustule, furuncle, cyst, foreign-body lesion, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), basal cell carcinoma, or granulomatous disorder.³ It becomes challenging for dermatologists to correctly diagnose these lesions and refer for proper evaluation and treatment.

Practice Gap

It is estimated that half of patients with an extraoral fistula are treated with multiple dermatologic surgical operations, radiotherapy, antibiotic therapy, and chemotherapy before the correct diagnosis is made.¹ Thus, proper identification of these lesions is crucial for prognosis and treatment. The most common locations for OCSTs are the mandibular, submandibular, and cervical skin.^1,2 Given these locations, patients with OCSTs commonly present to the dermatology office for evaluation. Education regarding the clinical presentation, histopathology, and proper evaluation and further referral for treatment is essential for dermatologists.

Tools and Technique for Diagnosis

We present 2 patients with OCSTs who were referred for cutaneous surgery for an SCC and epidermal cyst, but the proper diagnosis was rendered after an index of suspicion and clinicopathologic correlation led to additional testing and eventual referral for imaging.

Patient 1
A 68-year-old woman presented for Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) of a biopsy-proven SCC on the chin. The tumor cleared after 2 MMS stages (Figure 1A). Due to notable inflammation in each stage, the slides were sent to a pathologist who confirmed clear margins. Within 2 weeks of MMS, the wound began to dehisce (Figure 1B). The patient presented 4 months later with a crusted ulcerated nodule at the MMS site (Figure 1C). A biopsy showed likely recurrence of SCC. Upon presentation to the Mohs surgeon, the nodule felt fixed to the underlying jaw, and the patient was noted to have poor dentition. The patient was sent for computed tomography (CT), which showed focal thinning of the mandible, likely postsurgical, and clear maxillary sinuses. Due to the clinical appearance and anatomic location of the lesion, a request was made for a second read of the CT, specifically looking for an OCST at the prior surgical site. With this information, the radiologist noted an OCST extending from the mandible to the lesion, reported as a periapical lucency (representing a periapical abscess) at a mandibular tooth with a dental sinus draining into the soft tissues. The patient was started on antibiotics and referred to an oral surgeon for OCST excision.

Practice Implications

Odontogenic cutaneous sinus tracts commonly are misdiagnosed due to variations in clinical presentations resembling more common cutaneous diagnoses, nonspecific histopathologic findings, and lack of dental symptoms or concerns about dentition. Clinically, an OCST presents as a fixed, red, crusty, nontender nodule with intermittent draining. With palpation of the involved area, the clinician may feel a cord of tissue connecting the skin lesion intraorally.^2,4 A clinician should have a high index of suspicion for an OCST when evaluating fixed lesions of the lower face, jawline, and neck due to the possibility of a dental origin,¹ which is important because an OCST can have similar clinical findings to lesions such as congenital fistulas, pustules, cysts, osteomyelitis, foreign-body granulomas, pyogenic granulomas, syphilis, metastatic carcinomas, basal cell carcinomas, and SCCs.^2,4 A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Mohs, MMS, chemosurgery, odontogenic sinus, odontogenic cutaneous sinus tract, and dental sinus yielded only 2 OCSTs that were referred for MMS in the last 30 years, both of which were in the nasolabial fold/medial malar cheek.^2,4 Histopathologic findings of an OCST are nonspecific; a mixed or granulomatous inflammatory infiltrate, granulation tissue, and scarring can be seen.¹ Pseudocarcinomatous/pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia of the epidermis can be seen and cause histologic misinterpretation for an SCC.² Given that these findings are nonspecific without a clinical context, even with a histopathologic diagnosis of SCC or cyst, a clinical suspicion for an OCST should lead to an intraoral examination. Imaging can be ordered to look for an OCST in the area of interest. Although panoramic or periapical radiography with or without dental probes/radiopaque markers commonly have been used, more recent literature has suggested that CT may be superior to radiographs for making an OCST diagnosis.^1,3 If imaging is not consistent with the clinically suspected OCST, we recommend directly contacting the radiologist to explain the clinical history and even refresh his/her suspicion for this diagnosis.

If a diagnosis of an OCST is made, oral antibiotics can be prescribed, though the use of antibiotics has been controversial. For severe odontogenic infections, typically beta-lactam antibiotics, cephalosporins, metronidazole, clindamycin, moxifloxacin, or erythromycin can be given for 7 days or until 3 days after symptoms have resolved.⁵ Although antibiotics can bring temporary resolution, it is imperative to treat the source of infection to prevent recurrence. It is crucial for these patients to be referred to an oral surgeon for evaluation and treatment of OCST by either a root canal or tooth extraction.

Final Thoughts

We present this pearl on the diagnosis and management of an OCST, also known as a dental sinus, to better assist clinicians in making this diagnosis. With an index of suspicion as well as intraoral and radiologic evaluations, a proper diagnosis may be rendered, potentially avoiding unnecessary cutaneous surgery. In addition, we highlight the importance of communication between the clinician and the radiologist to directly look for OCST in the area of concern and consider a re-read of the images when clinical suspicion does not correlate with the radiology report.

Clinical Challenge

An odontogenic cutaneous sinus tract (OCST) of dental origin is an uncommon occurrence and is most commonly caused by chronic periodontitis, specifically a periapical abscess due to chronic dental infection.^1,2 Odontogenic cutaneous sinus tract commonly is misdiagnosed due to a lack of symptoms on presentation, location, and variations in clinical appearance mimicking other lesions. Patients with OCSTs typically present with a fixed, erythematous, crusty, and nontender nodule with periodic drainage that easily can be mistaken for a pustule, furuncle, cyst, foreign-body lesion, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), basal cell carcinoma, or granulomatous disorder.³ It becomes challenging for dermatologists to correctly diagnose these lesions and refer for proper evaluation and treatment.

Practice Gap

It is estimated that half of patients with an extraoral fistula are treated with multiple dermatologic surgical operations, radiotherapy, antibiotic therapy, and chemotherapy before the correct diagnosis is made.¹ Thus, proper identification of these lesions is crucial for prognosis and treatment. The most common locations for OCSTs are the mandibular, submandibular, and cervical skin.^1,2 Given these locations, patients with OCSTs commonly present to the dermatology office for evaluation. Education regarding the clinical presentation, histopathology, and proper evaluation and further referral for treatment is essential for dermatologists.

Tools and Technique for Diagnosis

We present 2 patients with OCSTs who were referred for cutaneous surgery for an SCC and epidermal cyst, but the proper diagnosis was rendered after an index of suspicion and clinicopathologic correlation led to additional testing and eventual referral for imaging.

Patient 1
A 68-year-old woman presented for Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) of a biopsy-proven SCC on the chin. The tumor cleared after 2 MMS stages (Figure 1A). Due to notable inflammation in each stage, the slides were sent to a pathologist who confirmed clear margins. Within 2 weeks of MMS, the wound began to dehisce (Figure 1B). The patient presented 4 months later with a crusted ulcerated nodule at the MMS site (Figure 1C). A biopsy showed likely recurrence of SCC. Upon presentation to the Mohs surgeon, the nodule felt fixed to the underlying jaw, and the patient was noted to have poor dentition. The patient was sent for computed tomography (CT), which showed focal thinning of the mandible, likely postsurgical, and clear maxillary sinuses. Due to the clinical appearance and anatomic location of the lesion, a request was made for a second read of the CT, specifically looking for an OCST at the prior surgical site. With this information, the radiologist noted an OCST extending from the mandible to the lesion, reported as a periapical lucency (representing a periapical abscess) at a mandibular tooth with a dental sinus draining into the soft tissues. The patient was started on antibiotics and referred to an oral surgeon for OCST excision.

Practice Implications

Odontogenic cutaneous sinus tracts commonly are misdiagnosed due to variations in clinical presentations resembling more common cutaneous diagnoses, nonspecific histopathologic findings, and lack of dental symptoms or concerns about dentition. Clinically, an OCST presents as a fixed, red, crusty, nontender nodule with intermittent draining. With palpation of the involved area, the clinician may feel a cord of tissue connecting the skin lesion intraorally.^2,4 A clinician should have a high index of suspicion for an OCST when evaluating fixed lesions of the lower face, jawline, and neck due to the possibility of a dental origin,¹ which is important because an OCST can have similar clinical findings to lesions such as congenital fistulas, pustules, cysts, osteomyelitis, foreign-body granulomas, pyogenic granulomas, syphilis, metastatic carcinomas, basal cell carcinomas, and SCCs.^2,4 A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Mohs, MMS, chemosurgery, odontogenic sinus, odontogenic cutaneous sinus tract, and dental sinus yielded only 2 OCSTs that were referred for MMS in the last 30 years, both of which were in the nasolabial fold/medial malar cheek.^2,4 Histopathologic findings of an OCST are nonspecific; a mixed or granulomatous inflammatory infiltrate, granulation tissue, and scarring can be seen.¹ Pseudocarcinomatous/pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia of the epidermis can be seen and cause histologic misinterpretation for an SCC.² Given that these findings are nonspecific without a clinical context, even with a histopathologic diagnosis of SCC or cyst, a clinical suspicion for an OCST should lead to an intraoral examination. Imaging can be ordered to look for an OCST in the area of interest. Although panoramic or periapical radiography with or without dental probes/radiopaque markers commonly have been used, more recent literature has suggested that CT may be superior to radiographs for making an OCST diagnosis.^1,3 If imaging is not consistent with the clinically suspected OCST, we recommend directly contacting the radiologist to explain the clinical history and even refresh his/her suspicion for this diagnosis.

If a diagnosis of an OCST is made, oral antibiotics can be prescribed, though the use of antibiotics has been controversial. For severe odontogenic infections, typically beta-lactam antibiotics, cephalosporins, metronidazole, clindamycin, moxifloxacin, or erythromycin can be given for 7 days or until 3 days after symptoms have resolved.⁵ Although antibiotics can bring temporary resolution, it is imperative to treat the source of infection to prevent recurrence. It is crucial for these patients to be referred to an oral surgeon for evaluation and treatment of OCST by either a root canal or tooth extraction.

Final Thoughts

We present this pearl on the diagnosis and management of an OCST, also known as a dental sinus, to better assist clinicians in making this diagnosis. With an index of suspicion as well as intraoral and radiologic evaluations, a proper diagnosis may be rendered, potentially avoiding unnecessary cutaneous surgery. In addition, we highlight the importance of communication between the clinician and the radiologist to directly look for OCST in the area of concern and consider a re-read of the images when clinical suspicion does not correlate with the radiology report.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

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: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

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: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

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: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.