Dermatology

A review of the patient’s chemotherapy medications revealed that 4 weeks earlier, panitumumab had been added to her folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen. The physician diagnosed this acneiform eruption as an adverse effect of the panitumumab.

Panitumumab is a monoclonal antibody that works to inhibit epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) proteins that are overexpressed on some solid tumors and responsible for cancer cell proliferation. EGFR inhibitor–induced acneiform eruptions are common in patients receiving panitumumab.

EGFR proteins have been a target of chemotherapy since the approval of the small molecule erlotinib in 2004. Panitumumab and cetuximab are monoclonal antibodies targeting EGFR and improve long-term survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when added to other standard chemotherapy regimens. EGFR is found throughout the epidermis and all EGFR inhibitors may cause unique skin toxicity not seen with other chemotherapy agents. In 1 study of 229 patients, 59% of patients exhibited skin toxicity at Day 15; the most common examples included widespread acne-like papules and pustules or an eczema-like manifestation.¹ Eruptions may be worsened by significant sun exposure while on panitumumab. In this case, the acneiform eruption occurred more intensely along visible facial telangiectasias.

When EGFR inhibitor–induced acneiform eruption occurs, patients commonly develop skin toxicity within the first 2 to 4 weeks of therapy. Pre-therapy doxycycline or minocycline and/or topical steroids may help prevent toxicities from occurring. These same therapies may be used to treat symptoms after they have occurred. More severe cases with systemic symptoms or failure to improve with the above measures may need prednisone or cessation of therapy.

This patient was started on topical hydrocortisone 2.5% ointment twice daily and oral doxycycline 100 mg bid for 6 weeks. She had dramatic improvement within 3 weeks. Doxycycline was subsequently continued at a dose of 100 mg/d and the patient was able to continue with her chemotherapy combination for several more months. Unfortunately, her colon cancer progressed despite therapy and she ultimately died from cancer-related complications.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

A review of the patient’s chemotherapy medications revealed that 4 weeks earlier, panitumumab had been added to her folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen. The physician diagnosed this acneiform eruption as an adverse effect of the panitumumab.

Panitumumab is a monoclonal antibody that works to inhibit epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) proteins that are overexpressed on some solid tumors and responsible for cancer cell proliferation. EGFR inhibitor–induced acneiform eruptions are common in patients receiving panitumumab.

EGFR proteins have been a target of chemotherapy since the approval of the small molecule erlotinib in 2004. Panitumumab and cetuximab are monoclonal antibodies targeting EGFR and improve long-term survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when added to other standard chemotherapy regimens. EGFR is found throughout the epidermis and all EGFR inhibitors may cause unique skin toxicity not seen with other chemotherapy agents. In 1 study of 229 patients, 59% of patients exhibited skin toxicity at Day 15; the most common examples included widespread acne-like papules and pustules or an eczema-like manifestation.¹ Eruptions may be worsened by significant sun exposure while on panitumumab. In this case, the acneiform eruption occurred more intensely along visible facial telangiectasias.

When EGFR inhibitor–induced acneiform eruption occurs, patients commonly develop skin toxicity within the first 2 to 4 weeks of therapy. Pre-therapy doxycycline or minocycline and/or topical steroids may help prevent toxicities from occurring. These same therapies may be used to treat symptoms after they have occurred. More severe cases with systemic symptoms or failure to improve with the above measures may need prednisone or cessation of therapy.

This patient was started on topical hydrocortisone 2.5% ointment twice daily and oral doxycycline 100 mg bid for 6 weeks. She had dramatic improvement within 3 weeks. Doxycycline was subsequently continued at a dose of 100 mg/d and the patient was able to continue with her chemotherapy combination for several more months. Unfortunately, her colon cancer progressed despite therapy and she ultimately died from cancer-related complications.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

A review of the patient’s chemotherapy medications revealed that 4 weeks earlier, panitumumab had been added to her folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen. The physician diagnosed this acneiform eruption as an adverse effect of the panitumumab.

Panitumumab is a monoclonal antibody that works to inhibit epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) proteins that are overexpressed on some solid tumors and responsible for cancer cell proliferation. EGFR inhibitor–induced acneiform eruptions are common in patients receiving panitumumab.

EGFR proteins have been a target of chemotherapy since the approval of the small molecule erlotinib in 2004. Panitumumab and cetuximab are monoclonal antibodies targeting EGFR and improve long-term survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when added to other standard chemotherapy regimens. EGFR is found throughout the epidermis and all EGFR inhibitors may cause unique skin toxicity not seen with other chemotherapy agents. In 1 study of 229 patients, 59% of patients exhibited skin toxicity at Day 15; the most common examples included widespread acne-like papules and pustules or an eczema-like manifestation.¹ Eruptions may be worsened by significant sun exposure while on panitumumab. In this case, the acneiform eruption occurred more intensely along visible facial telangiectasias.

When EGFR inhibitor–induced acneiform eruption occurs, patients commonly develop skin toxicity within the first 2 to 4 weeks of therapy. Pre-therapy doxycycline or minocycline and/or topical steroids may help prevent toxicities from occurring. These same therapies may be used to treat symptoms after they have occurred. More severe cases with systemic symptoms or failure to improve with the above measures may need prednisone or cessation of therapy.

This patient was started on topical hydrocortisone 2.5% ointment twice daily and oral doxycycline 100 mg bid for 6 weeks. She had dramatic improvement within 3 weeks. Doxycycline was subsequently continued at a dose of 100 mg/d and the patient was able to continue with her chemotherapy combination for several more months. Unfortunately, her colon cancer progressed despite therapy and she ultimately died from cancer-related complications.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

PHOENIX – Combining a serum containing silymarin with nonablative laser therapy could serve as a promising solution for decreasing inflammation, postinflammatory erythema (PIE), and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) associated with acne lesions, results from a prospective, single-center study showed.

“Acne vulgaris is the most common inflammatory dermatosis worldwide, often resulting in sequelae such as scarring, PIE, and PIH,” presenting author Jamie Hu, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the study results were presented during an abstract session. “This dyschromia can cause greater psychological distress than the original acne lesions, and disproportionately affects skin of color patients.”

Blemish-prone skin is known to have higher levels of sebum and lower levels of antioxidants, leading to lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress, resulting in proliferation of Cutibacterium acnes and an inflammatory cascade that has recently been implicated in postinflammatory dyschromia and the development of PIE and PIH, noted Dr. Hu, a dermatology resident at the University of Miami. “Therefore, the use of antioxidants presents an opportunity to disrupt blemish and dyschromia,” she said.

One such antioxidant is silymarin, which is derived from the milk thistle plant. Recent studies have demonstrated that silymarin reduces proinflammatory mediators, prevents lipid peroxidation, and presents a new way to target the treatment of both acne and postinflammatory dyschromia.

Dr. Hu’s mentor, Jill S. Waibel, MD, owner and medical director of the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute, hypothesized that nonablative laser therapy followed by topical application of silymarin would improve acne-associated postinflammatory dyschromia. To test her hunch, she conducted a 12-week, prospective trial in which 24 patients with PIE and/or PIH were randomized to one of two treatment arms: laser treatment with topical antioxidants or laser treatment with vehicle control. Patients received three laser treatments, each 1 month apart. The topical antioxidant used was Silymarin CF, a serum that contains 0.5% silymarin, 0.5% salicylic acid, 15% L-ascorbic acid, and 0.5% ferulic acid. (The study was sponsored by SkinCeuticals, the manufacturer of the serum.)

Laser selection was made primarily on the type of dyschromia, with PIE patients receiving treatment with the pulsed dye laser and PIH patients receiving treatment with the 1,927-nm thulium laser. Patients were treated on days 0, 28, and 56 of the 12-week study, followed by immediate application of topical antioxidants or vehicle control. They were also instructed to apply the assigned topical twice daily for the duration of the study. Patients ranged in age from 21 to 61 years, and 20 had skin types III-IV.

To evaluate efficacy, the researchers conducted blinded clinical assessments with the postacne hyperpigmentation index (PAHPI) and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), instrumentation with the Mexameter, a device that captures erythema and melanin index values, and visual diagnostics with optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Dr. Hu reported that at week 12, the PAHPI in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group fell from an average of 3.18 to 1.74 (a decrease of 1.44), which suggested an improvement trend, compared with the laser treatment–only group, whose PAHPI fell from an average of 3.25 to 1.97 (a decrease of 1.28).

As for the GAIS, a one-time score assessed at the end of the trial, the average score for all patients was 3.24, which translated to “much improved/very much improved.” Patients in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group had higher average scores compared with patients in the laser treatment–only group (3.35 vs. 3.10, respectively), but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

According to results of the Mexameter assessment, paired t-tests showed that the levels of intralesional melanin decreased significantly for patients in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group, compared with the laser treatment–only group (P < .05). OCT assessments demonstrated an increase in dermal brightness in both groups, corresponding to an increase in dermal collagen, as well as an increase in blood vessel density.

In an interview at the meeting, Dr. Waibel, subsection chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital of Miami, said that future studies will focus on long-term follow-up to determine if acne scars can be prevented by combining silymarin with lasers to prevent PIH and PIE. “That would be priceless,” she said. “I believe that the PIH is what causes damage to the collagen, and that damage to the collagen is what causes the scarring. So, if we can prevent or treat PIH, we may be able to prevent scarring.”

This approach, she added, “would decrease the pharmaceutical cost because I think there are many dermatologists who are treating PEI and PIH as active acne. You really have to have a keen eye for understanding the differences and you really have to be looking, because PIE and PIH are flat, whereas active acne consists of either comedones or nodules.”

She noted that in skin of color patients, she has seen PIH persist for 9 or 10 months after treatment with isotretinoin. “It’s not the isotretinoin causing the scars, or even the acne, it’s the prolonged inflammation,” she said.

Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD, a Boston-based laser and cosmetic dermatologist who was asked to comment on the study, said that patients and dermatologists frequently seek alternatives to hydroquinone for unwanted hyperpigmentation.

Dr. DiGiorgio

Dr. Jalian

“While the study failed to show statistically significant improvement in postinflammatory erythema with concomitant laser and topical therapy versus laser alone, the promising data supporting concurrent use of topicals and fractional lasers for treatment of PIH, particularly in dark skin phototypes, is a clinically impactful contribution to our daily practice,” he said.

Dr. Waibel disclosed that she has conducted clinical trials for many device and pharmaceutical companies including SkinCeuticals. Dr. Hu, Dr. DiGiorgio, and Dr. Jalian were not involved with the study and reported having no relevant disclosures.

PHOENIX – Combining a serum containing silymarin with nonablative laser therapy could serve as a promising solution for decreasing inflammation, postinflammatory erythema (PIE), and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) associated with acne lesions, results from a prospective, single-center study showed.

“Acne vulgaris is the most common inflammatory dermatosis worldwide, often resulting in sequelae such as scarring, PIE, and PIH,” presenting author Jamie Hu, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the study results were presented during an abstract session. “This dyschromia can cause greater psychological distress than the original acne lesions, and disproportionately affects skin of color patients.”

Blemish-prone skin is known to have higher levels of sebum and lower levels of antioxidants, leading to lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress, resulting in proliferation of Cutibacterium acnes and an inflammatory cascade that has recently been implicated in postinflammatory dyschromia and the development of PIE and PIH, noted Dr. Hu, a dermatology resident at the University of Miami. “Therefore, the use of antioxidants presents an opportunity to disrupt blemish and dyschromia,” she said.

One such antioxidant is silymarin, which is derived from the milk thistle plant. Recent studies have demonstrated that silymarin reduces proinflammatory mediators, prevents lipid peroxidation, and presents a new way to target the treatment of both acne and postinflammatory dyschromia.

Dr. Hu’s mentor, Jill S. Waibel, MD, owner and medical director of the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute, hypothesized that nonablative laser therapy followed by topical application of silymarin would improve acne-associated postinflammatory dyschromia. To test her hunch, she conducted a 12-week, prospective trial in which 24 patients with PIE and/or PIH were randomized to one of two treatment arms: laser treatment with topical antioxidants or laser treatment with vehicle control. Patients received three laser treatments, each 1 month apart. The topical antioxidant used was Silymarin CF, a serum that contains 0.5% silymarin, 0.5% salicylic acid, 15% L-ascorbic acid, and 0.5% ferulic acid. (The study was sponsored by SkinCeuticals, the manufacturer of the serum.)

Laser selection was made primarily on the type of dyschromia, with PIE patients receiving treatment with the pulsed dye laser and PIH patients receiving treatment with the 1,927-nm thulium laser. Patients were treated on days 0, 28, and 56 of the 12-week study, followed by immediate application of topical antioxidants or vehicle control. They were also instructed to apply the assigned topical twice daily for the duration of the study. Patients ranged in age from 21 to 61 years, and 20 had skin types III-IV.

To evaluate efficacy, the researchers conducted blinded clinical assessments with the postacne hyperpigmentation index (PAHPI) and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), instrumentation with the Mexameter, a device that captures erythema and melanin index values, and visual diagnostics with optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Dr. Hu reported that at week 12, the PAHPI in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group fell from an average of 3.18 to 1.74 (a decrease of 1.44), which suggested an improvement trend, compared with the laser treatment–only group, whose PAHPI fell from an average of 3.25 to 1.97 (a decrease of 1.28).

As for the GAIS, a one-time score assessed at the end of the trial, the average score for all patients was 3.24, which translated to “much improved/very much improved.” Patients in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group had higher average scores compared with patients in the laser treatment–only group (3.35 vs. 3.10, respectively), but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

According to results of the Mexameter assessment, paired t-tests showed that the levels of intralesional melanin decreased significantly for patients in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group, compared with the laser treatment–only group (P < .05). OCT assessments demonstrated an increase in dermal brightness in both groups, corresponding to an increase in dermal collagen, as well as an increase in blood vessel density.

In an interview at the meeting, Dr. Waibel, subsection chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital of Miami, said that future studies will focus on long-term follow-up to determine if acne scars can be prevented by combining silymarin with lasers to prevent PIH and PIE. “That would be priceless,” she said. “I believe that the PIH is what causes damage to the collagen, and that damage to the collagen is what causes the scarring. So, if we can prevent or treat PIH, we may be able to prevent scarring.”

This approach, she added, “would decrease the pharmaceutical cost because I think there are many dermatologists who are treating PEI and PIH as active acne. You really have to have a keen eye for understanding the differences and you really have to be looking, because PIE and PIH are flat, whereas active acne consists of either comedones or nodules.”

She noted that in skin of color patients, she has seen PIH persist for 9 or 10 months after treatment with isotretinoin. “It’s not the isotretinoin causing the scars, or even the acne, it’s the prolonged inflammation,” she said.

Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD, a Boston-based laser and cosmetic dermatologist who was asked to comment on the study, said that patients and dermatologists frequently seek alternatives to hydroquinone for unwanted hyperpigmentation.

Dr. DiGiorgio

Dr. Jalian

“While the study failed to show statistically significant improvement in postinflammatory erythema with concomitant laser and topical therapy versus laser alone, the promising data supporting concurrent use of topicals and fractional lasers for treatment of PIH, particularly in dark skin phototypes, is a clinically impactful contribution to our daily practice,” he said.

Dr. Waibel disclosed that she has conducted clinical trials for many device and pharmaceutical companies including SkinCeuticals. Dr. Hu, Dr. DiGiorgio, and Dr. Jalian were not involved with the study and reported having no relevant disclosures.

PHOENIX – Combining a serum containing silymarin with nonablative laser therapy could serve as a promising solution for decreasing inflammation, postinflammatory erythema (PIE), and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) associated with acne lesions, results from a prospective, single-center study showed.

“Acne vulgaris is the most common inflammatory dermatosis worldwide, often resulting in sequelae such as scarring, PIE, and PIH,” presenting author Jamie Hu, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the study results were presented during an abstract session. “This dyschromia can cause greater psychological distress than the original acne lesions, and disproportionately affects skin of color patients.”

Blemish-prone skin is known to have higher levels of sebum and lower levels of antioxidants, leading to lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress, resulting in proliferation of Cutibacterium acnes and an inflammatory cascade that has recently been implicated in postinflammatory dyschromia and the development of PIE and PIH, noted Dr. Hu, a dermatology resident at the University of Miami. “Therefore, the use of antioxidants presents an opportunity to disrupt blemish and dyschromia,” she said.

One such antioxidant is silymarin, which is derived from the milk thistle plant. Recent studies have demonstrated that silymarin reduces proinflammatory mediators, prevents lipid peroxidation, and presents a new way to target the treatment of both acne and postinflammatory dyschromia.

Dr. Hu’s mentor, Jill S. Waibel, MD, owner and medical director of the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute, hypothesized that nonablative laser therapy followed by topical application of silymarin would improve acne-associated postinflammatory dyschromia. To test her hunch, she conducted a 12-week, prospective trial in which 24 patients with PIE and/or PIH were randomized to one of two treatment arms: laser treatment with topical antioxidants or laser treatment with vehicle control. Patients received three laser treatments, each 1 month apart. The topical antioxidant used was Silymarin CF, a serum that contains 0.5% silymarin, 0.5% salicylic acid, 15% L-ascorbic acid, and 0.5% ferulic acid. (The study was sponsored by SkinCeuticals, the manufacturer of the serum.)

Laser selection was made primarily on the type of dyschromia, with PIE patients receiving treatment with the pulsed dye laser and PIH patients receiving treatment with the 1,927-nm thulium laser. Patients were treated on days 0, 28, and 56 of the 12-week study, followed by immediate application of topical antioxidants or vehicle control. They were also instructed to apply the assigned topical twice daily for the duration of the study. Patients ranged in age from 21 to 61 years, and 20 had skin types III-IV.

To evaluate efficacy, the researchers conducted blinded clinical assessments with the postacne hyperpigmentation index (PAHPI) and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), instrumentation with the Mexameter, a device that captures erythema and melanin index values, and visual diagnostics with optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Dr. Hu reported that at week 12, the PAHPI in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group fell from an average of 3.18 to 1.74 (a decrease of 1.44), which suggested an improvement trend, compared with the laser treatment–only group, whose PAHPI fell from an average of 3.25 to 1.97 (a decrease of 1.28).

As for the GAIS, a one-time score assessed at the end of the trial, the average score for all patients was 3.24, which translated to “much improved/very much improved.” Patients in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group had higher average scores compared with patients in the laser treatment–only group (3.35 vs. 3.10, respectively), but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

According to results of the Mexameter assessment, paired t-tests showed that the levels of intralesional melanin decreased significantly for patients in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group, compared with the laser treatment–only group (P < .05). OCT assessments demonstrated an increase in dermal brightness in both groups, corresponding to an increase in dermal collagen, as well as an increase in blood vessel density.

In an interview at the meeting, Dr. Waibel, subsection chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital of Miami, said that future studies will focus on long-term follow-up to determine if acne scars can be prevented by combining silymarin with lasers to prevent PIH and PIE. “That would be priceless,” she said. “I believe that the PIH is what causes damage to the collagen, and that damage to the collagen is what causes the scarring. So, if we can prevent or treat PIH, we may be able to prevent scarring.”

This approach, she added, “would decrease the pharmaceutical cost because I think there are many dermatologists who are treating PEI and PIH as active acne. You really have to have a keen eye for understanding the differences and you really have to be looking, because PIE and PIH are flat, whereas active acne consists of either comedones or nodules.”

She noted that in skin of color patients, she has seen PIH persist for 9 or 10 months after treatment with isotretinoin. “It’s not the isotretinoin causing the scars, or even the acne, it’s the prolonged inflammation,” she said.

Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD, a Boston-based laser and cosmetic dermatologist who was asked to comment on the study, said that patients and dermatologists frequently seek alternatives to hydroquinone for unwanted hyperpigmentation.

Dr. DiGiorgio

Dr. Jalian

“While the study failed to show statistically significant improvement in postinflammatory erythema with concomitant laser and topical therapy versus laser alone, the promising data supporting concurrent use of topicals and fractional lasers for treatment of PIH, particularly in dark skin phototypes, is a clinically impactful contribution to our daily practice,” he said.

Dr. Waibel disclosed that she has conducted clinical trials for many device and pharmaceutical companies including SkinCeuticals. Dr. Hu, Dr. DiGiorgio, and Dr. Jalian were not involved with the study and reported having no relevant disclosures.

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

PHOENIX – Combining intense pulsed light (IPL) with topical radiofrequency (RF) for dry eye disease related to meibomian gland dysfunction resulted in about a doubling of meibomian gland expression and improved meibum quality in both upper and lower eyelids, results from an ongoing, novel study showed.

Dry eye disease affects a large proportion of people in the United States “and the factors that contribute to that are certainly not going away,” lead study author James G. Chelnis MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where he presented the results during an abstract session. “Prepandemic, we used to have meetings in person; now most are on a computer screen,” a common risk factor for worsening dry eyes, he said. Telltale dry eye symptoms include blurry vision, irritation, and corneal damage – mostly caused by meibomian gland dysfunction – which impacts the quality and quantity of meibum secreted. Common treatments include warm compresses, doxycycline, and artificial tears.

Dr. Chelnis

While some studies have shown IPL is helpful in treating dry eye disease caused by meibomian gland dysfunction, little information is available on its use alone or in combination with topical RF to preserve and improve the function of meibomian glands, said Dr. Chelnis, an ophthalmic plastic surgeon in New York City. “The theory here is that the radiofrequency would be able to vibrate the water molecules inside the meibomian glands, which would allow you to turn over the meibum faster, as well as improve the blink reflex response by building supporting collagen,” he said. “Our novel study explores the ability of this combined modality treatment to improve upon meibomian gland health.”
 

Study design, results

Dr. Chelnis and his colleagues enrolled 11 individuals with a previous diagnosis of dry eye disease and meibomian gland dysfunction with Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) survey scores higher than 23, which indicate at least moderate dry eye symptoms. Inclusion criteria were being 22 years of age or older, signs of meibomian gland dysfunction as detected by biomicroscopy, a modified meibomian gland score over 12 in the lower eyelid of at least one eye, and type I-IV skin.

All patients received four treatments (each 2 weeks apart) of IPL to the lower eyelid, surrounding malar region, and nose, followed by 7 minutes of topical RF treatments at 1 MHz and 4 MHz extending to the inferior, lateral, and superior orbital rim. Evaluation of meibomian gland expression and quality of meibum upon expression was conducted following each treatment session, with a final evaluation 4 weeks after the final treatment session.

Meibum quality was evaluated on a scale of 0-3 representing clear (0), cloudy (1), inspissated (2), and blocked (3) meibum, respectively.

Following treatment, meibomian gland expression and meibum quality improved in all eyelids in all 11 patients. Specifically, in the right eye, the number of upper lid expressible glands increased from an average of 13 to 27.9 and the number of lower lid expressible glands increased from an average of 14.6 to 28.2; and in the left eye, the number of upper lid expressible glands increased from an average of 13.3 to 27.3 and the number of lower lid expressible glands increased from an average of 14.8 to 26.8 (P < .001 for all associations).

The overall percentage improvement in meibomian gland expression in the right eye was 82.7% for the upper lids and 136.6% for the lower lids, and in the left eye, 82.9% for the upper lids, and 112.2% for the lower lids.

When comparing upper against lower lids, meibomian gland expression increased 124.4% and 82.8%, respectively. Meibum quality improved in all four eyelids, although upper eyelids displayed a superior improvement compared with lower eyelids.

“We are finding that combining IPL plus RF produces a more complete and comprehensive improvement in the quality of their meibomian gland health, and as such, their dry eyes,” with “a large decrease in their symptom profile,” he concluded.

More patients to be studied

Dr. Chelnis acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the small number of patients, but he and his colleagues have added an additional clinical site to expand the sample size. “Larger scale studies are needed to evaluate long-term effectiveness of IPL plus RF as well as a comparison with other treatment options.”

During a question-and-answer session Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who served as one of the abstract session moderators, asked Dr. Chelnis to comment on what the mechanism of action of the IPL-RF combination in improving meibomian gland health.

“It’s not fully understood, but part of it is improved vascularity at the lid margin,” said Dr. Chelnis, who holds a faculty position in the department of ophthalmology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Your ocular surface is sort of like your screen door; it catches everything that’s in the environment. An increase in vascularity and immunologic cytokines occurs in response to that. If you’re looking at the eye with a slit lamp, you can see a lot of vascularity that occurs at the lid margin and crowds the meibomian glands. When you decrease that crowding and immunogenic response, you move towards a normally functioning lid margin.”

Dr. Chelnis disclosed that he is a consultant to or an adviser for Lumenis, Horizon Therapeutics, and Soniquence.

PHOENIX – Combining intense pulsed light (IPL) with topical radiofrequency (RF) for dry eye disease related to meibomian gland dysfunction resulted in about a doubling of meibomian gland expression and improved meibum quality in both upper and lower eyelids, results from an ongoing, novel study showed.

Dry eye disease affects a large proportion of people in the United States “and the factors that contribute to that are certainly not going away,” lead study author James G. Chelnis MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where he presented the results during an abstract session. “Prepandemic, we used to have meetings in person; now most are on a computer screen,” a common risk factor for worsening dry eyes, he said. Telltale dry eye symptoms include blurry vision, irritation, and corneal damage – mostly caused by meibomian gland dysfunction – which impacts the quality and quantity of meibum secreted. Common treatments include warm compresses, doxycycline, and artificial tears.

Dr. Chelnis

While some studies have shown IPL is helpful in treating dry eye disease caused by meibomian gland dysfunction, little information is available on its use alone or in combination with topical RF to preserve and improve the function of meibomian glands, said Dr. Chelnis, an ophthalmic plastic surgeon in New York City. “The theory here is that the radiofrequency would be able to vibrate the water molecules inside the meibomian glands, which would allow you to turn over the meibum faster, as well as improve the blink reflex response by building supporting collagen,” he said. “Our novel study explores the ability of this combined modality treatment to improve upon meibomian gland health.”
 

Study design, results

Dr. Chelnis and his colleagues enrolled 11 individuals with a previous diagnosis of dry eye disease and meibomian gland dysfunction with Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) survey scores higher than 23, which indicate at least moderate dry eye symptoms. Inclusion criteria were being 22 years of age or older, signs of meibomian gland dysfunction as detected by biomicroscopy, a modified meibomian gland score over 12 in the lower eyelid of at least one eye, and type I-IV skin.

All patients received four treatments (each 2 weeks apart) of IPL to the lower eyelid, surrounding malar region, and nose, followed by 7 minutes of topical RF treatments at 1 MHz and 4 MHz extending to the inferior, lateral, and superior orbital rim. Evaluation of meibomian gland expression and quality of meibum upon expression was conducted following each treatment session, with a final evaluation 4 weeks after the final treatment session.

Meibum quality was evaluated on a scale of 0-3 representing clear (0), cloudy (1), inspissated (2), and blocked (3) meibum, respectively.

Following treatment, meibomian gland expression and meibum quality improved in all eyelids in all 11 patients. Specifically, in the right eye, the number of upper lid expressible glands increased from an average of 13 to 27.9 and the number of lower lid expressible glands increased from an average of 14.6 to 28.2; and in the left eye, the number of upper lid expressible glands increased from an average of 13.3 to 27.3 and the number of lower lid expressible glands increased from an average of 14.8 to 26.8 (P < .001 for all associations).

The overall percentage improvement in meibomian gland expression in the right eye was 82.7% for the upper lids and 136.6% for the lower lids, and in the left eye, 82.9% for the upper lids, and 112.2% for the lower lids.

When comparing upper against lower lids, meibomian gland expression increased 124.4% and 82.8%, respectively. Meibum quality improved in all four eyelids, although upper eyelids displayed a superior improvement compared with lower eyelids.

“We are finding that combining IPL plus RF produces a more complete and comprehensive improvement in the quality of their meibomian gland health, and as such, their dry eyes,” with “a large decrease in their symptom profile,” he concluded.

More patients to be studied

Dr. Chelnis acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the small number of patients, but he and his colleagues have added an additional clinical site to expand the sample size. “Larger scale studies are needed to evaluate long-term effectiveness of IPL plus RF as well as a comparison with other treatment options.”

During a question-and-answer session Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who served as one of the abstract session moderators, asked Dr. Chelnis to comment on what the mechanism of action of the IPL-RF combination in improving meibomian gland health.

“It’s not fully understood, but part of it is improved vascularity at the lid margin,” said Dr. Chelnis, who holds a faculty position in the department of ophthalmology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Your ocular surface is sort of like your screen door; it catches everything that’s in the environment. An increase in vascularity and immunologic cytokines occurs in response to that. If you’re looking at the eye with a slit lamp, you can see a lot of vascularity that occurs at the lid margin and crowds the meibomian glands. When you decrease that crowding and immunogenic response, you move towards a normally functioning lid margin.”

Dr. Chelnis disclosed that he is a consultant to or an adviser for Lumenis, Horizon Therapeutics, and Soniquence.

PHOENIX – Combining intense pulsed light (IPL) with topical radiofrequency (RF) for dry eye disease related to meibomian gland dysfunction resulted in about a doubling of meibomian gland expression and improved meibum quality in both upper and lower eyelids, results from an ongoing, novel study showed.

Dry eye disease affects a large proportion of people in the United States “and the factors that contribute to that are certainly not going away,” lead study author James G. Chelnis MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where he presented the results during an abstract session. “Prepandemic, we used to have meetings in person; now most are on a computer screen,” a common risk factor for worsening dry eyes, he said. Telltale dry eye symptoms include blurry vision, irritation, and corneal damage – mostly caused by meibomian gland dysfunction – which impacts the quality and quantity of meibum secreted. Common treatments include warm compresses, doxycycline, and artificial tears.

Dr. Chelnis

While some studies have shown IPL is helpful in treating dry eye disease caused by meibomian gland dysfunction, little information is available on its use alone or in combination with topical RF to preserve and improve the function of meibomian glands, said Dr. Chelnis, an ophthalmic plastic surgeon in New York City. “The theory here is that the radiofrequency would be able to vibrate the water molecules inside the meibomian glands, which would allow you to turn over the meibum faster, as well as improve the blink reflex response by building supporting collagen,” he said. “Our novel study explores the ability of this combined modality treatment to improve upon meibomian gland health.”
 

Study design, results

Dr. Chelnis and his colleagues enrolled 11 individuals with a previous diagnosis of dry eye disease and meibomian gland dysfunction with Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) survey scores higher than 23, which indicate at least moderate dry eye symptoms. Inclusion criteria were being 22 years of age or older, signs of meibomian gland dysfunction as detected by biomicroscopy, a modified meibomian gland score over 12 in the lower eyelid of at least one eye, and type I-IV skin.

All patients received four treatments (each 2 weeks apart) of IPL to the lower eyelid, surrounding malar region, and nose, followed by 7 minutes of topical RF treatments at 1 MHz and 4 MHz extending to the inferior, lateral, and superior orbital rim. Evaluation of meibomian gland expression and quality of meibum upon expression was conducted following each treatment session, with a final evaluation 4 weeks after the final treatment session.

Meibum quality was evaluated on a scale of 0-3 representing clear (0), cloudy (1), inspissated (2), and blocked (3) meibum, respectively.

Following treatment, meibomian gland expression and meibum quality improved in all eyelids in all 11 patients. Specifically, in the right eye, the number of upper lid expressible glands increased from an average of 13 to 27.9 and the number of lower lid expressible glands increased from an average of 14.6 to 28.2; and in the left eye, the number of upper lid expressible glands increased from an average of 13.3 to 27.3 and the number of lower lid expressible glands increased from an average of 14.8 to 26.8 (P < .001 for all associations).

The overall percentage improvement in meibomian gland expression in the right eye was 82.7% for the upper lids and 136.6% for the lower lids, and in the left eye, 82.9% for the upper lids, and 112.2% for the lower lids.

When comparing upper against lower lids, meibomian gland expression increased 124.4% and 82.8%, respectively. Meibum quality improved in all four eyelids, although upper eyelids displayed a superior improvement compared with lower eyelids.

“We are finding that combining IPL plus RF produces a more complete and comprehensive improvement in the quality of their meibomian gland health, and as such, their dry eyes,” with “a large decrease in their symptom profile,” he concluded.

More patients to be studied

Dr. Chelnis acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the small number of patients, but he and his colleagues have added an additional clinical site to expand the sample size. “Larger scale studies are needed to evaluate long-term effectiveness of IPL plus RF as well as a comparison with other treatment options.”

During a question-and-answer session Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who served as one of the abstract session moderators, asked Dr. Chelnis to comment on what the mechanism of action of the IPL-RF combination in improving meibomian gland health.

“It’s not fully understood, but part of it is improved vascularity at the lid margin,” said Dr. Chelnis, who holds a faculty position in the department of ophthalmology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Your ocular surface is sort of like your screen door; it catches everything that’s in the environment. An increase in vascularity and immunologic cytokines occurs in response to that. If you’re looking at the eye with a slit lamp, you can see a lot of vascularity that occurs at the lid margin and crowds the meibomian glands. When you decrease that crowding and immunogenic response, you move towards a normally functioning lid margin.”

Dr. Chelnis disclosed that he is a consultant to or an adviser for Lumenis, Horizon Therapeutics, and Soniquence.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), an analysis of three clinical trials reports.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adults and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD, in January 2022. This study analyzed the adolescent data in three double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trials, which included adults and 552 adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age with moderate to severe AD in more than 20 countries in Europe, North and South America, the Middle East, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region from July 2018 through December 2020.

In the studies, “treatment of moderate to severe AD in adolescents with upadacitinib was effective and generally well tolerated, with an overall efficacy and safety profile similar to that observed in adults, and patient-reported outcomes indicated an overall better health-related quality of life compared with placebo,” lead study author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at Northwestern University, Chicago, and her colleagues write in JAMA Dermatology.

Adolescents in the three studies – Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up – received once-daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg, 30 mg, or placebo. All participants in AD Up used topical corticosteroids.

At 16 weeks, in Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up, respectively, a greater proportion of adolescents improved by at least 75% in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) with upadacitinib 15 mg (73%, 69%, 63%); and with upadacitinib 30 mg (78%, 73%, 84%), compared with placebo (12%, 13%, 30%), (P < .001 for all comparisons vs. placebo).

Upadacitinib was generally well tolerated among the adolescents, with mild or moderate acne being the most common adverse event, reported in 10%-13% of those on 15 mg and 15%-16% of those on 30 mg vs. 2%-3% of those on placebo.

Asked to comment on the study, Peck Ong, MD, a pediatric allergist and immunologist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said that he was not surprised by the drug’s effectiveness because JAK inhibitors are potent immunosuppressants. Strengths of the studies include the many pediatric participants, its international reach, and its use of standardized and validated measures, said Dr. Ong, who was not involved in the study.

“The effect of JAK inhibitors is more specific than traditional immunosuppressants such as cyclosporine and methotrexate but not as specific as biologics; therefore, long-term safety data are needed,” he advised. “16 weeks is a very short time to study a chronic disease like atopic dermatitis. We need safety data longer than 1 year.”

Given the disease’s potential impact on self-esteem, sleep, and other important areas of life, Sean Reynolds, MBBCH, a pediatric dermatologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), welcomed the data on the newer pharmacologic agents.

“FDA-approved systemic treatment options for adolescents with AD are currently limited, which necessitates studies such as this that explore additional treatment options,” said Dr. Reynolds, who also was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

He added that oral upadacitinib may especially help patients who have not found relief with other topical or systemic treatments or who are needle phobic. While the overall efficacy and relatively mild side effects for most patients taking upadacitinib in the trials are encouraging, “the long-term efficacy and side effects in this population require further study, especially considering the limited systemic AD treatment options available in this age group,” he added.

“Given the reported use of other JAK inhibitors to treat myriad inflammatory skin conditions beyond atopic dermatitis, the potential use of upadacitinib and other JAK inhibitors to treat these skin diseases in children and adolescents represents an exciting area for future study in the field of pediatric dermatology,” Dr. Reynolds noted.

The study was funded by AbbVie, the developer and manufacturer of upadacitinib. Dr. Paller and almost all other authors reported relevant financial relationships with AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ong reported serving on an AbbVie advisory board, and Dr. Reynolds reported no conflict of interest with the study.

The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), an analysis of three clinical trials reports.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adults and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD, in January 2022. This study analyzed the adolescent data in three double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trials, which included adults and 552 adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age with moderate to severe AD in more than 20 countries in Europe, North and South America, the Middle East, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region from July 2018 through December 2020.

In the studies, “treatment of moderate to severe AD in adolescents with upadacitinib was effective and generally well tolerated, with an overall efficacy and safety profile similar to that observed in adults, and patient-reported outcomes indicated an overall better health-related quality of life compared with placebo,” lead study author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at Northwestern University, Chicago, and her colleagues write in JAMA Dermatology.

Adolescents in the three studies – Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up – received once-daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg, 30 mg, or placebo. All participants in AD Up used topical corticosteroids.

At 16 weeks, in Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up, respectively, a greater proportion of adolescents improved by at least 75% in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) with upadacitinib 15 mg (73%, 69%, 63%); and with upadacitinib 30 mg (78%, 73%, 84%), compared with placebo (12%, 13%, 30%), (P < .001 for all comparisons vs. placebo).

Upadacitinib was generally well tolerated among the adolescents, with mild or moderate acne being the most common adverse event, reported in 10%-13% of those on 15 mg and 15%-16% of those on 30 mg vs. 2%-3% of those on placebo.

Asked to comment on the study, Peck Ong, MD, a pediatric allergist and immunologist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said that he was not surprised by the drug’s effectiveness because JAK inhibitors are potent immunosuppressants. Strengths of the studies include the many pediatric participants, its international reach, and its use of standardized and validated measures, said Dr. Ong, who was not involved in the study.

“The effect of JAK inhibitors is more specific than traditional immunosuppressants such as cyclosporine and methotrexate but not as specific as biologics; therefore, long-term safety data are needed,” he advised. “16 weeks is a very short time to study a chronic disease like atopic dermatitis. We need safety data longer than 1 year.”

Given the disease’s potential impact on self-esteem, sleep, and other important areas of life, Sean Reynolds, MBBCH, a pediatric dermatologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), welcomed the data on the newer pharmacologic agents.

“FDA-approved systemic treatment options for adolescents with AD are currently limited, which necessitates studies such as this that explore additional treatment options,” said Dr. Reynolds, who also was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

He added that oral upadacitinib may especially help patients who have not found relief with other topical or systemic treatments or who are needle phobic. While the overall efficacy and relatively mild side effects for most patients taking upadacitinib in the trials are encouraging, “the long-term efficacy and side effects in this population require further study, especially considering the limited systemic AD treatment options available in this age group,” he added.

“Given the reported use of other JAK inhibitors to treat myriad inflammatory skin conditions beyond atopic dermatitis, the potential use of upadacitinib and other JAK inhibitors to treat these skin diseases in children and adolescents represents an exciting area for future study in the field of pediatric dermatology,” Dr. Reynolds noted.

The study was funded by AbbVie, the developer and manufacturer of upadacitinib. Dr. Paller and almost all other authors reported relevant financial relationships with AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ong reported serving on an AbbVie advisory board, and Dr. Reynolds reported no conflict of interest with the study.

The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), an analysis of three clinical trials reports.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adults and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD, in January 2022. This study analyzed the adolescent data in three double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trials, which included adults and 552 adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age with moderate to severe AD in more than 20 countries in Europe, North and South America, the Middle East, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region from July 2018 through December 2020.

In the studies, “treatment of moderate to severe AD in adolescents with upadacitinib was effective and generally well tolerated, with an overall efficacy and safety profile similar to that observed in adults, and patient-reported outcomes indicated an overall better health-related quality of life compared with placebo,” lead study author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at Northwestern University, Chicago, and her colleagues write in JAMA Dermatology.

Adolescents in the three studies – Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up – received once-daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg, 30 mg, or placebo. All participants in AD Up used topical corticosteroids.

At 16 weeks, in Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up, respectively, a greater proportion of adolescents improved by at least 75% in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) with upadacitinib 15 mg (73%, 69%, 63%); and with upadacitinib 30 mg (78%, 73%, 84%), compared with placebo (12%, 13%, 30%), (P < .001 for all comparisons vs. placebo).

Upadacitinib was generally well tolerated among the adolescents, with mild or moderate acne being the most common adverse event, reported in 10%-13% of those on 15 mg and 15%-16% of those on 30 mg vs. 2%-3% of those on placebo.

Asked to comment on the study, Peck Ong, MD, a pediatric allergist and immunologist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said that he was not surprised by the drug’s effectiveness because JAK inhibitors are potent immunosuppressants. Strengths of the studies include the many pediatric participants, its international reach, and its use of standardized and validated measures, said Dr. Ong, who was not involved in the study.

“The effect of JAK inhibitors is more specific than traditional immunosuppressants such as cyclosporine and methotrexate but not as specific as biologics; therefore, long-term safety data are needed,” he advised. “16 weeks is a very short time to study a chronic disease like atopic dermatitis. We need safety data longer than 1 year.”

Given the disease’s potential impact on self-esteem, sleep, and other important areas of life, Sean Reynolds, MBBCH, a pediatric dermatologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), welcomed the data on the newer pharmacologic agents.

“FDA-approved systemic treatment options for adolescents with AD are currently limited, which necessitates studies such as this that explore additional treatment options,” said Dr. Reynolds, who also was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

He added that oral upadacitinib may especially help patients who have not found relief with other topical or systemic treatments or who are needle phobic. While the overall efficacy and relatively mild side effects for most patients taking upadacitinib in the trials are encouraging, “the long-term efficacy and side effects in this population require further study, especially considering the limited systemic AD treatment options available in this age group,” he added.

“Given the reported use of other JAK inhibitors to treat myriad inflammatory skin conditions beyond atopic dermatitis, the potential use of upadacitinib and other JAK inhibitors to treat these skin diseases in children and adolescents represents an exciting area for future study in the field of pediatric dermatology,” Dr. Reynolds noted.

The study was funded by AbbVie, the developer and manufacturer of upadacitinib. Dr. Paller and almost all other authors reported relevant financial relationships with AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ong reported serving on an AbbVie advisory board, and Dr. Reynolds reported no conflict of interest with the study.

The combination of a patient-specific mRNA-based cancer vaccine (mRNA-4157/V940, Moderna and Merck) and the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival for patients with high-risk melanoma compared with pembrolizumab alone, according to the latest data from the KEYNOTE-942 trial.

This recurrence-free survival benefit corresponded to a 44% reduced risk of recurrence or death in patients who received the personalized vaccine plus pembrolizumab compared with the immunotherapy alone.

The randomized phase 2b trial is the first to show a positive result for a cancer vaccine in a randomized trial. The results, if confirmed in further studies, hold promise for treating other solid tumors with sensitivity to the programmed death-1 (PD-1) protein, investigators said.

“KEYNOTE-942 is the first randomized study to demonstrate improvement in recurrence-free survival in melanoma, or in any cancer in my view, with an individualized neoantigen vaccine approach,” trial investigator Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, of NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York, said during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“I have every confidence that this strategy will be expanded to other histologies that are PD-1 sensitive, such as non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, hepatocellular cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, et cetera,” Dr. Weber said.

Invited discussant Margaret Callahan, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, called the results “exciting,” especially in light of previous results in cancer vaccine trials. “Despite hundreds of formulations and dozens of studies, cancer vaccines have been disappointing so far, and have largely failed to have a meaningful impact in oncology,” she said.
 

A promising personalized vaccine

The mRNA vaccine is individually tailored and encodes up to 34 patient-specific tumor neoantigens. The vaccine also acts as an adjuvant to strengthen the immune response.

Dr. Weber said that the “mRNA 4157 is what one would call an individualized neoantigen therapy. It will target an individual patient’s unique tumor mutations, and the revelation over the last 5-10 years, is that, for better or worse, virtually all the neoantigens are unique to an individual patient. There are very, very few true universal neoantigens, or at least universal neoantigens that could have clinical utility.”

The vaccines are developed from tumor biopsy tissues that then undergo whole exome and RNA sequencing to identify single nucleotide variants that are present in the tumor but not in normal tissue.

The findings are then fed into a computer algorithm that identifies potential neoepitope peptides that would bind well to the patient’s human leukocyte antigen (HLA) type and could evoke strong T-cell responses.

“Once they’re chosen, you concatenate the sequences together into a single-strand mRNA vaccine, it’s packaged with nanoparticles to encapsulate it, and there you have your mRNA vaccine,” Dr. Weber explained.

In the KEYNOTE-942 trial, the investigators randomly assigned patients with completely resected high-risk cutaneous melanoma on a 2:1 basis to receive mRNA-4157 via intramuscular injection every 3 weeks for a total of nine doses, plus intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 18 cycles (107 patients) or pembrolizumab alone (50 patients). Median follow-up was 101 weeks in the combination group and 105 weeks in the pembrolizumab group.

Overall, the 18-month recurrence-free survival rates were 78.6% in the combination arm and 62.2% in the pembrolizumab arm. The recurrence-free survival rates corresponded to a 44% reduced risk of recurrence or death in patients who received the personalized vaccine plus pembrolizumab compared with those who received only pembrolizumab (hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence, 0.561; P =.0266).

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the combination group and 18% of patients in the pembrolizumab group. The most common grade 3 event associated with the vaccine was fatigue. No grade 4 adverse events or deaths were associated with the vaccine, and the addition of the vaccine to pembrolizumab did not appear to increase risk for immune-mediated adverse events.

In a subanalysis, Dr. Weber and colleagues explored the relationship between tumor mutational burden and recurrence-free survival. Higher tumor mutational burden may mean more neoepitopes to target, which is helpful when developing personalized neoantigen vaccines, explained coinvestigator Ryan Sullivan, MD, associate director of the melanoma program at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, who presented the subanalysis results.

The investigators performed whole exome and whole transcriptome sequencing of baseline tumor biopsy samples to determine the mutational burden of tumors and defined a high mutational burden as 10 or more mutations per megabase.

Overall, in the combination group, patients with a higher tumor mutational burden at baseline showed improved outcomes (HR, 0.652; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.284-1.494), as did patients with a lower tumor mutational burden (HR, 0.586; 95% CI, 0.243-1.415).

The authors found the same was true for patients with high vs. low tumor inflammation scores (high: HR, 0.576; 95% CI, 0.209-1.591 vs. low: HR, 0.528; 95% CI, 0.253-1.101) and higher PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 positive: HR, 0.485; 95% CI, 0.226-1.039 vs. PD-L1 negative: HR, 0.162; 95% CI, 0.038-0.685).

The hazard ratios crossed 1, which suggest that the combination was similarly effective in all patient subsets, said Dr. Sullivan.

Dr. Callahan also highlighted that the P value was based on a one-side log-rank test, “a relatively low bar to jump over” and that there were slight imbalances in both PD-1 expression status and tumor mutational burden – both of which favored the vaccine group and may be associated with better recurrence-free survival.

The 16% difference in recurrence-free survival seen with the combination vs. pembrolizumab alone, if confirmed in further studies, “is clinically meaningful for high-risk patients,” said Dr. Callahan. “The authors are to be congratulated for presenting the first randomized study of a neoantigen vaccine with a clinical efficacy primary endpoint, and this is a trial that incorporates many of the lessons we’ve learned along the years.”

Dr. Sullivan also commented on the promising results. “The field of cancer vaccines is a wasteland of failed clinical trials after some initial promising data, so to have something like this where it does appear that this vaccine strategy works is good not only for patients with melanoma but for those people who have dedicated their lives to trying to develop cancer vaccines,” he said in an interview.

KEYNOTE-942 was funded by Moderna with collaboration from Merck. Dr. Weber has financial relationships with Merck, Moderna, and other companies. Dr. Sullivan has served as a paid consultant for Merck and has received research funding from the company. Dr. Callahan disclosed a consulting/advisory role with Moderna, Merck, and others.
 

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

The combination of a patient-specific mRNA-based cancer vaccine (mRNA-4157/V940, Moderna and Merck) and the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival for patients with high-risk melanoma compared with pembrolizumab alone, according to the latest data from the KEYNOTE-942 trial.

This recurrence-free survival benefit corresponded to a 44% reduced risk of recurrence or death in patients who received the personalized vaccine plus pembrolizumab compared with the immunotherapy alone.

The randomized phase 2b trial is the first to show a positive result for a cancer vaccine in a randomized trial. The results, if confirmed in further studies, hold promise for treating other solid tumors with sensitivity to the programmed death-1 (PD-1) protein, investigators said.

“KEYNOTE-942 is the first randomized study to demonstrate improvement in recurrence-free survival in melanoma, or in any cancer in my view, with an individualized neoantigen vaccine approach,” trial investigator Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, of NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York, said during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“I have every confidence that this strategy will be expanded to other histologies that are PD-1 sensitive, such as non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, hepatocellular cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, et cetera,” Dr. Weber said.

Invited discussant Margaret Callahan, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, called the results “exciting,” especially in light of previous results in cancer vaccine trials. “Despite hundreds of formulations and dozens of studies, cancer vaccines have been disappointing so far, and have largely failed to have a meaningful impact in oncology,” she said.
 

A promising personalized vaccine

The mRNA vaccine is individually tailored and encodes up to 34 patient-specific tumor neoantigens. The vaccine also acts as an adjuvant to strengthen the immune response.

Dr. Weber said that the “mRNA 4157 is what one would call an individualized neoantigen therapy. It will target an individual patient’s unique tumor mutations, and the revelation over the last 5-10 years, is that, for better or worse, virtually all the neoantigens are unique to an individual patient. There are very, very few true universal neoantigens, or at least universal neoantigens that could have clinical utility.”

The vaccines are developed from tumor biopsy tissues that then undergo whole exome and RNA sequencing to identify single nucleotide variants that are present in the tumor but not in normal tissue.

The findings are then fed into a computer algorithm that identifies potential neoepitope peptides that would bind well to the patient’s human leukocyte antigen (HLA) type and could evoke strong T-cell responses.

“Once they’re chosen, you concatenate the sequences together into a single-strand mRNA vaccine, it’s packaged with nanoparticles to encapsulate it, and there you have your mRNA vaccine,” Dr. Weber explained.

In the KEYNOTE-942 trial, the investigators randomly assigned patients with completely resected high-risk cutaneous melanoma on a 2:1 basis to receive mRNA-4157 via intramuscular injection every 3 weeks for a total of nine doses, plus intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 18 cycles (107 patients) or pembrolizumab alone (50 patients). Median follow-up was 101 weeks in the combination group and 105 weeks in the pembrolizumab group.

Overall, the 18-month recurrence-free survival rates were 78.6% in the combination arm and 62.2% in the pembrolizumab arm. The recurrence-free survival rates corresponded to a 44% reduced risk of recurrence or death in patients who received the personalized vaccine plus pembrolizumab compared with those who received only pembrolizumab (hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence, 0.561; P =.0266).

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the combination group and 18% of patients in the pembrolizumab group. The most common grade 3 event associated with the vaccine was fatigue. No grade 4 adverse events or deaths were associated with the vaccine, and the addition of the vaccine to pembrolizumab did not appear to increase risk for immune-mediated adverse events.

In a subanalysis, Dr. Weber and colleagues explored the relationship between tumor mutational burden and recurrence-free survival. Higher tumor mutational burden may mean more neoepitopes to target, which is helpful when developing personalized neoantigen vaccines, explained coinvestigator Ryan Sullivan, MD, associate director of the melanoma program at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, who presented the subanalysis results.

The investigators performed whole exome and whole transcriptome sequencing of baseline tumor biopsy samples to determine the mutational burden of tumors and defined a high mutational burden as 10 or more mutations per megabase.

Overall, in the combination group, patients with a higher tumor mutational burden at baseline showed improved outcomes (HR, 0.652; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.284-1.494), as did patients with a lower tumor mutational burden (HR, 0.586; 95% CI, 0.243-1.415).

The authors found the same was true for patients with high vs. low tumor inflammation scores (high: HR, 0.576; 95% CI, 0.209-1.591 vs. low: HR, 0.528; 95% CI, 0.253-1.101) and higher PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 positive: HR, 0.485; 95% CI, 0.226-1.039 vs. PD-L1 negative: HR, 0.162; 95% CI, 0.038-0.685).

The hazard ratios crossed 1, which suggest that the combination was similarly effective in all patient subsets, said Dr. Sullivan.

Dr. Callahan also highlighted that the P value was based on a one-side log-rank test, “a relatively low bar to jump over” and that there were slight imbalances in both PD-1 expression status and tumor mutational burden – both of which favored the vaccine group and may be associated with better recurrence-free survival.

The 16% difference in recurrence-free survival seen with the combination vs. pembrolizumab alone, if confirmed in further studies, “is clinically meaningful for high-risk patients,” said Dr. Callahan. “The authors are to be congratulated for presenting the first randomized study of a neoantigen vaccine with a clinical efficacy primary endpoint, and this is a trial that incorporates many of the lessons we’ve learned along the years.”

Dr. Sullivan also commented on the promising results. “The field of cancer vaccines is a wasteland of failed clinical trials after some initial promising data, so to have something like this where it does appear that this vaccine strategy works is good not only for patients with melanoma but for those people who have dedicated their lives to trying to develop cancer vaccines,” he said in an interview.

KEYNOTE-942 was funded by Moderna with collaboration from Merck. Dr. Weber has financial relationships with Merck, Moderna, and other companies. Dr. Sullivan has served as a paid consultant for Merck and has received research funding from the company. Dr. Callahan disclosed a consulting/advisory role with Moderna, Merck, and others.
 

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

The combination of a patient-specific mRNA-based cancer vaccine (mRNA-4157/V940, Moderna and Merck) and the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival for patients with high-risk melanoma compared with pembrolizumab alone, according to the latest data from the KEYNOTE-942 trial.

This recurrence-free survival benefit corresponded to a 44% reduced risk of recurrence or death in patients who received the personalized vaccine plus pembrolizumab compared with the immunotherapy alone.

The randomized phase 2b trial is the first to show a positive result for a cancer vaccine in a randomized trial. The results, if confirmed in further studies, hold promise for treating other solid tumors with sensitivity to the programmed death-1 (PD-1) protein, investigators said.

“KEYNOTE-942 is the first randomized study to demonstrate improvement in recurrence-free survival in melanoma, or in any cancer in my view, with an individualized neoantigen vaccine approach,” trial investigator Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, of NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York, said during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“I have every confidence that this strategy will be expanded to other histologies that are PD-1 sensitive, such as non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, hepatocellular cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, et cetera,” Dr. Weber said.

Invited discussant Margaret Callahan, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, called the results “exciting,” especially in light of previous results in cancer vaccine trials. “Despite hundreds of formulations and dozens of studies, cancer vaccines have been disappointing so far, and have largely failed to have a meaningful impact in oncology,” she said.
 

A promising personalized vaccine

The mRNA vaccine is individually tailored and encodes up to 34 patient-specific tumor neoantigens. The vaccine also acts as an adjuvant to strengthen the immune response.

Dr. Weber said that the “mRNA 4157 is what one would call an individualized neoantigen therapy. It will target an individual patient’s unique tumor mutations, and the revelation over the last 5-10 years, is that, for better or worse, virtually all the neoantigens are unique to an individual patient. There are very, very few true universal neoantigens, or at least universal neoantigens that could have clinical utility.”

The vaccines are developed from tumor biopsy tissues that then undergo whole exome and RNA sequencing to identify single nucleotide variants that are present in the tumor but not in normal tissue.

The findings are then fed into a computer algorithm that identifies potential neoepitope peptides that would bind well to the patient’s human leukocyte antigen (HLA) type and could evoke strong T-cell responses.

“Once they’re chosen, you concatenate the sequences together into a single-strand mRNA vaccine, it’s packaged with nanoparticles to encapsulate it, and there you have your mRNA vaccine,” Dr. Weber explained.

In the KEYNOTE-942 trial, the investigators randomly assigned patients with completely resected high-risk cutaneous melanoma on a 2:1 basis to receive mRNA-4157 via intramuscular injection every 3 weeks for a total of nine doses, plus intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 18 cycles (107 patients) or pembrolizumab alone (50 patients). Median follow-up was 101 weeks in the combination group and 105 weeks in the pembrolizumab group.

Overall, the 18-month recurrence-free survival rates were 78.6% in the combination arm and 62.2% in the pembrolizumab arm. The recurrence-free survival rates corresponded to a 44% reduced risk of recurrence or death in patients who received the personalized vaccine plus pembrolizumab compared with those who received only pembrolizumab (hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence, 0.561; P =.0266).

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the combination group and 18% of patients in the pembrolizumab group. The most common grade 3 event associated with the vaccine was fatigue. No grade 4 adverse events or deaths were associated with the vaccine, and the addition of the vaccine to pembrolizumab did not appear to increase risk for immune-mediated adverse events.

In a subanalysis, Dr. Weber and colleagues explored the relationship between tumor mutational burden and recurrence-free survival. Higher tumor mutational burden may mean more neoepitopes to target, which is helpful when developing personalized neoantigen vaccines, explained coinvestigator Ryan Sullivan, MD, associate director of the melanoma program at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, who presented the subanalysis results.

The investigators performed whole exome and whole transcriptome sequencing of baseline tumor biopsy samples to determine the mutational burden of tumors and defined a high mutational burden as 10 or more mutations per megabase.

Overall, in the combination group, patients with a higher tumor mutational burden at baseline showed improved outcomes (HR, 0.652; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.284-1.494), as did patients with a lower tumor mutational burden (HR, 0.586; 95% CI, 0.243-1.415).

The authors found the same was true for patients with high vs. low tumor inflammation scores (high: HR, 0.576; 95% CI, 0.209-1.591 vs. low: HR, 0.528; 95% CI, 0.253-1.101) and higher PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 positive: HR, 0.485; 95% CI, 0.226-1.039 vs. PD-L1 negative: HR, 0.162; 95% CI, 0.038-0.685).

The hazard ratios crossed 1, which suggest that the combination was similarly effective in all patient subsets, said Dr. Sullivan.

Dr. Callahan also highlighted that the P value was based on a one-side log-rank test, “a relatively low bar to jump over” and that there were slight imbalances in both PD-1 expression status and tumor mutational burden – both of which favored the vaccine group and may be associated with better recurrence-free survival.

The 16% difference in recurrence-free survival seen with the combination vs. pembrolizumab alone, if confirmed in further studies, “is clinically meaningful for high-risk patients,” said Dr. Callahan. “The authors are to be congratulated for presenting the first randomized study of a neoantigen vaccine with a clinical efficacy primary endpoint, and this is a trial that incorporates many of the lessons we’ve learned along the years.”

Dr. Sullivan also commented on the promising results. “The field of cancer vaccines is a wasteland of failed clinical trials after some initial promising data, so to have something like this where it does appear that this vaccine strategy works is good not only for patients with melanoma but for those people who have dedicated their lives to trying to develop cancer vaccines,” he said in an interview.

KEYNOTE-942 was funded by Moderna with collaboration from Merck. Dr. Weber has financial relationships with Merck, Moderna, and other companies. Dr. Sullivan has served as a paid consultant for Merck and has received research funding from the company. Dr. Callahan disclosed a consulting/advisory role with Moderna, Merck, and others.
 

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

The bacterial, fungal, and atypical mycobacterial cultures from the lesions performed at the emergency department were all negative.

Pediatric dermatology was consulted and a punch biopsy of one of the lesions was done. Histopathologic examination showed a mixed perifollicular infiltrate of predominantly eosinophils with some neutrophils and associated microabscesses. Periodic acid Schiff and Fite stains failed to reveal any organisms. CD1 immunostain was negative. Fresh tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative.

Given the clinical presentation of chronic recurrent sterile pustules on an infant with associated eosinophilia and the reported histopathologic findings, the patient was diagnosed with eosinophilic pustular folliculitis of infancy (EPFI).

Dr. Catalina Matiz

EPFI is a rare and idiopathic cutaneous disorder present in children. About 70% of the cases reported occur in the first 6 month of life and rarely present past 3 years of age. EPF encompasses a group of conditions including the classic adult form, or Ofuji disease. EPF is seen in immunosuppressed patients, mainly HIV positive, and EPF is also seen in infants and children.

In EPFI, males are most commonly affected. The condition presents, as it did in our patient, with recurrent crops of sterile papules and pustules mainly on the scalp, but they can occur in other parts of the body. The lesions go away within a few weeks to months without leaving any scars but it can take months to years to resolve. Histopathologic analysis of the lesions show an eosinophilic infiltrate which can be follicular, perifollicular, or periadnexal with associated flame figures in about 26% of cases.

Aggressive treatment is usually not needed as lesions are self-limited. Lesions can be treated with topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamine medications like cetirizine if symptomatic.

If the lesions start to present during the neonatal period, one may consider in the differential diagnosis, neonatal rashes like transient neonatal pustular melanosis and erythema toxicum neonatorum. Both of these neonatal conditions tend to resolve in the first month of life, compared with EPFI where lesions can come and go for months to years. EPFI lesions can be described as pustules and inflammatory papules, as well as furuncles and vesicles. All of the lesions may be seen in one patient at one time, which will not be typical for transient neonatal pustular melanosis or erythema toxicum. Eosinophils can be seen in erythema toxicum but folliculitis is not present. The inflammatory infiltrate seen in transient neonatal pustular melanosis is polymorphonuclear, not eosinophilic.

Early in the presentation, infectious conditions like staphylococcal or streptococcal folliculitis, cellulitis and furunculosis, tinea capitis, atypical mycobacterial infections, herpes simplex, and parasitic infections like scabies should be considered. In young infants, empiric antibiotic treatment may be started until cultures are finalized. If there is a family history of pruritic papules and pustules, scabies should be considered. A scabies prep can be done to rule out this entity.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis can also present with pustules and papules in early infancy and also has a predilection for the scalp. When this condition is in question, a skin biopsy should be performed which shows a CD1 positive histiocytic infiltrate.

In conclusion, EPFI is a benign rare condition that can present in infants as recurrent pustules and papules, mainly on the scalp, which are self-limited and if symptomatic can be treated with topical corticosteroids and antihistamines.
 

References

Alonso-Castro L et al. Dermatol Online J. 2012 Oct 15;18(10):6.

Frølunde AS et al. Clin Case Rep. 2021 May 11;9(5):e04167.

Hernández-Martín Á et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Jan;68(1):150-5.

The bacterial, fungal, and atypical mycobacterial cultures from the lesions performed at the emergency department were all negative.

Pediatric dermatology was consulted and a punch biopsy of one of the lesions was done. Histopathologic examination showed a mixed perifollicular infiltrate of predominantly eosinophils with some neutrophils and associated microabscesses. Periodic acid Schiff and Fite stains failed to reveal any organisms. CD1 immunostain was negative. Fresh tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative.

Given the clinical presentation of chronic recurrent sterile pustules on an infant with associated eosinophilia and the reported histopathologic findings, the patient was diagnosed with eosinophilic pustular folliculitis of infancy (EPFI).

Dr. Catalina Matiz

EPFI is a rare and idiopathic cutaneous disorder present in children. About 70% of the cases reported occur in the first 6 month of life and rarely present past 3 years of age. EPF encompasses a group of conditions including the classic adult form, or Ofuji disease. EPF is seen in immunosuppressed patients, mainly HIV positive, and EPF is also seen in infants and children.

In EPFI, males are most commonly affected. The condition presents, as it did in our patient, with recurrent crops of sterile papules and pustules mainly on the scalp, but they can occur in other parts of the body. The lesions go away within a few weeks to months without leaving any scars but it can take months to years to resolve. Histopathologic analysis of the lesions show an eosinophilic infiltrate which can be follicular, perifollicular, or periadnexal with associated flame figures in about 26% of cases.

Aggressive treatment is usually not needed as lesions are self-limited. Lesions can be treated with topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamine medications like cetirizine if symptomatic.

If the lesions start to present during the neonatal period, one may consider in the differential diagnosis, neonatal rashes like transient neonatal pustular melanosis and erythema toxicum neonatorum. Both of these neonatal conditions tend to resolve in the first month of life, compared with EPFI where lesions can come and go for months to years. EPFI lesions can be described as pustules and inflammatory papules, as well as furuncles and vesicles. All of the lesions may be seen in one patient at one time, which will not be typical for transient neonatal pustular melanosis or erythema toxicum. Eosinophils can be seen in erythema toxicum but folliculitis is not present. The inflammatory infiltrate seen in transient neonatal pustular melanosis is polymorphonuclear, not eosinophilic.

Early in the presentation, infectious conditions like staphylococcal or streptococcal folliculitis, cellulitis and furunculosis, tinea capitis, atypical mycobacterial infections, herpes simplex, and parasitic infections like scabies should be considered. In young infants, empiric antibiotic treatment may be started until cultures are finalized. If there is a family history of pruritic papules and pustules, scabies should be considered. A scabies prep can be done to rule out this entity.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis can also present with pustules and papules in early infancy and also has a predilection for the scalp. When this condition is in question, a skin biopsy should be performed which shows a CD1 positive histiocytic infiltrate.

In conclusion, EPFI is a benign rare condition that can present in infants as recurrent pustules and papules, mainly on the scalp, which are self-limited and if symptomatic can be treated with topical corticosteroids and antihistamines.
 

References

Alonso-Castro L et al. Dermatol Online J. 2012 Oct 15;18(10):6.

Frølunde AS et al. Clin Case Rep. 2021 May 11;9(5):e04167.

Hernández-Martín Á et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Jan;68(1):150-5.

The bacterial, fungal, and atypical mycobacterial cultures from the lesions performed at the emergency department were all negative.

Pediatric dermatology was consulted and a punch biopsy of one of the lesions was done. Histopathologic examination showed a mixed perifollicular infiltrate of predominantly eosinophils with some neutrophils and associated microabscesses. Periodic acid Schiff and Fite stains failed to reveal any organisms. CD1 immunostain was negative. Fresh tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative.

Given the clinical presentation of chronic recurrent sterile pustules on an infant with associated eosinophilia and the reported histopathologic findings, the patient was diagnosed with eosinophilic pustular folliculitis of infancy (EPFI).

Dr. Catalina Matiz

EPFI is a rare and idiopathic cutaneous disorder present in children. About 70% of the cases reported occur in the first 6 month of life and rarely present past 3 years of age. EPF encompasses a group of conditions including the classic adult form, or Ofuji disease. EPF is seen in immunosuppressed patients, mainly HIV positive, and EPF is also seen in infants and children.

In EPFI, males are most commonly affected. The condition presents, as it did in our patient, with recurrent crops of sterile papules and pustules mainly on the scalp, but they can occur in other parts of the body. The lesions go away within a few weeks to months without leaving any scars but it can take months to years to resolve. Histopathologic analysis of the lesions show an eosinophilic infiltrate which can be follicular, perifollicular, or periadnexal with associated flame figures in about 26% of cases.

Aggressive treatment is usually not needed as lesions are self-limited. Lesions can be treated with topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamine medications like cetirizine if symptomatic.

If the lesions start to present during the neonatal period, one may consider in the differential diagnosis, neonatal rashes like transient neonatal pustular melanosis and erythema toxicum neonatorum. Both of these neonatal conditions tend to resolve in the first month of life, compared with EPFI where lesions can come and go for months to years. EPFI lesions can be described as pustules and inflammatory papules, as well as furuncles and vesicles. All of the lesions may be seen in one patient at one time, which will not be typical for transient neonatal pustular melanosis or erythema toxicum. Eosinophils can be seen in erythema toxicum but folliculitis is not present. The inflammatory infiltrate seen in transient neonatal pustular melanosis is polymorphonuclear, not eosinophilic.

Early in the presentation, infectious conditions like staphylococcal or streptococcal folliculitis, cellulitis and furunculosis, tinea capitis, atypical mycobacterial infections, herpes simplex, and parasitic infections like scabies should be considered. In young infants, empiric antibiotic treatment may be started until cultures are finalized. If there is a family history of pruritic papules and pustules, scabies should be considered. A scabies prep can be done to rule out this entity.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis can also present with pustules and papules in early infancy and also has a predilection for the scalp. When this condition is in question, a skin biopsy should be performed which shows a CD1 positive histiocytic infiltrate.

In conclusion, EPFI is a benign rare condition that can present in infants as recurrent pustules and papules, mainly on the scalp, which are self-limited and if symptomatic can be treated with topical corticosteroids and antihistamines.
 

References

Alonso-Castro L et al. Dermatol Online J. 2012 Oct 15;18(10):6.

Frølunde AS et al. Clin Case Rep. 2021 May 11;9(5):e04167.

Hernández-Martín Á et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Jan;68(1):150-5.

In an update to its 2016 recommendations for skin cancer screening, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has once again determined that there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening with a visual skin exam in adolescents and adults without symptoms.

This final recommendation applies to the general public and is not meant for those at higher risk, such as people with a family history of skin cancer or who have any signs or symptoms, such as irregular moles.

“The new recommendations are consistent with those from 2016, and we are unable to balance benefits and harms,” said Task Force member Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, professor and vice chair of research in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening, and health care professionals should use their judgment when deciding whether or not to screen.”

Dr. Donahue told this news organization that this is a call for more research: “Our recommendations are for patients who present to primary care without symptoms, and after a careful assessment of benefit and harms, we didn’t have evidence to push us towards screening as a benefit. We did look at data from two large screening programs, but they were from Europe and not representative of the U.S. population. They also did not show a benefit for reducing melanoma-related mortality.”

The USPSTF final recommendation statement and corresponding evidence summary have been published online in JAMA, as well as on the USPSTF website.

Skin cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, but there are different types that vary in their incidence and severity. Basal and squamous cell carcinomas are the most common types of skin cancer, but they infrequently lead to death or substantial morbidity, notes the USPTSF. Melanomas represent about 1% of skin cancer and cause the most skin cancer deaths. An estimated 8,000 individuals in the United States will die of melanoma in 2023.

There are racial differences in melanoma incidence; it is about 30 times more common in White versus Black persons, but disease in persons with darker skin color tends to be diagnosed at a later stage. These disparities may be due to differences in risk factors, access to care, and clinical presentation.

In an accompanying editorial, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Lori A. Crane, PhD, MPH, of the Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, point out that people with darker skin phenotypes also tend to be affected by skin cancers that are not associated with UV radiation, such as acral melanoma, which arises on the palms and soles, and skin cancers that arise in areas of chronic inflammation, such as wounds.

Review of evidence

The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for skin cancer in asymptomatic adolescents and adults, including evidence for both keratinocyte carcinoma (basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma) and cutaneous melanoma.

Foundational evidence showed that the sensitivity of visual skin examination by a clinician to detect melanoma ranged from 40% to 70% and specificity ranged from 86% to 98%. Evidence that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of visual skin examination to detect keratinocyte carcinoma was limited and inconsistent. There were no new studies reporting on diagnostic accuracy for an asymptomatic screening population.

The USPSTF also reviewed 20 studies in 29 articles (n = 6,053,411). This included three nonrandomized studies evaluating two skin cancer screening programs in Germany, but results were inconsistent. In addition, the ecological and nonrandomized design of the studies limited the conclusions that could be drawn and the applicability to a U.S. population was difficult to assess because of differences in population diversity and health care delivery in the United States.

Other nonrandomized studies that looked at various outcomes, such as harms and stage at diagnosis and melanoma or all-cause mortality, also did not provide sufficient evidence to support screening.
 

Research is needed

In a second accompanying editorial published in JAMA Dermatology, Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP, of the division of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the University of Texas, Austin, pointed out that unlike other cancer screening programs, such as those for breast, colon, and prostate cancer, skin cancer screening programs are somewhat less organized.

The other programs focus on defined groups of the population, generally with easily identifiable characteristics such as age, sex, and family history, and importantly, there are always defined ages for initiation and halting of screening and intervals for screening frequency. None of these basic screening parameters have been widely adopted among dermatologists in the United States, he wrote. “One important reason why skin cancer screening has remained inconsistent is that it is not covered by Medicare or by many commercial insurance companies,” Dr. Adamson told this news organization. “The test, in this case the skin exam, is often performed as part of a routine dermatology visit.”

Dermatologists should take the lead on this, he said. “Dermatologists should push for a high quality prospective clinical trial of skin cancer screening, preferably in a high-risk population.”

Dr. Donahue agrees that research is needed, as noted in the recommendation. For example, studies are needed demonstrating consistent data of the effects of screening on morbidity and mortality or early detection of skin cancer, and clearer descriptions of skin color and inclusion of a full spectrum of skin colors in study participants. Clinical research is also needed on outcomes in participants that reflect the diversity of the U.S. population.

“I hope funding agencies will be interested in this area of study,” she said. “We put out the whole systematic review and point out the gaps. We need consistent evidence in detecting cancer early and reducing complications from skin cancer.”

The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.

None of the USPSTF authors report any disclosures. Dr. Asgari reported receiving royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Crane did not make any disclosures. Dr. Adamson reported serving as an expert reviewer for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force skin cancer screening report, as well as support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Dermatology Foundation Public Health Career Development Award, the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and Meredith’s Mission for Melanoma.

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

In an update to its 2016 recommendations for skin cancer screening, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has once again determined that there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening with a visual skin exam in adolescents and adults without symptoms.

This final recommendation applies to the general public and is not meant for those at higher risk, such as people with a family history of skin cancer or who have any signs or symptoms, such as irregular moles.

“The new recommendations are consistent with those from 2016, and we are unable to balance benefits and harms,” said Task Force member Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, professor and vice chair of research in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening, and health care professionals should use their judgment when deciding whether or not to screen.”

Dr. Donahue told this news organization that this is a call for more research: “Our recommendations are for patients who present to primary care without symptoms, and after a careful assessment of benefit and harms, we didn’t have evidence to push us towards screening as a benefit. We did look at data from two large screening programs, but they were from Europe and not representative of the U.S. population. They also did not show a benefit for reducing melanoma-related mortality.”

The USPSTF final recommendation statement and corresponding evidence summary have been published online in JAMA, as well as on the USPSTF website.

Skin cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, but there are different types that vary in their incidence and severity. Basal and squamous cell carcinomas are the most common types of skin cancer, but they infrequently lead to death or substantial morbidity, notes the USPTSF. Melanomas represent about 1% of skin cancer and cause the most skin cancer deaths. An estimated 8,000 individuals in the United States will die of melanoma in 2023.

There are racial differences in melanoma incidence; it is about 30 times more common in White versus Black persons, but disease in persons with darker skin color tends to be diagnosed at a later stage. These disparities may be due to differences in risk factors, access to care, and clinical presentation.

In an accompanying editorial, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Lori A. Crane, PhD, MPH, of the Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, point out that people with darker skin phenotypes also tend to be affected by skin cancers that are not associated with UV radiation, such as acral melanoma, which arises on the palms and soles, and skin cancers that arise in areas of chronic inflammation, such as wounds.

Review of evidence

The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for skin cancer in asymptomatic adolescents and adults, including evidence for both keratinocyte carcinoma (basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma) and cutaneous melanoma.

Foundational evidence showed that the sensitivity of visual skin examination by a clinician to detect melanoma ranged from 40% to 70% and specificity ranged from 86% to 98%. Evidence that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of visual skin examination to detect keratinocyte carcinoma was limited and inconsistent. There were no new studies reporting on diagnostic accuracy for an asymptomatic screening population.

The USPSTF also reviewed 20 studies in 29 articles (n = 6,053,411). This included three nonrandomized studies evaluating two skin cancer screening programs in Germany, but results were inconsistent. In addition, the ecological and nonrandomized design of the studies limited the conclusions that could be drawn and the applicability to a U.S. population was difficult to assess because of differences in population diversity and health care delivery in the United States.

Other nonrandomized studies that looked at various outcomes, such as harms and stage at diagnosis and melanoma or all-cause mortality, also did not provide sufficient evidence to support screening.
 

Research is needed

In a second accompanying editorial published in JAMA Dermatology, Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP, of the division of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the University of Texas, Austin, pointed out that unlike other cancer screening programs, such as those for breast, colon, and prostate cancer, skin cancer screening programs are somewhat less organized.

The other programs focus on defined groups of the population, generally with easily identifiable characteristics such as age, sex, and family history, and importantly, there are always defined ages for initiation and halting of screening and intervals for screening frequency. None of these basic screening parameters have been widely adopted among dermatologists in the United States, he wrote. “One important reason why skin cancer screening has remained inconsistent is that it is not covered by Medicare or by many commercial insurance companies,” Dr. Adamson told this news organization. “The test, in this case the skin exam, is often performed as part of a routine dermatology visit.”

Dermatologists should take the lead on this, he said. “Dermatologists should push for a high quality prospective clinical trial of skin cancer screening, preferably in a high-risk population.”

Dr. Donahue agrees that research is needed, as noted in the recommendation. For example, studies are needed demonstrating consistent data of the effects of screening on morbidity and mortality or early detection of skin cancer, and clearer descriptions of skin color and inclusion of a full spectrum of skin colors in study participants. Clinical research is also needed on outcomes in participants that reflect the diversity of the U.S. population.

“I hope funding agencies will be interested in this area of study,” she said. “We put out the whole systematic review and point out the gaps. We need consistent evidence in detecting cancer early and reducing complications from skin cancer.”

The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.

None of the USPSTF authors report any disclosures. Dr. Asgari reported receiving royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Crane did not make any disclosures. Dr. Adamson reported serving as an expert reviewer for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force skin cancer screening report, as well as support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Dermatology Foundation Public Health Career Development Award, the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and Meredith’s Mission for Melanoma.

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

In an update to its 2016 recommendations for skin cancer screening, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has once again determined that there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening with a visual skin exam in adolescents and adults without symptoms.

This final recommendation applies to the general public and is not meant for those at higher risk, such as people with a family history of skin cancer or who have any signs or symptoms, such as irregular moles.

“The new recommendations are consistent with those from 2016, and we are unable to balance benefits and harms,” said Task Force member Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, professor and vice chair of research in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening, and health care professionals should use their judgment when deciding whether or not to screen.”

Dr. Donahue told this news organization that this is a call for more research: “Our recommendations are for patients who present to primary care without symptoms, and after a careful assessment of benefit and harms, we didn’t have evidence to push us towards screening as a benefit. We did look at data from two large screening programs, but they were from Europe and not representative of the U.S. population. They also did not show a benefit for reducing melanoma-related mortality.”

The USPSTF final recommendation statement and corresponding evidence summary have been published online in JAMA, as well as on the USPSTF website.

Skin cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, but there are different types that vary in their incidence and severity. Basal and squamous cell carcinomas are the most common types of skin cancer, but they infrequently lead to death or substantial morbidity, notes the USPTSF. Melanomas represent about 1% of skin cancer and cause the most skin cancer deaths. An estimated 8,000 individuals in the United States will die of melanoma in 2023.

There are racial differences in melanoma incidence; it is about 30 times more common in White versus Black persons, but disease in persons with darker skin color tends to be diagnosed at a later stage. These disparities may be due to differences in risk factors, access to care, and clinical presentation.

In an accompanying editorial, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Lori A. Crane, PhD, MPH, of the Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, point out that people with darker skin phenotypes also tend to be affected by skin cancers that are not associated with UV radiation, such as acral melanoma, which arises on the palms and soles, and skin cancers that arise in areas of chronic inflammation, such as wounds.

Review of evidence

The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for skin cancer in asymptomatic adolescents and adults, including evidence for both keratinocyte carcinoma (basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma) and cutaneous melanoma.

Foundational evidence showed that the sensitivity of visual skin examination by a clinician to detect melanoma ranged from 40% to 70% and specificity ranged from 86% to 98%. Evidence that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of visual skin examination to detect keratinocyte carcinoma was limited and inconsistent. There were no new studies reporting on diagnostic accuracy for an asymptomatic screening population.

The USPSTF also reviewed 20 studies in 29 articles (n = 6,053,411). This included three nonrandomized studies evaluating two skin cancer screening programs in Germany, but results were inconsistent. In addition, the ecological and nonrandomized design of the studies limited the conclusions that could be drawn and the applicability to a U.S. population was difficult to assess because of differences in population diversity and health care delivery in the United States.

Other nonrandomized studies that looked at various outcomes, such as harms and stage at diagnosis and melanoma or all-cause mortality, also did not provide sufficient evidence to support screening.
 

Research is needed

In a second accompanying editorial published in JAMA Dermatology, Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP, of the division of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the University of Texas, Austin, pointed out that unlike other cancer screening programs, such as those for breast, colon, and prostate cancer, skin cancer screening programs are somewhat less organized.

The other programs focus on defined groups of the population, generally with easily identifiable characteristics such as age, sex, and family history, and importantly, there are always defined ages for initiation and halting of screening and intervals for screening frequency. None of these basic screening parameters have been widely adopted among dermatologists in the United States, he wrote. “One important reason why skin cancer screening has remained inconsistent is that it is not covered by Medicare or by many commercial insurance companies,” Dr. Adamson told this news organization. “The test, in this case the skin exam, is often performed as part of a routine dermatology visit.”

Dermatologists should take the lead on this, he said. “Dermatologists should push for a high quality prospective clinical trial of skin cancer screening, preferably in a high-risk population.”

Dr. Donahue agrees that research is needed, as noted in the recommendation. For example, studies are needed demonstrating consistent data of the effects of screening on morbidity and mortality or early detection of skin cancer, and clearer descriptions of skin color and inclusion of a full spectrum of skin colors in study participants. Clinical research is also needed on outcomes in participants that reflect the diversity of the U.S. population.

“I hope funding agencies will be interested in this area of study,” she said. “We put out the whole systematic review and point out the gaps. We need consistent evidence in detecting cancer early and reducing complications from skin cancer.”

The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.

None of the USPSTF authors report any disclosures. Dr. Asgari reported receiving royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Crane did not make any disclosures. Dr. Adamson reported serving as an expert reviewer for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force skin cancer screening report, as well as support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Dermatology Foundation Public Health Career Development Award, the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and Meredith’s Mission for Melanoma.

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

PHOENIX – Rapid, effective, and well-tolerated treatment of small cutaneous neurofibromas (cNF) without surgery or scarring is possible, with some tumors completely clearing after only one treatment, according to preliminary results of an ongoing prospective trial that compared several treatment modalities.

“Neurofibromatosis type 1 is the most common single-gene disease of mankind, but there is so much we have yet to learn about it,” study author Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. Dr. Richey also conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is working with R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center, on this project. In his words, she said, “the lack of better treatments for cNF is a ‘problem worth solving.’ ”

Four treatments vs. controls

For the study, Dr. Richey and colleagues enrolled 19 adults with a total of 307 cNFs measuring 2-4 mm in size to receive one of four treatments: electrocautery with an insulated radiofrequency needle; 755-nm alexandrite laser with negative pressure (8-mm spot size, 100 J/cm² fluence, 3-ms pulse duration); 980-nm diode laser (delivered via 8-mm sapphire skin-contact window), and intratumoral injection of 10 mg/mL deoxycholic acid at a volume approximately equal to that of the tumor. The average age of the participants was 49 years and 15 were female.

The investigators applied 5% lidocaine/prilocaine for 40 minutes to treatment sites before randomizing the tumors to treatment or to the control arm (no treatment). They compared safety, tolerability (including pain scores), and efficacy of each modality as measured by the change in cNF volume/height via three-dimensional imaging and clinical improvement via physician assessment at 6 months. All 19 participants have completed the 6-month assessment.

All modalities reduced or eliminated some of the cNFs by 6 months after treatment, with statistically significant reductions in height and volume across all four treatments. A wide variation of responses was observed. Specifically, the mean tumor volume changes for each modality, compared with controls, were –33.4% versus –5.1% among those treated with the 755-nm alexandrite laser; –24.9% versus –9.2% among those treated with the 980-nm diode laser, –23.3% versus –0.8% among those treated with insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation, and –29.4% versus –3.7% among those treated with deoxycholic acid.

The variation in responses “may be due to histologic diversity of cNF or may indicate a need for more fine-tuned dosimetry, or a combination,” Dr. Richey said. “Our future trials will address this. We will also be treating all skin types in our upcoming trials.”

No adverse events categorized as higher than grade 2 occurred in any of the treatment groups, and no signs of regrowth or growth stimulation have been observed to date.

Tolerability of treatments

As for general tolerability, the 980-nm laser treatment caused moderate to severe pain; the alexandrite laser caused mild pain; insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation caused mild pain, though more than deoxycholic acid injections or alexandrite laser, and pain associated with the deoxycholic acid injections was minimal.

When residual neurofibroma tumor was present histologically, its appearance was similar to that of untreated tumors in controls. There was no evidence of atypia, mitosis, or tumor inflammation, and mild fibrosis was present at the sites of prior tumor.

“It was surprising that all four modalities did work to some extent,” Dr. Richey said, noting that the lack of ulceration with deoxycholic acid injection “was pleasantly surprising.” Treatment with the 980-nm diode laser “was a bit more painful than we anticipated.”

The positive results of this trial has raised “more questions for us to answer. We have three additional trials in the works to fine tune these treatments and optimize dose/delivery, with the end goal of treating younger people.”

Dr. Richey said that she was “amazed” by how motivated the enrollees were to participate in the trial, noting that many patients with cNF undergo general anesthesia to have dozens of tumors surgically removed at once. “They pay $10,000-$20,000 on average out of pocket, as this surgery is considered cosmetic,” she said.

“This very important study could lead to effective, relatively noninvasive, therapy for small neurofibromas,” said Jeffrey S. Dover, MD, codirector of SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass., who was not involved with the study and was asked to comment on the results.

“Remarkably, all four treatments worked to varying degrees, but of all the treatments, the selective alexandrite laser appeared to achieve the best results. Further study will be needed to see just how effective these treatments are, and to determine the best and safest treatment parameters. Given how common this autosomal dominant disease is, and how disfiguring neurofibromas become as they enlarge, a well-tolerated noninvasive nonsurgical treatment with limited side effects is highly sought after.”

The study, which was named the best clinical abstract at the meeting, was supported by the Neurofibromatosis Therapeutic Acceleration Program. Dr. Anderson is supported in part as the Lancer Endowed Chair in Dermatology at MGH. Dr. Dover reported having no relevant disclosures.

 

PHOENIX – Rapid, effective, and well-tolerated treatment of small cutaneous neurofibromas (cNF) without surgery or scarring is possible, with some tumors completely clearing after only one treatment, according to preliminary results of an ongoing prospective trial that compared several treatment modalities.

“Neurofibromatosis type 1 is the most common single-gene disease of mankind, but there is so much we have yet to learn about it,” study author Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. Dr. Richey also conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is working with R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center, on this project. In his words, she said, “the lack of better treatments for cNF is a ‘problem worth solving.’ ”

Four treatments vs. controls

For the study, Dr. Richey and colleagues enrolled 19 adults with a total of 307 cNFs measuring 2-4 mm in size to receive one of four treatments: electrocautery with an insulated radiofrequency needle; 755-nm alexandrite laser with negative pressure (8-mm spot size, 100 J/cm² fluence, 3-ms pulse duration); 980-nm diode laser (delivered via 8-mm sapphire skin-contact window), and intratumoral injection of 10 mg/mL deoxycholic acid at a volume approximately equal to that of the tumor. The average age of the participants was 49 years and 15 were female.

The investigators applied 5% lidocaine/prilocaine for 40 minutes to treatment sites before randomizing the tumors to treatment or to the control arm (no treatment). They compared safety, tolerability (including pain scores), and efficacy of each modality as measured by the change in cNF volume/height via three-dimensional imaging and clinical improvement via physician assessment at 6 months. All 19 participants have completed the 6-month assessment.

All modalities reduced or eliminated some of the cNFs by 6 months after treatment, with statistically significant reductions in height and volume across all four treatments. A wide variation of responses was observed. Specifically, the mean tumor volume changes for each modality, compared with controls, were –33.4% versus –5.1% among those treated with the 755-nm alexandrite laser; –24.9% versus –9.2% among those treated with the 980-nm diode laser, –23.3% versus –0.8% among those treated with insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation, and –29.4% versus –3.7% among those treated with deoxycholic acid.

The variation in responses “may be due to histologic diversity of cNF or may indicate a need for more fine-tuned dosimetry, or a combination,” Dr. Richey said. “Our future trials will address this. We will also be treating all skin types in our upcoming trials.”

No adverse events categorized as higher than grade 2 occurred in any of the treatment groups, and no signs of regrowth or growth stimulation have been observed to date.

Tolerability of treatments

As for general tolerability, the 980-nm laser treatment caused moderate to severe pain; the alexandrite laser caused mild pain; insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation caused mild pain, though more than deoxycholic acid injections or alexandrite laser, and pain associated with the deoxycholic acid injections was minimal.

When residual neurofibroma tumor was present histologically, its appearance was similar to that of untreated tumors in controls. There was no evidence of atypia, mitosis, or tumor inflammation, and mild fibrosis was present at the sites of prior tumor.

“It was surprising that all four modalities did work to some extent,” Dr. Richey said, noting that the lack of ulceration with deoxycholic acid injection “was pleasantly surprising.” Treatment with the 980-nm diode laser “was a bit more painful than we anticipated.”

The positive results of this trial has raised “more questions for us to answer. We have three additional trials in the works to fine tune these treatments and optimize dose/delivery, with the end goal of treating younger people.”

Dr. Richey said that she was “amazed” by how motivated the enrollees were to participate in the trial, noting that many patients with cNF undergo general anesthesia to have dozens of tumors surgically removed at once. “They pay $10,000-$20,000 on average out of pocket, as this surgery is considered cosmetic,” she said.

“This very important study could lead to effective, relatively noninvasive, therapy for small neurofibromas,” said Jeffrey S. Dover, MD, codirector of SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass., who was not involved with the study and was asked to comment on the results.

“Remarkably, all four treatments worked to varying degrees, but of all the treatments, the selective alexandrite laser appeared to achieve the best results. Further study will be needed to see just how effective these treatments are, and to determine the best and safest treatment parameters. Given how common this autosomal dominant disease is, and how disfiguring neurofibromas become as they enlarge, a well-tolerated noninvasive nonsurgical treatment with limited side effects is highly sought after.”

The study, which was named the best clinical abstract at the meeting, was supported by the Neurofibromatosis Therapeutic Acceleration Program. Dr. Anderson is supported in part as the Lancer Endowed Chair in Dermatology at MGH. Dr. Dover reported having no relevant disclosures.

 

PHOENIX – Rapid, effective, and well-tolerated treatment of small cutaneous neurofibromas (cNF) without surgery or scarring is possible, with some tumors completely clearing after only one treatment, according to preliminary results of an ongoing prospective trial that compared several treatment modalities.

“Neurofibromatosis type 1 is the most common single-gene disease of mankind, but there is so much we have yet to learn about it,” study author Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. Dr. Richey also conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is working with R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center, on this project. In his words, she said, “the lack of better treatments for cNF is a ‘problem worth solving.’ ”

Four treatments vs. controls

For the study, Dr. Richey and colleagues enrolled 19 adults with a total of 307 cNFs measuring 2-4 mm in size to receive one of four treatments: electrocautery with an insulated radiofrequency needle; 755-nm alexandrite laser with negative pressure (8-mm spot size, 100 J/cm² fluence, 3-ms pulse duration); 980-nm diode laser (delivered via 8-mm sapphire skin-contact window), and intratumoral injection of 10 mg/mL deoxycholic acid at a volume approximately equal to that of the tumor. The average age of the participants was 49 years and 15 were female.

The investigators applied 5% lidocaine/prilocaine for 40 minutes to treatment sites before randomizing the tumors to treatment or to the control arm (no treatment). They compared safety, tolerability (including pain scores), and efficacy of each modality as measured by the change in cNF volume/height via three-dimensional imaging and clinical improvement via physician assessment at 6 months. All 19 participants have completed the 6-month assessment.

All modalities reduced or eliminated some of the cNFs by 6 months after treatment, with statistically significant reductions in height and volume across all four treatments. A wide variation of responses was observed. Specifically, the mean tumor volume changes for each modality, compared with controls, were –33.4% versus –5.1% among those treated with the 755-nm alexandrite laser; –24.9% versus –9.2% among those treated with the 980-nm diode laser, –23.3% versus –0.8% among those treated with insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation, and –29.4% versus –3.7% among those treated with deoxycholic acid.

The variation in responses “may be due to histologic diversity of cNF or may indicate a need for more fine-tuned dosimetry, or a combination,” Dr. Richey said. “Our future trials will address this. We will also be treating all skin types in our upcoming trials.”

No adverse events categorized as higher than grade 2 occurred in any of the treatment groups, and no signs of regrowth or growth stimulation have been observed to date.

Tolerability of treatments

As for general tolerability, the 980-nm laser treatment caused moderate to severe pain; the alexandrite laser caused mild pain; insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation caused mild pain, though more than deoxycholic acid injections or alexandrite laser, and pain associated with the deoxycholic acid injections was minimal.

When residual neurofibroma tumor was present histologically, its appearance was similar to that of untreated tumors in controls. There was no evidence of atypia, mitosis, or tumor inflammation, and mild fibrosis was present at the sites of prior tumor.

“It was surprising that all four modalities did work to some extent,” Dr. Richey said, noting that the lack of ulceration with deoxycholic acid injection “was pleasantly surprising.” Treatment with the 980-nm diode laser “was a bit more painful than we anticipated.”

The positive results of this trial has raised “more questions for us to answer. We have three additional trials in the works to fine tune these treatments and optimize dose/delivery, with the end goal of treating younger people.”

Dr. Richey said that she was “amazed” by how motivated the enrollees were to participate in the trial, noting that many patients with cNF undergo general anesthesia to have dozens of tumors surgically removed at once. “They pay $10,000-$20,000 on average out of pocket, as this surgery is considered cosmetic,” she said.

“This very important study could lead to effective, relatively noninvasive, therapy for small neurofibromas,” said Jeffrey S. Dover, MD, codirector of SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass., who was not involved with the study and was asked to comment on the results.

“Remarkably, all four treatments worked to varying degrees, but of all the treatments, the selective alexandrite laser appeared to achieve the best results. Further study will be needed to see just how effective these treatments are, and to determine the best and safest treatment parameters. Given how common this autosomal dominant disease is, and how disfiguring neurofibromas become as they enlarge, a well-tolerated noninvasive nonsurgical treatment with limited side effects is highly sought after.”

The study, which was named the best clinical abstract at the meeting, was supported by the Neurofibromatosis Therapeutic Acceleration Program. Dr. Anderson is supported in part as the Lancer Endowed Chair in Dermatology at MGH. Dr. Dover reported having no relevant disclosures.