LayerRx Mapping ID
453
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Featured Buckets Admin
Reverse Chronological Sort
Allow Teaser Image
Medscape Lead Concept
65

Imaging Overview: Report From the Mount Sinai Fall Symposium

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 01/10/2019 - 13:45
Display Headline
Imaging Overview: Report From the Mount Sinai Fall Symposium

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Publications
Topics

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Imaging Overview: Report From the Mount Sinai Fall Symposium
Display Headline
Imaging Overview: Report From the Mount Sinai Fall Symposium
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

Skin Cancer in Military Pilots: A Special Population With Special Risk Factors

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 01/10/2019 - 13:46
Display Headline
Skin Cancer in Military Pilots: A Special Population With Special Risk Factors
In partnership with the Association of Military Dermatologists

Military dermatologists are charged with caring for a diverse population of active-duty members, civilian dependents, and military retirees. Although certain risk factors for cutaneous malignancies are common in all of these groups, the active-duty population experiences unique exposures to be considered when determining their risk for skin cancer. One subset that may be at a higher risk is military pilots who fly at high altitudes on irregular schedules in austere environments. Through the unparalleled comradeship inherent in many military units, pilots “hear” from their fellow pilots that they are at increased risk for skin cancer. Do their occupational exposures translate into increased risk for cutaneous malignancy? This article will survey the literature pertaining to pilots and skin cancer so that all dermatologists may better care for this unique population.

Epidemiology

Anecdotally, we have observed basal cell carcinoma in pilots in their 20s and early 30s, earlier than would be expected in an otherwise healthy prescreened military population.1 Woolley and Hughes2 published a case report of skin cancer in a young military aviator. The patient was a 32-year-old male helicopter pilot with Fitzpatrick skin type II and no personal or family history of skin cancer who was diagnosed with a periocular nodular basal cell carcinoma. He deployed to locations with high UV radiation (UVR) indices, and his vacation time also was spent in such areas.2 UV radiation exposure and Fitzpatrick skin type are known risk factors across occupations, but are there special exposures that come with military aviation service?

To better understand the risk for malignancy in this special population, the US Air Force examined the rates of all cancer types among a cohort of flying versus nonflying officers.3 Aviation personnel showed increased incidence of testicular, bladder, and all-site cancers combined. Noticeably absent was a statistically significant increased risk for malignant melanoma (MM) and nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC). Other epidemiological studies examined the incidence rates of MM in the US Armed Forces compared with age- and race-matched civilian populations and showed mixed results: 2 studies showed increased risk,4,5 while a third showed decreased risk.6 Despite finding opposite results of MM rates in military members versus the civilian population, 2 of these studies showed US Air Force members to have higher rates of MM than those in the US Army or Navy.4,6 Interestingly, the air force has the highest number of pilots among all the services, with 4000 more pilots than the army and navy.7 Further studies are needed to determine if the higher air force MM rates occur in pilots.

Although there are mixed and limited data pertaining to military flight crews, there is more robust literature concerning civilian flight personnel. One meta-analysis pooled studies related to cancer risk in cabin crews and civil and military pilots.8 In military pilots, they found a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 1.43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.87) for MM and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.25-2.80) for NMSC. The SIRs were higher for male cabin attendants (3.42 and 7.46, respectively) and civil pilots (2.18 and 1.88, respectively). They also found the most common cause of mortality in civilian cabin crews was AIDS, possibly explaining the higher SIRs for all types of malignancy in that population.8 In the United States, many civilian pilots previously were military pilots9 who likely served in the military for at least 10 years.10 A 2015 meta-analysis of 19 studies of more than 266,000 civil pilots and aircrew members found an SIR for MM of 2.22 (95% CI, 1.67-2.93) for civil pilots and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.67-2.62) for aircrews, stating the risk for MM is at least twice that of the general population.11

 

 

Risk Factors

UV Radiation
These studies suggest flight duties increase the risk for cutaneous malignancy. UV radiation is a known risk factor for skin cancer.12 The main body of the aircraft may protect the cabin’s crew and passengers from UVR, but pilots are exposed to more UVR, especially in aircraft with larger windshields. A government study in 2007 examined the transmittance of UVR through windscreens of 8 aircraft: 3 commercial jets, 2 commercial propeller planes, 1 private jet, and 2 small propeller planes.13 UVB was attenuated by all the windscreens (<1% transmittance), but 43% to 54% of UVA was transmitted, with plastic windshields attenuating more than glass. Sanlorenzo et al14 measured UVA irradiance at the pilot’s seat of a turboprop aircraft at 30,000-ft altitude. They compared this exposure to a UVA tanning bed and estimated that 57 minutes of flight at 30,000-ft altitude was equivalent to 20 minutes inside a UVA tanning booth, a startling finding.14

Cosmic Radiation
Cosmic radiation consists of neutrons and gamma rays that originate outside Earth’s atmosphere. Pilots are exposed to higher doses of cosmic radiation than nonpilots, but the health effects are difficult to study. Boice et al15 described how factors such as altitude, latitude, and flight time determine pilots’ cumulative exposure. With longer flight times at higher altitudes, a pilot’s exposure to cosmic radiation is increasing over the years.15 A 2012 review found that aircrews have low-level cosmic radiation exposure. Despite increases in MM and NMSC in pilots and increased rates of breast cancer in female aircrew, overall cancer-related mortality was lower in flying versus nonflying controls.16 Thus, cosmic radiation may not be as onerous of an occupational hazard for pilots as has been postulated.

Altered Circadian Rhythms
Aviation duties, especially in the military, require irregular work schedules that repeatedly interfere with normal sleep-wake cycles, disrupt circadian rhythms, and lead to reduced melatonin levels.8 Evidence suggests that low levels of melatonin could increase the risk for breast and prostate cancer—both cancers that occur more frequently in female aircrew and male pilots, respectively—by reducing melatonin’s natural protective role in such malignancies.17,18 A World Health Organization working group categorized shift work as “probably carcinogenic” and cited alterations of melatonin levels, changes in other circadian rhythm–related gene pathways, and relative immunosuppression as likely causative factors.19 In a 2011 study, exposing mice to UVR during times when nucleotide excision repair mechanisms were at their lowest activity caused an increased rate of skin cancers.20 A 2014 review discussed how epidemiological studies of shift workers such as nurses, firefighters, pilots, and flight crews found contradictory data, but molecular studies show that circadian rhythm–linked repair and tumorigenesis mechanisms are altered by aberrations in the normal sleep-wake cycle.21

Cockpit Instrumentation
Electromagnetic energy from the flight instruments in the cockpit also could influence malignancy risk. Nicholas et al22 found magnetic field measurements within the cockpit to be 2 to 10 times that experienced within the home or office. However, no studies examining the health effects of cockpit flight instruments and magnetic fields were found.

Final Thoughts

It is important to counsel pilots on the generally recognized, nonaviation-specific risk factors of family history, skin type, and UVR exposure in the development of skin cancer. Additionally, it is important to explain the possible role of exposure to UVR at higher altitudes, cosmic radiation, and electromagnetic energy from cockpit instruments, as well as altered sleep-wake cycles. A pilot’s risk for MM may be twice that of matched controls, and the risk for NMSC could be higher.8,11 Although the literature lacks specific recommendations for pilots, it is reasonable to screen pilots once per year to better assess their individual risk and encourage diligent use of sunscreen and sun-protective measures when flying. It also may be important to advocate for the development of engineering controls that decrease UVR transmittance through windscreens, particularly for aircraft flying at higher altitudes for longer flights. More research is needed to determine if changes in circadian rhythm and decreases in melatonin increase skin cancer risk, which could impact how pilots’ schedules are managed. Together, we can ensure adequate surveillance, diagnosis, and treatment in this at-risk population.

References
  1. Roewert‐Huber J, Lange-Asschenfeldt B, Stockfleth E, et al. Epidemiology and aetiology of basal cell carcinoma. Br J Dermatol. 2007;157(suppl 2):47-51.
  2. Woolley SD, Hughes C. A young military pilot presents with a periocular basal cell carcinoma: a case report. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2013;11:435-437.
  3. Grayson JK, Lyons TJ. Cancer incidence in United States Air Force aircrew, 1975-89. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1996;67:101-104.
  4. Lea CS, Efird JT, Toland AE, et al. Melanoma incidence rates in active duty military personnel compared with a population-based registry in the United States, 2000-2007. Mil Med. 2014;179:247-253.
  5. Garland FC, White MR, Garland CF, et al. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the US Navy. Arc Environ Health. 1990;45:261-267.
  6. Zhou J, Enewold L, Zahm SH, et al. Melanoma incidence rates among whites in the US military. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:318-323.
  7. Active Duty Master Personnel File: Active Duty Tactical Operations Officers. Seaside, CA: Defense Manpower Data Center; August 31, 2017. Accessed September 22, 2017.
  8. Buja A, Lange JH, Perissinotto E, et al. Cancer incidence among male military and civil pilots and flight attendants: an analysis on published data. Toxicol Ind Health. 2005;21:273-282.
  9. Jansen HS, Oster CV, eds. Taking Flight: Education and Training for Aviation Careers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997.
  10. About AFROTC Service Commitment. US Air Force ROTC website. https://www.afrotc.com/about/service. Accessed September 20, 2017.
  11. Sanlorenzo M, Wehner MR, Linos E, et al. The risk of melanoma in airline pilots and cabin crew: a meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:51-58.
  12. Ananthaswamy HN, Pierceall WE. Molecular mechanisms of ultraviolet radiation carcinogenesis. Photochem Photobiol. 1990;52:1119-1136.
  13. Nakagawara VB, Montgomery RW, Marshall WJ. Optical Radiation Transmittance of Aircraft Windscreens and Pilot Vision. Oklahoma City, OK: Federal Aviation Administration; 2007.
  14. Sanlorenzo M, Vujic I, Posch C, et al. The risk of melanoma in pilots and cabin crew: UV measurements in flying airplanes. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:450-452.
  15. Boice JD, Blettner M, Auvinen A. Epidemiologic studies of pilots and aircrew. Health Phys. 2000;79:576-584.
  16. Zeeb H, Hammer GP, Blettner M. Epidemiological investigations of aircrew: an occupational group with low-level cosmic radiation exposure [published online March 6, 2012]. J Radiol Prot. 2012;32:N15-N19.
  17. Stevens RG. Circadian disruption and breast cancer: from melatonin to clock genes. Epidemiology. 2005;16:254-258.
  18. Siu SW, Lau KW, Tam PC, et al. Melatonin and prostate cancer cell proliferation: interplay with castration, epidermal growth factor, and androgen sensitivity. Prostate. 2002;52:106-122.
  19. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Painting, Firefighting, and Shiftwork. Lyon, France: World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010.
  20. Gaddameedhi S, Selby CP, Kaufmann WK, et al. Control of skin cancer by the circadian rhythm. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108:18790-18795.
  21. Markova-Car EP, Jurišic´ D, Ilic´ N, et al. Running for time: circadian rhythms and melanoma. Tumour Biol. 2014;35:8359-8368.
  22. Nicholas JS, Lackland DT, Butler GC, et al. Cosmic radiation and magnetic field exposure to airline flight crews. Am J Ind Med. 1998;34:574-580.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Wilkison is from Wilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center, San Antonio, Texas. Dr. Wong is from the University of Colorado, Aurora.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the US Department of the Army, the Department of the Air Force, or the Department of Defense.

Correspondence: Bart D. Wilkison, MD, Department of Dermatology, 2200 Bergquist Dr, San Antonio, TX 78236 (bart.wilkison@gmail.com).

Issue
Cutis - 100(4)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
218-220
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Wilkison is from Wilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center, San Antonio, Texas. Dr. Wong is from the University of Colorado, Aurora.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the US Department of the Army, the Department of the Air Force, or the Department of Defense.

Correspondence: Bart D. Wilkison, MD, Department of Dermatology, 2200 Bergquist Dr, San Antonio, TX 78236 (bart.wilkison@gmail.com).

Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Wilkison is from Wilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center, San Antonio, Texas. Dr. Wong is from the University of Colorado, Aurora.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the US Department of the Army, the Department of the Air Force, or the Department of Defense.

Correspondence: Bart D. Wilkison, MD, Department of Dermatology, 2200 Bergquist Dr, San Antonio, TX 78236 (bart.wilkison@gmail.com).

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
In partnership with the Association of Military Dermatologists
In partnership with the Association of Military Dermatologists

Military dermatologists are charged with caring for a diverse population of active-duty members, civilian dependents, and military retirees. Although certain risk factors for cutaneous malignancies are common in all of these groups, the active-duty population experiences unique exposures to be considered when determining their risk for skin cancer. One subset that may be at a higher risk is military pilots who fly at high altitudes on irregular schedules in austere environments. Through the unparalleled comradeship inherent in many military units, pilots “hear” from their fellow pilots that they are at increased risk for skin cancer. Do their occupational exposures translate into increased risk for cutaneous malignancy? This article will survey the literature pertaining to pilots and skin cancer so that all dermatologists may better care for this unique population.

Epidemiology

Anecdotally, we have observed basal cell carcinoma in pilots in their 20s and early 30s, earlier than would be expected in an otherwise healthy prescreened military population.1 Woolley and Hughes2 published a case report of skin cancer in a young military aviator. The patient was a 32-year-old male helicopter pilot with Fitzpatrick skin type II and no personal or family history of skin cancer who was diagnosed with a periocular nodular basal cell carcinoma. He deployed to locations with high UV radiation (UVR) indices, and his vacation time also was spent in such areas.2 UV radiation exposure and Fitzpatrick skin type are known risk factors across occupations, but are there special exposures that come with military aviation service?

To better understand the risk for malignancy in this special population, the US Air Force examined the rates of all cancer types among a cohort of flying versus nonflying officers.3 Aviation personnel showed increased incidence of testicular, bladder, and all-site cancers combined. Noticeably absent was a statistically significant increased risk for malignant melanoma (MM) and nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC). Other epidemiological studies examined the incidence rates of MM in the US Armed Forces compared with age- and race-matched civilian populations and showed mixed results: 2 studies showed increased risk,4,5 while a third showed decreased risk.6 Despite finding opposite results of MM rates in military members versus the civilian population, 2 of these studies showed US Air Force members to have higher rates of MM than those in the US Army or Navy.4,6 Interestingly, the air force has the highest number of pilots among all the services, with 4000 more pilots than the army and navy.7 Further studies are needed to determine if the higher air force MM rates occur in pilots.

Although there are mixed and limited data pertaining to military flight crews, there is more robust literature concerning civilian flight personnel. One meta-analysis pooled studies related to cancer risk in cabin crews and civil and military pilots.8 In military pilots, they found a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 1.43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.87) for MM and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.25-2.80) for NMSC. The SIRs were higher for male cabin attendants (3.42 and 7.46, respectively) and civil pilots (2.18 and 1.88, respectively). They also found the most common cause of mortality in civilian cabin crews was AIDS, possibly explaining the higher SIRs for all types of malignancy in that population.8 In the United States, many civilian pilots previously were military pilots9 who likely served in the military for at least 10 years.10 A 2015 meta-analysis of 19 studies of more than 266,000 civil pilots and aircrew members found an SIR for MM of 2.22 (95% CI, 1.67-2.93) for civil pilots and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.67-2.62) for aircrews, stating the risk for MM is at least twice that of the general population.11

 

 

Risk Factors

UV Radiation
These studies suggest flight duties increase the risk for cutaneous malignancy. UV radiation is a known risk factor for skin cancer.12 The main body of the aircraft may protect the cabin’s crew and passengers from UVR, but pilots are exposed to more UVR, especially in aircraft with larger windshields. A government study in 2007 examined the transmittance of UVR through windscreens of 8 aircraft: 3 commercial jets, 2 commercial propeller planes, 1 private jet, and 2 small propeller planes.13 UVB was attenuated by all the windscreens (<1% transmittance), but 43% to 54% of UVA was transmitted, with plastic windshields attenuating more than glass. Sanlorenzo et al14 measured UVA irradiance at the pilot’s seat of a turboprop aircraft at 30,000-ft altitude. They compared this exposure to a UVA tanning bed and estimated that 57 minutes of flight at 30,000-ft altitude was equivalent to 20 minutes inside a UVA tanning booth, a startling finding.14

Cosmic Radiation
Cosmic radiation consists of neutrons and gamma rays that originate outside Earth’s atmosphere. Pilots are exposed to higher doses of cosmic radiation than nonpilots, but the health effects are difficult to study. Boice et al15 described how factors such as altitude, latitude, and flight time determine pilots’ cumulative exposure. With longer flight times at higher altitudes, a pilot’s exposure to cosmic radiation is increasing over the years.15 A 2012 review found that aircrews have low-level cosmic radiation exposure. Despite increases in MM and NMSC in pilots and increased rates of breast cancer in female aircrew, overall cancer-related mortality was lower in flying versus nonflying controls.16 Thus, cosmic radiation may not be as onerous of an occupational hazard for pilots as has been postulated.

Altered Circadian Rhythms
Aviation duties, especially in the military, require irregular work schedules that repeatedly interfere with normal sleep-wake cycles, disrupt circadian rhythms, and lead to reduced melatonin levels.8 Evidence suggests that low levels of melatonin could increase the risk for breast and prostate cancer—both cancers that occur more frequently in female aircrew and male pilots, respectively—by reducing melatonin’s natural protective role in such malignancies.17,18 A World Health Organization working group categorized shift work as “probably carcinogenic” and cited alterations of melatonin levels, changes in other circadian rhythm–related gene pathways, and relative immunosuppression as likely causative factors.19 In a 2011 study, exposing mice to UVR during times when nucleotide excision repair mechanisms were at their lowest activity caused an increased rate of skin cancers.20 A 2014 review discussed how epidemiological studies of shift workers such as nurses, firefighters, pilots, and flight crews found contradictory data, but molecular studies show that circadian rhythm–linked repair and tumorigenesis mechanisms are altered by aberrations in the normal sleep-wake cycle.21

Cockpit Instrumentation
Electromagnetic energy from the flight instruments in the cockpit also could influence malignancy risk. Nicholas et al22 found magnetic field measurements within the cockpit to be 2 to 10 times that experienced within the home or office. However, no studies examining the health effects of cockpit flight instruments and magnetic fields were found.

Final Thoughts

It is important to counsel pilots on the generally recognized, nonaviation-specific risk factors of family history, skin type, and UVR exposure in the development of skin cancer. Additionally, it is important to explain the possible role of exposure to UVR at higher altitudes, cosmic radiation, and electromagnetic energy from cockpit instruments, as well as altered sleep-wake cycles. A pilot’s risk for MM may be twice that of matched controls, and the risk for NMSC could be higher.8,11 Although the literature lacks specific recommendations for pilots, it is reasonable to screen pilots once per year to better assess their individual risk and encourage diligent use of sunscreen and sun-protective measures when flying. It also may be important to advocate for the development of engineering controls that decrease UVR transmittance through windscreens, particularly for aircraft flying at higher altitudes for longer flights. More research is needed to determine if changes in circadian rhythm and decreases in melatonin increase skin cancer risk, which could impact how pilots’ schedules are managed. Together, we can ensure adequate surveillance, diagnosis, and treatment in this at-risk population.

Military dermatologists are charged with caring for a diverse population of active-duty members, civilian dependents, and military retirees. Although certain risk factors for cutaneous malignancies are common in all of these groups, the active-duty population experiences unique exposures to be considered when determining their risk for skin cancer. One subset that may be at a higher risk is military pilots who fly at high altitudes on irregular schedules in austere environments. Through the unparalleled comradeship inherent in many military units, pilots “hear” from their fellow pilots that they are at increased risk for skin cancer. Do their occupational exposures translate into increased risk for cutaneous malignancy? This article will survey the literature pertaining to pilots and skin cancer so that all dermatologists may better care for this unique population.

Epidemiology

Anecdotally, we have observed basal cell carcinoma in pilots in their 20s and early 30s, earlier than would be expected in an otherwise healthy prescreened military population.1 Woolley and Hughes2 published a case report of skin cancer in a young military aviator. The patient was a 32-year-old male helicopter pilot with Fitzpatrick skin type II and no personal or family history of skin cancer who was diagnosed with a periocular nodular basal cell carcinoma. He deployed to locations with high UV radiation (UVR) indices, and his vacation time also was spent in such areas.2 UV radiation exposure and Fitzpatrick skin type are known risk factors across occupations, but are there special exposures that come with military aviation service?

To better understand the risk for malignancy in this special population, the US Air Force examined the rates of all cancer types among a cohort of flying versus nonflying officers.3 Aviation personnel showed increased incidence of testicular, bladder, and all-site cancers combined. Noticeably absent was a statistically significant increased risk for malignant melanoma (MM) and nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC). Other epidemiological studies examined the incidence rates of MM in the US Armed Forces compared with age- and race-matched civilian populations and showed mixed results: 2 studies showed increased risk,4,5 while a third showed decreased risk.6 Despite finding opposite results of MM rates in military members versus the civilian population, 2 of these studies showed US Air Force members to have higher rates of MM than those in the US Army or Navy.4,6 Interestingly, the air force has the highest number of pilots among all the services, with 4000 more pilots than the army and navy.7 Further studies are needed to determine if the higher air force MM rates occur in pilots.

Although there are mixed and limited data pertaining to military flight crews, there is more robust literature concerning civilian flight personnel. One meta-analysis pooled studies related to cancer risk in cabin crews and civil and military pilots.8 In military pilots, they found a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 1.43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.87) for MM and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.25-2.80) for NMSC. The SIRs were higher for male cabin attendants (3.42 and 7.46, respectively) and civil pilots (2.18 and 1.88, respectively). They also found the most common cause of mortality in civilian cabin crews was AIDS, possibly explaining the higher SIRs for all types of malignancy in that population.8 In the United States, many civilian pilots previously were military pilots9 who likely served in the military for at least 10 years.10 A 2015 meta-analysis of 19 studies of more than 266,000 civil pilots and aircrew members found an SIR for MM of 2.22 (95% CI, 1.67-2.93) for civil pilots and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.67-2.62) for aircrews, stating the risk for MM is at least twice that of the general population.11

 

 

Risk Factors

UV Radiation
These studies suggest flight duties increase the risk for cutaneous malignancy. UV radiation is a known risk factor for skin cancer.12 The main body of the aircraft may protect the cabin’s crew and passengers from UVR, but pilots are exposed to more UVR, especially in aircraft with larger windshields. A government study in 2007 examined the transmittance of UVR through windscreens of 8 aircraft: 3 commercial jets, 2 commercial propeller planes, 1 private jet, and 2 small propeller planes.13 UVB was attenuated by all the windscreens (<1% transmittance), but 43% to 54% of UVA was transmitted, with plastic windshields attenuating more than glass. Sanlorenzo et al14 measured UVA irradiance at the pilot’s seat of a turboprop aircraft at 30,000-ft altitude. They compared this exposure to a UVA tanning bed and estimated that 57 minutes of flight at 30,000-ft altitude was equivalent to 20 minutes inside a UVA tanning booth, a startling finding.14

Cosmic Radiation
Cosmic radiation consists of neutrons and gamma rays that originate outside Earth’s atmosphere. Pilots are exposed to higher doses of cosmic radiation than nonpilots, but the health effects are difficult to study. Boice et al15 described how factors such as altitude, latitude, and flight time determine pilots’ cumulative exposure. With longer flight times at higher altitudes, a pilot’s exposure to cosmic radiation is increasing over the years.15 A 2012 review found that aircrews have low-level cosmic radiation exposure. Despite increases in MM and NMSC in pilots and increased rates of breast cancer in female aircrew, overall cancer-related mortality was lower in flying versus nonflying controls.16 Thus, cosmic radiation may not be as onerous of an occupational hazard for pilots as has been postulated.

Altered Circadian Rhythms
Aviation duties, especially in the military, require irregular work schedules that repeatedly interfere with normal sleep-wake cycles, disrupt circadian rhythms, and lead to reduced melatonin levels.8 Evidence suggests that low levels of melatonin could increase the risk for breast and prostate cancer—both cancers that occur more frequently in female aircrew and male pilots, respectively—by reducing melatonin’s natural protective role in such malignancies.17,18 A World Health Organization working group categorized shift work as “probably carcinogenic” and cited alterations of melatonin levels, changes in other circadian rhythm–related gene pathways, and relative immunosuppression as likely causative factors.19 In a 2011 study, exposing mice to UVR during times when nucleotide excision repair mechanisms were at their lowest activity caused an increased rate of skin cancers.20 A 2014 review discussed how epidemiological studies of shift workers such as nurses, firefighters, pilots, and flight crews found contradictory data, but molecular studies show that circadian rhythm–linked repair and tumorigenesis mechanisms are altered by aberrations in the normal sleep-wake cycle.21

Cockpit Instrumentation
Electromagnetic energy from the flight instruments in the cockpit also could influence malignancy risk. Nicholas et al22 found magnetic field measurements within the cockpit to be 2 to 10 times that experienced within the home or office. However, no studies examining the health effects of cockpit flight instruments and magnetic fields were found.

Final Thoughts

It is important to counsel pilots on the generally recognized, nonaviation-specific risk factors of family history, skin type, and UVR exposure in the development of skin cancer. Additionally, it is important to explain the possible role of exposure to UVR at higher altitudes, cosmic radiation, and electromagnetic energy from cockpit instruments, as well as altered sleep-wake cycles. A pilot’s risk for MM may be twice that of matched controls, and the risk for NMSC could be higher.8,11 Although the literature lacks specific recommendations for pilots, it is reasonable to screen pilots once per year to better assess their individual risk and encourage diligent use of sunscreen and sun-protective measures when flying. It also may be important to advocate for the development of engineering controls that decrease UVR transmittance through windscreens, particularly for aircraft flying at higher altitudes for longer flights. More research is needed to determine if changes in circadian rhythm and decreases in melatonin increase skin cancer risk, which could impact how pilots’ schedules are managed. Together, we can ensure adequate surveillance, diagnosis, and treatment in this at-risk population.

References
  1. Roewert‐Huber J, Lange-Asschenfeldt B, Stockfleth E, et al. Epidemiology and aetiology of basal cell carcinoma. Br J Dermatol. 2007;157(suppl 2):47-51.
  2. Woolley SD, Hughes C. A young military pilot presents with a periocular basal cell carcinoma: a case report. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2013;11:435-437.
  3. Grayson JK, Lyons TJ. Cancer incidence in United States Air Force aircrew, 1975-89. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1996;67:101-104.
  4. Lea CS, Efird JT, Toland AE, et al. Melanoma incidence rates in active duty military personnel compared with a population-based registry in the United States, 2000-2007. Mil Med. 2014;179:247-253.
  5. Garland FC, White MR, Garland CF, et al. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the US Navy. Arc Environ Health. 1990;45:261-267.
  6. Zhou J, Enewold L, Zahm SH, et al. Melanoma incidence rates among whites in the US military. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:318-323.
  7. Active Duty Master Personnel File: Active Duty Tactical Operations Officers. Seaside, CA: Defense Manpower Data Center; August 31, 2017. Accessed September 22, 2017.
  8. Buja A, Lange JH, Perissinotto E, et al. Cancer incidence among male military and civil pilots and flight attendants: an analysis on published data. Toxicol Ind Health. 2005;21:273-282.
  9. Jansen HS, Oster CV, eds. Taking Flight: Education and Training for Aviation Careers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997.
  10. About AFROTC Service Commitment. US Air Force ROTC website. https://www.afrotc.com/about/service. Accessed September 20, 2017.
  11. Sanlorenzo M, Wehner MR, Linos E, et al. The risk of melanoma in airline pilots and cabin crew: a meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:51-58.
  12. Ananthaswamy HN, Pierceall WE. Molecular mechanisms of ultraviolet radiation carcinogenesis. Photochem Photobiol. 1990;52:1119-1136.
  13. Nakagawara VB, Montgomery RW, Marshall WJ. Optical Radiation Transmittance of Aircraft Windscreens and Pilot Vision. Oklahoma City, OK: Federal Aviation Administration; 2007.
  14. Sanlorenzo M, Vujic I, Posch C, et al. The risk of melanoma in pilots and cabin crew: UV measurements in flying airplanes. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:450-452.
  15. Boice JD, Blettner M, Auvinen A. Epidemiologic studies of pilots and aircrew. Health Phys. 2000;79:576-584.
  16. Zeeb H, Hammer GP, Blettner M. Epidemiological investigations of aircrew: an occupational group with low-level cosmic radiation exposure [published online March 6, 2012]. J Radiol Prot. 2012;32:N15-N19.
  17. Stevens RG. Circadian disruption and breast cancer: from melatonin to clock genes. Epidemiology. 2005;16:254-258.
  18. Siu SW, Lau KW, Tam PC, et al. Melatonin and prostate cancer cell proliferation: interplay with castration, epidermal growth factor, and androgen sensitivity. Prostate. 2002;52:106-122.
  19. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Painting, Firefighting, and Shiftwork. Lyon, France: World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010.
  20. Gaddameedhi S, Selby CP, Kaufmann WK, et al. Control of skin cancer by the circadian rhythm. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108:18790-18795.
  21. Markova-Car EP, Jurišic´ D, Ilic´ N, et al. Running for time: circadian rhythms and melanoma. Tumour Biol. 2014;35:8359-8368.
  22. Nicholas JS, Lackland DT, Butler GC, et al. Cosmic radiation and magnetic field exposure to airline flight crews. Am J Ind Med. 1998;34:574-580.
References
  1. Roewert‐Huber J, Lange-Asschenfeldt B, Stockfleth E, et al. Epidemiology and aetiology of basal cell carcinoma. Br J Dermatol. 2007;157(suppl 2):47-51.
  2. Woolley SD, Hughes C. A young military pilot presents with a periocular basal cell carcinoma: a case report. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2013;11:435-437.
  3. Grayson JK, Lyons TJ. Cancer incidence in United States Air Force aircrew, 1975-89. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1996;67:101-104.
  4. Lea CS, Efird JT, Toland AE, et al. Melanoma incidence rates in active duty military personnel compared with a population-based registry in the United States, 2000-2007. Mil Med. 2014;179:247-253.
  5. Garland FC, White MR, Garland CF, et al. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the US Navy. Arc Environ Health. 1990;45:261-267.
  6. Zhou J, Enewold L, Zahm SH, et al. Melanoma incidence rates among whites in the US military. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:318-323.
  7. Active Duty Master Personnel File: Active Duty Tactical Operations Officers. Seaside, CA: Defense Manpower Data Center; August 31, 2017. Accessed September 22, 2017.
  8. Buja A, Lange JH, Perissinotto E, et al. Cancer incidence among male military and civil pilots and flight attendants: an analysis on published data. Toxicol Ind Health. 2005;21:273-282.
  9. Jansen HS, Oster CV, eds. Taking Flight: Education and Training for Aviation Careers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997.
  10. About AFROTC Service Commitment. US Air Force ROTC website. https://www.afrotc.com/about/service. Accessed September 20, 2017.
  11. Sanlorenzo M, Wehner MR, Linos E, et al. The risk of melanoma in airline pilots and cabin crew: a meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:51-58.
  12. Ananthaswamy HN, Pierceall WE. Molecular mechanisms of ultraviolet radiation carcinogenesis. Photochem Photobiol. 1990;52:1119-1136.
  13. Nakagawara VB, Montgomery RW, Marshall WJ. Optical Radiation Transmittance of Aircraft Windscreens and Pilot Vision. Oklahoma City, OK: Federal Aviation Administration; 2007.
  14. Sanlorenzo M, Vujic I, Posch C, et al. The risk of melanoma in pilots and cabin crew: UV measurements in flying airplanes. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:450-452.
  15. Boice JD, Blettner M, Auvinen A. Epidemiologic studies of pilots and aircrew. Health Phys. 2000;79:576-584.
  16. Zeeb H, Hammer GP, Blettner M. Epidemiological investigations of aircrew: an occupational group with low-level cosmic radiation exposure [published online March 6, 2012]. J Radiol Prot. 2012;32:N15-N19.
  17. Stevens RG. Circadian disruption and breast cancer: from melatonin to clock genes. Epidemiology. 2005;16:254-258.
  18. Siu SW, Lau KW, Tam PC, et al. Melatonin and prostate cancer cell proliferation: interplay with castration, epidermal growth factor, and androgen sensitivity. Prostate. 2002;52:106-122.
  19. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Painting, Firefighting, and Shiftwork. Lyon, France: World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010.
  20. Gaddameedhi S, Selby CP, Kaufmann WK, et al. Control of skin cancer by the circadian rhythm. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108:18790-18795.
  21. Markova-Car EP, Jurišic´ D, Ilic´ N, et al. Running for time: circadian rhythms and melanoma. Tumour Biol. 2014;35:8359-8368.
  22. Nicholas JS, Lackland DT, Butler GC, et al. Cosmic radiation and magnetic field exposure to airline flight crews. Am J Ind Med. 1998;34:574-580.
Issue
Cutis - 100(4)
Issue
Cutis - 100(4)
Page Number
218-220
Page Number
218-220
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Skin Cancer in Military Pilots: A Special Population With Special Risk Factors
Display Headline
Skin Cancer in Military Pilots: A Special Population With Special Risk Factors
Sections
Inside the Article

Practice Points

  • Military and civilian pilots have an increased risk for melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer, likely due to unique occupational exposures.
  • We recommend annual skin cancer screening for all pilots to help assess their individual risk.
  • Pilots should be educated on their increased risk for skin cancer and encouraged to use sun-protective measures during their flying duties and leisure activities.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article PDF Media

Noninvasive Imaging: Report From the Mount Sinai Fall Symposium

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 01/10/2019 - 13:45
Display Headline
Noninvasive Imaging: Report From the Mount Sinai Fall Symposium

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Publications
Topics

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Noninvasive Imaging: Report From the Mount Sinai Fall Symposium
Display Headline
Noninvasive Imaging: Report From the Mount Sinai Fall Symposium
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

Color Wheel Approach to Diagnosing Skin Cancer: Report From the Mount Sinai Fall Symposium

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 01/26/2021 - 16:16
Display Headline
Color Wheel Approach to Diagnosing Skin Cancer: Report From the Mount Sinai Fall Symposium

Publications
Topics

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Color Wheel Approach to Diagnosing Skin Cancer: Report From the Mount Sinai Fall Symposium
Display Headline
Color Wheel Approach to Diagnosing Skin Cancer: Report From the Mount Sinai Fall Symposium
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article

Liquid biopsy predicts checkpoint inhibitor response

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/04/2019 - 13:41

The overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors was 45% among cancer patients who had more than three variants of unknown significance in their circulating tumor DNA; among those with three or fewer, the response rate was 15%, according to a University of California, San Diego, investigation with 69 subjects.

Higher mutation burdens in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) also correlated with improved progression-free and overall survival across 20 cancer types, the investigators reported (Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Oct. 1. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1439).

Tumor mutation burdens can predict response to checkpoint inhibitors, but they are usually assessed by tissue biopsy, which is costly and invasive. The findings suggest that blood tests could replace tissue biopsies to green-light immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

“Our current results may be clinically exploitable. ... Liquid biopsies that assess blood-derived ctDNA are noninvasive, easily acquired, and inexpensive. The ctDNA derived from blood may also represent shed DNA from multiple metastatic sites, whereas tissue genomics reflects only the piece of tissue removed,” said investigators led by Yulian Khagi, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow at the university.

In a press statement, Dr. Khagi said “If verified by further studies, clinicians will be able to utilize the ... results of this simple blood test to make determinations about whether to use checkpoint inhibitor–based immune therapy in a variety of tumor types.”

The 69 patients were a median of 56 years old, and 43 (62.3%) were men. Melanoma, lung cancer, and head and neck cancer were the most common malignancies. The majority of patients had anti–PD-1 or PD-L1 monotherapy.

For most patients, blood samples were drawn a month or 2 before treatment. Next-generation sequencing (Guardant360) was done on ctDNA to detect alterations in cancer genes. Of the 69 patients, 20 (29%) had more than three variants of unknown significance (VUS); the rest had three or fewer.

The median overall survival was 15.3 months from the start of immunotherapy. For patients with three or fewer VUS, median overall survival was 10.72 months; for patients with more, median overall survival could not be calculated because more than half were alive at the study’s conclusion.

Median progression-fee survival was 2.07 months with three or fewer VUS, versus 3.84 months with more. The findings were statistically significant.

Similar results were found when all genomic alterations, not just VUS, were examined and dichotomized as six or more versus fewer than six.

“The number of genes assayed in our ctDNA analysis was only between 54 and 70. Unlike targeted NGS [next-generation sequencing] of tumor tissue, which often tests for hundreds of genes and allows a relatively accurate estimate of total mutational burden, targeted NGS of plasma ctDNA provides only a limited snapshot of the cancer genome. More extensive ctDNA gene panels merit investigation to determine if they increase the correlative value of our findings,” the investigators said.

The work was funded by the Joan and Irwin Jacobs Fund and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Khagi had no industry disclosures. Three authors reported financial ties to a number of companies, including Boehringer, Merck, Guardant, and Pfizer. The senior author has ownership interests in CureMatch.

Publications
Topics
Sections

The overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors was 45% among cancer patients who had more than three variants of unknown significance in their circulating tumor DNA; among those with three or fewer, the response rate was 15%, according to a University of California, San Diego, investigation with 69 subjects.

Higher mutation burdens in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) also correlated with improved progression-free and overall survival across 20 cancer types, the investigators reported (Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Oct. 1. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1439).

Tumor mutation burdens can predict response to checkpoint inhibitors, but they are usually assessed by tissue biopsy, which is costly and invasive. The findings suggest that blood tests could replace tissue biopsies to green-light immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

“Our current results may be clinically exploitable. ... Liquid biopsies that assess blood-derived ctDNA are noninvasive, easily acquired, and inexpensive. The ctDNA derived from blood may also represent shed DNA from multiple metastatic sites, whereas tissue genomics reflects only the piece of tissue removed,” said investigators led by Yulian Khagi, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow at the university.

In a press statement, Dr. Khagi said “If verified by further studies, clinicians will be able to utilize the ... results of this simple blood test to make determinations about whether to use checkpoint inhibitor–based immune therapy in a variety of tumor types.”

The 69 patients were a median of 56 years old, and 43 (62.3%) were men. Melanoma, lung cancer, and head and neck cancer were the most common malignancies. The majority of patients had anti–PD-1 or PD-L1 monotherapy.

For most patients, blood samples were drawn a month or 2 before treatment. Next-generation sequencing (Guardant360) was done on ctDNA to detect alterations in cancer genes. Of the 69 patients, 20 (29%) had more than three variants of unknown significance (VUS); the rest had three or fewer.

The median overall survival was 15.3 months from the start of immunotherapy. For patients with three or fewer VUS, median overall survival was 10.72 months; for patients with more, median overall survival could not be calculated because more than half were alive at the study’s conclusion.

Median progression-fee survival was 2.07 months with three or fewer VUS, versus 3.84 months with more. The findings were statistically significant.

Similar results were found when all genomic alterations, not just VUS, were examined and dichotomized as six or more versus fewer than six.

“The number of genes assayed in our ctDNA analysis was only between 54 and 70. Unlike targeted NGS [next-generation sequencing] of tumor tissue, which often tests for hundreds of genes and allows a relatively accurate estimate of total mutational burden, targeted NGS of plasma ctDNA provides only a limited snapshot of the cancer genome. More extensive ctDNA gene panels merit investigation to determine if they increase the correlative value of our findings,” the investigators said.

The work was funded by the Joan and Irwin Jacobs Fund and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Khagi had no industry disclosures. Three authors reported financial ties to a number of companies, including Boehringer, Merck, Guardant, and Pfizer. The senior author has ownership interests in CureMatch.

The overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors was 45% among cancer patients who had more than three variants of unknown significance in their circulating tumor DNA; among those with three or fewer, the response rate was 15%, according to a University of California, San Diego, investigation with 69 subjects.

Higher mutation burdens in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) also correlated with improved progression-free and overall survival across 20 cancer types, the investigators reported (Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Oct. 1. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1439).

Tumor mutation burdens can predict response to checkpoint inhibitors, but they are usually assessed by tissue biopsy, which is costly and invasive. The findings suggest that blood tests could replace tissue biopsies to green-light immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

“Our current results may be clinically exploitable. ... Liquid biopsies that assess blood-derived ctDNA are noninvasive, easily acquired, and inexpensive. The ctDNA derived from blood may also represent shed DNA from multiple metastatic sites, whereas tissue genomics reflects only the piece of tissue removed,” said investigators led by Yulian Khagi, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow at the university.

In a press statement, Dr. Khagi said “If verified by further studies, clinicians will be able to utilize the ... results of this simple blood test to make determinations about whether to use checkpoint inhibitor–based immune therapy in a variety of tumor types.”

The 69 patients were a median of 56 years old, and 43 (62.3%) were men. Melanoma, lung cancer, and head and neck cancer were the most common malignancies. The majority of patients had anti–PD-1 or PD-L1 monotherapy.

For most patients, blood samples were drawn a month or 2 before treatment. Next-generation sequencing (Guardant360) was done on ctDNA to detect alterations in cancer genes. Of the 69 patients, 20 (29%) had more than three variants of unknown significance (VUS); the rest had three or fewer.

The median overall survival was 15.3 months from the start of immunotherapy. For patients with three or fewer VUS, median overall survival was 10.72 months; for patients with more, median overall survival could not be calculated because more than half were alive at the study’s conclusion.

Median progression-fee survival was 2.07 months with three or fewer VUS, versus 3.84 months with more. The findings were statistically significant.

Similar results were found when all genomic alterations, not just VUS, were examined and dichotomized as six or more versus fewer than six.

“The number of genes assayed in our ctDNA analysis was only between 54 and 70. Unlike targeted NGS [next-generation sequencing] of tumor tissue, which often tests for hundreds of genes and allows a relatively accurate estimate of total mutational burden, targeted NGS of plasma ctDNA provides only a limited snapshot of the cancer genome. More extensive ctDNA gene panels merit investigation to determine if they increase the correlative value of our findings,” the investigators said.

The work was funded by the Joan and Irwin Jacobs Fund and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Khagi had no industry disclosures. Three authors reported financial ties to a number of companies, including Boehringer, Merck, Guardant, and Pfizer. The senior author has ownership interests in CureMatch.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: A simple blood test might soon replace tissue biopsy to green-light immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

Major finding: The overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors was 45% among cancer patients who had more than three variants of unknown significance in their circulating tumor DNA; among those with three or fewer, the response rate was 15%.

Data source: Review of 69 cancer patients.

Disclosures: The work was funded by the Joan and Irwin Jacobs Fund and the National Cancer Institute. Three investigators reported financial ties to a number of companies, including Boehringer, Merck, Guardant, and Pfizer. The senior author has ownership interests in CureMatch.

Disqus Comments
Default

Lithium may reduce melanoma risk

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 17:03

 

Adults with a history of lithium exposure had a 32% lower risk of melanoma than did those who were not exposed in an unadjusted analysis of data from more than 2 million patients.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Adults with a history of lithium exposure had a 32% lower risk of melanoma than did those who were not exposed in an unadjusted analysis of data from more than 2 million patients.

 

Adults with a history of lithium exposure had a 32% lower risk of melanoma than did those who were not exposed in an unadjusted analysis of data from more than 2 million patients.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM THE JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Lithium may reduce the risk of melanoma and melanoma mortality.

Major finding: The incidence of melanoma was significantly lower among adults exposed to lithium (67/100,000 person-years) than those not exposed (93/100,000 person-years).

Data source: The data come from a population-based, retrospective cohort study of 11,317 white adults in Northern California.

Disclosures: The lead author and one of the other four authors disclosed serving as investigators for studies funded by Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute.

Disqus Comments
Default

Mitotic rate not tied to SLN biopsy results in thin melanomas

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 04/11/2019 - 16:11

 

FRANCISCO – Mitotic rate was not found to be a good indicator for the outcome of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in thin tumors, in an analysis of melanoma cases.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

FRANCISCO – Mitotic rate was not found to be a good indicator for the outcome of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in thin tumors, in an analysis of melanoma cases.

 

FRANCISCO – Mitotic rate was not found to be a good indicator for the outcome of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in thin tumors, in an analysis of melanoma cases.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT PDA 2017

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: The results support the latest guidelines, which exclude mitotic rate in the criteria for upstaging thin melanomas.

Major finding: There was no association between mitotic rate and positive sentinel lymph node biopsy results.

Data source: A retrospective analysis of 990 patient records in Alberta, Canada.

Disclosures: Dr. Wat and Dr. Botto reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Adding T-vec might help surmount PD-1 resistance in melanoma

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/14/2019 - 10:08

 

Almost two-thirds of patients with advanced melanoma responded to combination therapy with pembrolizumab and talimogene laherparepvec (T-vec) in a small phase 1b trial, investigators reported.

Courtesy UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center
The orange object is a tumor, circles with symbols represent CD8 cells, the light green form (top center) is pembrolizumab, and the green circles with red centers represent T-VEC cells.
Anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies are becoming standard for treating various cancers, including metastatic melanoma. But regardless of cancer type, checkpoint blockade only helps some patients because most are resistant to PD-1 blockade, the researchers said. Tumor specimens from nonresponders have been found to lack CD8+ T cells, leaving anti-PD-1 antibodies without an effective target.

To see if attracting CD8+ T cells into tumors helped surmount this obstacle, the researchers treated 21 patients with advanced melanoma with pembrolizumab and T-vec, an intratumorally administered, genetically modified clinical herpes simplex virus-1 strain approved for treating melanoma. Patients first received up to 4 mL T-vec (106 plaque-forming units [pfu] per mL) to induce a protective immune response. Three weeks later, they started receiving to 4 mL (108 pfu/mL) T-vec plus 200 mg intravenous pembrolizumab every 2 weeks.

Thirteen patients (62%) showed at least a partial response, and seven (33%) had a complete response based on immune criteria. Notably, 9 of 13 (69%) patients with baseline tumor CD8+ densities below 1,000 cells/mm2 responded to combination treatment, as did three of five patients with low baseline IFN-gamma signatures.

“There was only one baseline biopsy that was scored as PD-L1 negative, but that patient went on to have a complete response to the combined therapy,” the researchers wrote. “Patients who responded to combination therapy had increased CD8+ T cells, elevated PD-L1 protein expression, [and] IFN-gamma gene expression on several cell subsets in tumors after [T-vec] treatment. Response to combination therapy did not appear to be associated with baseline CD8+ T cell infiltration or baseline IFN-gamma signature.” Increased levels of circulating immune cells and shrinkage of untreated tumors both suggested that intratumoral T-vec injections led to systemic effects, they added.

Dr. Antoni Ribas
The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (62%), chills (48%), and fever (43%), which occur with intratumoral T-vec therapy, said the investigators. Serious adverse events included grade 1 cytokine-release syndrome deemed possibly related to combination therapy, and one case each of aseptic meningitis, autoimmune hepatitis, and pneumonitis attributed to pembrolizumab. Ongoing studies include a phase 3 trial (NCT02263508) of the combination regimen and a study of immune biomarkers of the inflammatory effects of T-vec on tumors (NCT02366195).

Amgen and Merck provided funding. Dr. Ribas disclosed consulting fees from both companies.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Almost two-thirds of patients with advanced melanoma responded to combination therapy with pembrolizumab and talimogene laherparepvec (T-vec) in a small phase 1b trial, investigators reported.

Courtesy UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center
The orange object is a tumor, circles with symbols represent CD8 cells, the light green form (top center) is pembrolizumab, and the green circles with red centers represent T-VEC cells.
Anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies are becoming standard for treating various cancers, including metastatic melanoma. But regardless of cancer type, checkpoint blockade only helps some patients because most are resistant to PD-1 blockade, the researchers said. Tumor specimens from nonresponders have been found to lack CD8+ T cells, leaving anti-PD-1 antibodies without an effective target.

To see if attracting CD8+ T cells into tumors helped surmount this obstacle, the researchers treated 21 patients with advanced melanoma with pembrolizumab and T-vec, an intratumorally administered, genetically modified clinical herpes simplex virus-1 strain approved for treating melanoma. Patients first received up to 4 mL T-vec (106 plaque-forming units [pfu] per mL) to induce a protective immune response. Three weeks later, they started receiving to 4 mL (108 pfu/mL) T-vec plus 200 mg intravenous pembrolizumab every 2 weeks.

Thirteen patients (62%) showed at least a partial response, and seven (33%) had a complete response based on immune criteria. Notably, 9 of 13 (69%) patients with baseline tumor CD8+ densities below 1,000 cells/mm2 responded to combination treatment, as did three of five patients with low baseline IFN-gamma signatures.

“There was only one baseline biopsy that was scored as PD-L1 negative, but that patient went on to have a complete response to the combined therapy,” the researchers wrote. “Patients who responded to combination therapy had increased CD8+ T cells, elevated PD-L1 protein expression, [and] IFN-gamma gene expression on several cell subsets in tumors after [T-vec] treatment. Response to combination therapy did not appear to be associated with baseline CD8+ T cell infiltration or baseline IFN-gamma signature.” Increased levels of circulating immune cells and shrinkage of untreated tumors both suggested that intratumoral T-vec injections led to systemic effects, they added.

Dr. Antoni Ribas
The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (62%), chills (48%), and fever (43%), which occur with intratumoral T-vec therapy, said the investigators. Serious adverse events included grade 1 cytokine-release syndrome deemed possibly related to combination therapy, and one case each of aseptic meningitis, autoimmune hepatitis, and pneumonitis attributed to pembrolizumab. Ongoing studies include a phase 3 trial (NCT02263508) of the combination regimen and a study of immune biomarkers of the inflammatory effects of T-vec on tumors (NCT02366195).

Amgen and Merck provided funding. Dr. Ribas disclosed consulting fees from both companies.

 

Almost two-thirds of patients with advanced melanoma responded to combination therapy with pembrolizumab and talimogene laherparepvec (T-vec) in a small phase 1b trial, investigators reported.

Courtesy UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center
The orange object is a tumor, circles with symbols represent CD8 cells, the light green form (top center) is pembrolizumab, and the green circles with red centers represent T-VEC cells.
Anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies are becoming standard for treating various cancers, including metastatic melanoma. But regardless of cancer type, checkpoint blockade only helps some patients because most are resistant to PD-1 blockade, the researchers said. Tumor specimens from nonresponders have been found to lack CD8+ T cells, leaving anti-PD-1 antibodies without an effective target.

To see if attracting CD8+ T cells into tumors helped surmount this obstacle, the researchers treated 21 patients with advanced melanoma with pembrolizumab and T-vec, an intratumorally administered, genetically modified clinical herpes simplex virus-1 strain approved for treating melanoma. Patients first received up to 4 mL T-vec (106 plaque-forming units [pfu] per mL) to induce a protective immune response. Three weeks later, they started receiving to 4 mL (108 pfu/mL) T-vec plus 200 mg intravenous pembrolizumab every 2 weeks.

Thirteen patients (62%) showed at least a partial response, and seven (33%) had a complete response based on immune criteria. Notably, 9 of 13 (69%) patients with baseline tumor CD8+ densities below 1,000 cells/mm2 responded to combination treatment, as did three of five patients with low baseline IFN-gamma signatures.

“There was only one baseline biopsy that was scored as PD-L1 negative, but that patient went on to have a complete response to the combined therapy,” the researchers wrote. “Patients who responded to combination therapy had increased CD8+ T cells, elevated PD-L1 protein expression, [and] IFN-gamma gene expression on several cell subsets in tumors after [T-vec] treatment. Response to combination therapy did not appear to be associated with baseline CD8+ T cell infiltration or baseline IFN-gamma signature.” Increased levels of circulating immune cells and shrinkage of untreated tumors both suggested that intratumoral T-vec injections led to systemic effects, they added.

Dr. Antoni Ribas
The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (62%), chills (48%), and fever (43%), which occur with intratumoral T-vec therapy, said the investigators. Serious adverse events included grade 1 cytokine-release syndrome deemed possibly related to combination therapy, and one case each of aseptic meningitis, autoimmune hepatitis, and pneumonitis attributed to pembrolizumab. Ongoing studies include a phase 3 trial (NCT02263508) of the combination regimen and a study of immune biomarkers of the inflammatory effects of T-vec on tumors (NCT02366195).

Amgen and Merck provided funding. Dr. Ribas disclosed consulting fees from both companies.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM CELL

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Adding talimogene laherparepvec (T-vec) might help overcome resistance to anti-PD-1 antibodies in patients with advanced melanoma.

Major finding: In all, 62% of patients had at least a partial response and 33% had a complete response. Median progression-free and overall survival were not reached after a median of 18.6 weeks of follow-up.

Data source: A phase 1b clinical trial of 21 adults with advanced melanoma who received T-vec and pembrolizumab.

Disclosures: Amgen and Merck provided funding. Dr. Ribas disclosed consulting fees from both companies.

Disqus Comments
Default

COMBI-AD: Adjuvant combo halves relapses in BRAF V600-mutated melanoma

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/14/2019 - 10:08

 

– A combination of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (Tafinlar) and the MEK inhibitor trametinib (Mekinist) delivered in the adjuvant setting was associated with a halving of the risk for relapse compared with placebo among patients with advanced melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations, late-breaking results from a phase 3 trial show.

Among 438 patients with stage III BRAF V600-mutated melanoma randomly assigned after complete surgical resection to dabrafenib/trametinib in the COMBI-AD trial, the estimated rate of 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) was 58%, compared with 39% for 432 patients assigned to double placebos. This difference translated into a hazard ratio for relapse with the dabrafenib/trametinib combination of 0.47 (P less than .001).

Dr. Axel Hauschild
There was a numerical difference favoring the active combination in 3-year overall survival (OS) rates, but this difference did not cross the prespecified boundary for significance in the interim analysis, results of which were reported by Axel Hauschild, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein in Kiel, Germany.

“The relapse-free survival benefits were observed across all 12 subgroups which have been evaluated, so there’s not a single subgroup that is an outlier,” he said in a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Results of the study were published online concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In previous phase 3 trials in patients with BRAF V600 mutated metastatic or unresectable melanoma, the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib improved survival. Because treatment options for patients with resectable stage III melanomas are limited and less than optimal, the COMBI-AD investigators sought to explore whether the combination could improve outcomes when used in the adjuvant setting.

In the study reported by Dr. Hauschild, patients with completely resected, high-risk stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC cutaneous melanoma with the BRAF V600EK mutation who were surgically free of disease within 12 weeks of randomization were stratified by BRAF mutation status and disease stage, and then randomly assigned to receive either dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg once daily, or two matched placebos.

The RFS curves separated early in the study, and at 1 year the rate of RFS was 88% among patients treated with the combinations, compared with 56% for patients who got placebo. The respective rates at 2 and 3 years of follow-up were 67% vs. 44%, and, as noted before, 58% vs. 39%.

At this first interim analysis, the 1-year OS rate with dabrafenib/trametinib was 97% compared with 94% for placebo. Respective rates at 2 and 3 years of follow-up were 91% vs. 83%, and 86% vs. 77%, but as noted, the Kaplan-Meier survival curves appear to separate, but have yet to reach the prespecified boundary for significance.

As might be expected, the incidence of any grade 3 or 4 adverse events was higher in the combination group than in the placebo group, but there were no fatal adverse events related to assigned treatment. In all, 26% of patients assigned to dabrafenib/trametinib had to discontinue treatment due to adverse events, compared with 3% of patients assigned to placebo.

Dr. Hauschild said that the results of the COMBI-AD study and the Checkmate 238 study presented on the same day “will make a change in our textbooks and our current guidelines, because we have at least two new treatment options, and I think this is a new treatment option and a good day for our melanoma patients.”

His remarks were echoed by Olivier Michielin, MD, PhD, of the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics in Lausanne. He said that “we now have, with the data, two fantastic new options. We couldn’t dream those studies to be so positive. This is really something that will open new features for our patients.”

Dr. Michielin was invited by ESMO to comment on the study.

COMBI-AD was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. Dabrafenib and trametinib have been owned by Novartis AG since March, 2015. Dr. Hauschild disclosed trial support, honoraria, and/or consultancy fees from Novartis and others. Dr. Michielin disclosed consulting and/or honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Roche, MSD, Novartis, and GSK.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– A combination of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (Tafinlar) and the MEK inhibitor trametinib (Mekinist) delivered in the adjuvant setting was associated with a halving of the risk for relapse compared with placebo among patients with advanced melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations, late-breaking results from a phase 3 trial show.

Among 438 patients with stage III BRAF V600-mutated melanoma randomly assigned after complete surgical resection to dabrafenib/trametinib in the COMBI-AD trial, the estimated rate of 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) was 58%, compared with 39% for 432 patients assigned to double placebos. This difference translated into a hazard ratio for relapse with the dabrafenib/trametinib combination of 0.47 (P less than .001).

Dr. Axel Hauschild
There was a numerical difference favoring the active combination in 3-year overall survival (OS) rates, but this difference did not cross the prespecified boundary for significance in the interim analysis, results of which were reported by Axel Hauschild, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein in Kiel, Germany.

“The relapse-free survival benefits were observed across all 12 subgroups which have been evaluated, so there’s not a single subgroup that is an outlier,” he said in a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Results of the study were published online concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In previous phase 3 trials in patients with BRAF V600 mutated metastatic or unresectable melanoma, the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib improved survival. Because treatment options for patients with resectable stage III melanomas are limited and less than optimal, the COMBI-AD investigators sought to explore whether the combination could improve outcomes when used in the adjuvant setting.

In the study reported by Dr. Hauschild, patients with completely resected, high-risk stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC cutaneous melanoma with the BRAF V600EK mutation who were surgically free of disease within 12 weeks of randomization were stratified by BRAF mutation status and disease stage, and then randomly assigned to receive either dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg once daily, or two matched placebos.

The RFS curves separated early in the study, and at 1 year the rate of RFS was 88% among patients treated with the combinations, compared with 56% for patients who got placebo. The respective rates at 2 and 3 years of follow-up were 67% vs. 44%, and, as noted before, 58% vs. 39%.

At this first interim analysis, the 1-year OS rate with dabrafenib/trametinib was 97% compared with 94% for placebo. Respective rates at 2 and 3 years of follow-up were 91% vs. 83%, and 86% vs. 77%, but as noted, the Kaplan-Meier survival curves appear to separate, but have yet to reach the prespecified boundary for significance.

As might be expected, the incidence of any grade 3 or 4 adverse events was higher in the combination group than in the placebo group, but there were no fatal adverse events related to assigned treatment. In all, 26% of patients assigned to dabrafenib/trametinib had to discontinue treatment due to adverse events, compared with 3% of patients assigned to placebo.

Dr. Hauschild said that the results of the COMBI-AD study and the Checkmate 238 study presented on the same day “will make a change in our textbooks and our current guidelines, because we have at least two new treatment options, and I think this is a new treatment option and a good day for our melanoma patients.”

His remarks were echoed by Olivier Michielin, MD, PhD, of the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics in Lausanne. He said that “we now have, with the data, two fantastic new options. We couldn’t dream those studies to be so positive. This is really something that will open new features for our patients.”

Dr. Michielin was invited by ESMO to comment on the study.

COMBI-AD was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. Dabrafenib and trametinib have been owned by Novartis AG since March, 2015. Dr. Hauschild disclosed trial support, honoraria, and/or consultancy fees from Novartis and others. Dr. Michielin disclosed consulting and/or honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Roche, MSD, Novartis, and GSK.

 

– A combination of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (Tafinlar) and the MEK inhibitor trametinib (Mekinist) delivered in the adjuvant setting was associated with a halving of the risk for relapse compared with placebo among patients with advanced melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations, late-breaking results from a phase 3 trial show.

Among 438 patients with stage III BRAF V600-mutated melanoma randomly assigned after complete surgical resection to dabrafenib/trametinib in the COMBI-AD trial, the estimated rate of 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) was 58%, compared with 39% for 432 patients assigned to double placebos. This difference translated into a hazard ratio for relapse with the dabrafenib/trametinib combination of 0.47 (P less than .001).

Dr. Axel Hauschild
There was a numerical difference favoring the active combination in 3-year overall survival (OS) rates, but this difference did not cross the prespecified boundary for significance in the interim analysis, results of which were reported by Axel Hauschild, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein in Kiel, Germany.

“The relapse-free survival benefits were observed across all 12 subgroups which have been evaluated, so there’s not a single subgroup that is an outlier,” he said in a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Results of the study were published online concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In previous phase 3 trials in patients with BRAF V600 mutated metastatic or unresectable melanoma, the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib improved survival. Because treatment options for patients with resectable stage III melanomas are limited and less than optimal, the COMBI-AD investigators sought to explore whether the combination could improve outcomes when used in the adjuvant setting.

In the study reported by Dr. Hauschild, patients with completely resected, high-risk stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC cutaneous melanoma with the BRAF V600EK mutation who were surgically free of disease within 12 weeks of randomization were stratified by BRAF mutation status and disease stage, and then randomly assigned to receive either dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg once daily, or two matched placebos.

The RFS curves separated early in the study, and at 1 year the rate of RFS was 88% among patients treated with the combinations, compared with 56% for patients who got placebo. The respective rates at 2 and 3 years of follow-up were 67% vs. 44%, and, as noted before, 58% vs. 39%.

At this first interim analysis, the 1-year OS rate with dabrafenib/trametinib was 97% compared with 94% for placebo. Respective rates at 2 and 3 years of follow-up were 91% vs. 83%, and 86% vs. 77%, but as noted, the Kaplan-Meier survival curves appear to separate, but have yet to reach the prespecified boundary for significance.

As might be expected, the incidence of any grade 3 or 4 adverse events was higher in the combination group than in the placebo group, but there were no fatal adverse events related to assigned treatment. In all, 26% of patients assigned to dabrafenib/trametinib had to discontinue treatment due to adverse events, compared with 3% of patients assigned to placebo.

Dr. Hauschild said that the results of the COMBI-AD study and the Checkmate 238 study presented on the same day “will make a change in our textbooks and our current guidelines, because we have at least two new treatment options, and I think this is a new treatment option and a good day for our melanoma patients.”

His remarks were echoed by Olivier Michielin, MD, PhD, of the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics in Lausanne. He said that “we now have, with the data, two fantastic new options. We couldn’t dream those studies to be so positive. This is really something that will open new features for our patients.”

Dr. Michielin was invited by ESMO to comment on the study.

COMBI-AD was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. Dabrafenib and trametinib have been owned by Novartis AG since March, 2015. Dr. Hauschild disclosed trial support, honoraria, and/or consultancy fees from Novartis and others. Dr. Michielin disclosed consulting and/or honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Roche, MSD, Novartis, and GSK.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT ESMO 2017

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Adjuvant therapy with a BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination significantly improved outcomes for patients with stage III completely resectable melanoma.

Major finding: The hazard ratio for relapse with the dabrafenib/trametinib combination vs. placebo was 0.47 (P less than .001).

Data source: Randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of 870 patients with stage III, completely resectable BRAF-mutated melanoma.

Disclosures: COMBI-AD was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. Dabrafenib and trametinib have been owned by Novartis AG since March, 2015. Dr. Hauschild disclosed trial support, honoraria, and/or consultancy fees from Novartis and others. Dr. Michielin disclosed consulting and/or honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Roche, MSD, Novartis, and GSK.

Disqus Comments
Default

Checkmate 238: Nivolumab bests ipilimumab for resectable stage III or IV melanoma

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/14/2019 - 10:08

 

– For patients with resectable stage III melanoma, adjuvant therapy with the programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) was associated with significantly longer relapse-free survival compared with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy), results of a randomized phase 3 trial show.

Dr. Jeffrey Weber
“Our feeling is that if high-risk patients receive nivolumab after resection, those patients may have significant benefit,” he said at a briefing at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

However, longer follow-up will be needed to see whether the RFS advantage of nivolumab translates into an overall survival advantage, he acknowledged.

In the trial, patients with high-risk, completely resected stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma were stratified by disease stage and PD-L1 status at baseline and randomly assigned in cohorts of 453 patients each to receive either nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks and ipilimumab placebo every 3 weeks for four doses, or to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 12 weeks from week 24, and nivolumab placebo IV every 2 weeks.

The maximum duration of therapy was 1 year.

For the primary RFS endpoint, the hazard ratio (HR) favoring nivolumab was 0.65 (P less than .0001).

The benefit for nivolumab was observed across the majority of prespecified subgroups tested, including PD-L1 and BRAF mutational status, Dr. Weber said.

Nivolumab also had a better safety profile, with a 14.4% incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events, compared with 45.9% for ipilimumab. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of therapy occurred in 4.6% of patients on nivolumab, compared with 30.9% of those on ipilimumab.

Two patients in the ipilimumab arm died from toxicities related to therapy, one from marrow aplasia, and one from colitis. Both of these deaths occurred more than 100 days after the patients received their last dose of ipilimumab. There were no treatment-related deaths in the nivolumab arm.

Commenting on both the Checkmate 238 trial and a second trial reported at ESMO (COMBI-AD) looking at a combination of dabrafenib and trametinib for patients with stage III melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation, Olivier Michielin, MD, PhD, said that “we now have, with the data, two fantastic new options. We couldn’t dream those studies to be so positive. This is really something that will open new futures for our patients.”

Dr. Reinhard Dummer
Reinhard Dummer, MD, of the University of Zurich, said that “the good news is that we have two positive clinical trials, and the results of these trials are extremely encouraging. Both of the results will change our current practice,” he said.

Dr. Michielin and Dr. Dummer were invited commentators at the briefing. Dr. Michielin was not involved in either trial. Dr. Dummer was a coinvestigator for the COMBI-AD trial.

The study was published simultaneously online by the New England Journal of Medicine.

Checkmate 238 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Weber disclosed honoraria, consulting fees, and travel accommodations/expenses from BMS and multiple other companies. Dr. Michielin disclosed consulting and/or honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Roche, MSD, Novartis, and GSK. Dr. Dummer reported advising/consulting roles with BMS and others.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– For patients with resectable stage III melanoma, adjuvant therapy with the programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) was associated with significantly longer relapse-free survival compared with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy), results of a randomized phase 3 trial show.

Dr. Jeffrey Weber
“Our feeling is that if high-risk patients receive nivolumab after resection, those patients may have significant benefit,” he said at a briefing at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

However, longer follow-up will be needed to see whether the RFS advantage of nivolumab translates into an overall survival advantage, he acknowledged.

In the trial, patients with high-risk, completely resected stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma were stratified by disease stage and PD-L1 status at baseline and randomly assigned in cohorts of 453 patients each to receive either nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks and ipilimumab placebo every 3 weeks for four doses, or to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 12 weeks from week 24, and nivolumab placebo IV every 2 weeks.

The maximum duration of therapy was 1 year.

For the primary RFS endpoint, the hazard ratio (HR) favoring nivolumab was 0.65 (P less than .0001).

The benefit for nivolumab was observed across the majority of prespecified subgroups tested, including PD-L1 and BRAF mutational status, Dr. Weber said.

Nivolumab also had a better safety profile, with a 14.4% incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events, compared with 45.9% for ipilimumab. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of therapy occurred in 4.6% of patients on nivolumab, compared with 30.9% of those on ipilimumab.

Two patients in the ipilimumab arm died from toxicities related to therapy, one from marrow aplasia, and one from colitis. Both of these deaths occurred more than 100 days after the patients received their last dose of ipilimumab. There were no treatment-related deaths in the nivolumab arm.

Commenting on both the Checkmate 238 trial and a second trial reported at ESMO (COMBI-AD) looking at a combination of dabrafenib and trametinib for patients with stage III melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation, Olivier Michielin, MD, PhD, said that “we now have, with the data, two fantastic new options. We couldn’t dream those studies to be so positive. This is really something that will open new futures for our patients.”

Dr. Reinhard Dummer
Reinhard Dummer, MD, of the University of Zurich, said that “the good news is that we have two positive clinical trials, and the results of these trials are extremely encouraging. Both of the results will change our current practice,” he said.

Dr. Michielin and Dr. Dummer were invited commentators at the briefing. Dr. Michielin was not involved in either trial. Dr. Dummer was a coinvestigator for the COMBI-AD trial.

The study was published simultaneously online by the New England Journal of Medicine.

Checkmate 238 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Weber disclosed honoraria, consulting fees, and travel accommodations/expenses from BMS and multiple other companies. Dr. Michielin disclosed consulting and/or honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Roche, MSD, Novartis, and GSK. Dr. Dummer reported advising/consulting roles with BMS and others.

 

– For patients with resectable stage III melanoma, adjuvant therapy with the programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) was associated with significantly longer relapse-free survival compared with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy), results of a randomized phase 3 trial show.

Dr. Jeffrey Weber
“Our feeling is that if high-risk patients receive nivolumab after resection, those patients may have significant benefit,” he said at a briefing at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

However, longer follow-up will be needed to see whether the RFS advantage of nivolumab translates into an overall survival advantage, he acknowledged.

In the trial, patients with high-risk, completely resected stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma were stratified by disease stage and PD-L1 status at baseline and randomly assigned in cohorts of 453 patients each to receive either nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks and ipilimumab placebo every 3 weeks for four doses, or to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 12 weeks from week 24, and nivolumab placebo IV every 2 weeks.

The maximum duration of therapy was 1 year.

For the primary RFS endpoint, the hazard ratio (HR) favoring nivolumab was 0.65 (P less than .0001).

The benefit for nivolumab was observed across the majority of prespecified subgroups tested, including PD-L1 and BRAF mutational status, Dr. Weber said.

Nivolumab also had a better safety profile, with a 14.4% incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events, compared with 45.9% for ipilimumab. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of therapy occurred in 4.6% of patients on nivolumab, compared with 30.9% of those on ipilimumab.

Two patients in the ipilimumab arm died from toxicities related to therapy, one from marrow aplasia, and one from colitis. Both of these deaths occurred more than 100 days after the patients received their last dose of ipilimumab. There were no treatment-related deaths in the nivolumab arm.

Commenting on both the Checkmate 238 trial and a second trial reported at ESMO (COMBI-AD) looking at a combination of dabrafenib and trametinib for patients with stage III melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation, Olivier Michielin, MD, PhD, said that “we now have, with the data, two fantastic new options. We couldn’t dream those studies to be so positive. This is really something that will open new futures for our patients.”

Dr. Reinhard Dummer
Reinhard Dummer, MD, of the University of Zurich, said that “the good news is that we have two positive clinical trials, and the results of these trials are extremely encouraging. Both of the results will change our current practice,” he said.

Dr. Michielin and Dr. Dummer were invited commentators at the briefing. Dr. Michielin was not involved in either trial. Dr. Dummer was a coinvestigator for the COMBI-AD trial.

The study was published simultaneously online by the New England Journal of Medicine.

Checkmate 238 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Weber disclosed honoraria, consulting fees, and travel accommodations/expenses from BMS and multiple other companies. Dr. Michielin disclosed consulting and/or honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Roche, MSD, Novartis, and GSK. Dr. Dummer reported advising/consulting roles with BMS and others.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT ESMO 2017

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Nivolumab improved relapse-free survival over ipilimumab in patients with stage III or IV resectable melanoma.

Major finding: The rates of relapse-free survival were 71% at 12 months for patients assigned to adjuvant nivolumab, compared with 61% for adjuvant ipilimumab.

Data source: Randomized clinical trial in 906 patients with completely resectable stage III melanoma.

Disclosures: Checkmate 238 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Weber disclosed honoraria, consulting fees, and travel accommodations/expenses from BMS and other companies. Dr. Michielin disclosed consulting and/or honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Roche, MSD, Novartis, and GSK.. Dr. Dummer reported advising/consulting roles with BMS and others.

Disqus Comments
Default