Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

TOPLINE:

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is less common and is associated with higher mortality rates than melanoma, according to a study that also reported that male gender, older age, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) are significant risk factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 19,444 MCC cases and 646,619 melanoma cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2021 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
• Ambient UVR exposure data were obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s total ozone mapping spectrometer database.
• Risk factors and cancer-specific mortality rates were evaluated for both cancers.

TAKEAWAY:

• Incidence rates per 100,000 person-years of MCC and melanoma were 0.8 and 27.3, respectively.
• Men (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72 for MCC and 1.23 for melanoma), older age groups (IRR: 2.69 for MCC and 1.62 for melanoma among those 70-79 years; and 5.68 for MCC and 2.26 for melanoma among those 80 years or older) showed higher incidences of MCC and melanoma. Non-Hispanic White individuals were at higher risk for MCC and melanoma than other racial/ethnic groups.
• Exposure to UVR was associated with higher incidences of melanoma (IRR, 1.24-1.49) and MCC (IRR, 1.15-1.20) in non-Hispanic White individuals, particularly on the head and neck. These associations were unclear among racial/ethnic groups.
• Individuals with MCC had a higher risk for cancer-specific mortality than those with melanoma (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% CI, 2.26-2.42). Cancer-specific survival for both cancers improved for cases diagnosed during 2012-2021 vs 2004-2011 (MCC: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89; melanoma: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76).

IN PRACTICE:

“MCC and melanoma are aggressive skin cancers with similar risk factors including male sex, older age, and UV radiation exposure. Clinicians should be alert to diagnosis of these cancers to allow for prompt treatment,” the authors wrote, adding: “It is encouraging that survival for both cancers has increased in recent years, with the largest gains in survival seen in distant stage melanoma, coinciding with the approval of BRAF and PD-1 inhibitors used for distant stage disease,” although mortality for advanced stage tumors “continues to be very high.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on January 5 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on SEER’s general staging system rather than the American Joint Committee on Cancer standard, and UVR exposure estimates did not account for individual sun protection behaviors or prior residential history. Race and ethnicity served as a proxy for UVR sensitivity, which may introduce misclassification bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Association for Dental Research, and the Colgate-Palmolive Company. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is less common and is associated with higher mortality rates than melanoma, according to a study that also reported that male gender, older age, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) are significant risk factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 19,444 MCC cases and 646,619 melanoma cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2021 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
• Ambient UVR exposure data were obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s total ozone mapping spectrometer database.
• Risk factors and cancer-specific mortality rates were evaluated for both cancers.

TAKEAWAY:

• Incidence rates per 100,000 person-years of MCC and melanoma were 0.8 and 27.3, respectively.
• Men (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72 for MCC and 1.23 for melanoma), older age groups (IRR: 2.69 for MCC and 1.62 for melanoma among those 70-79 years; and 5.68 for MCC and 2.26 for melanoma among those 80 years or older) showed higher incidences of MCC and melanoma. Non-Hispanic White individuals were at higher risk for MCC and melanoma than other racial/ethnic groups.
• Exposure to UVR was associated with higher incidences of melanoma (IRR, 1.24-1.49) and MCC (IRR, 1.15-1.20) in non-Hispanic White individuals, particularly on the head and neck. These associations were unclear among racial/ethnic groups.
• Individuals with MCC had a higher risk for cancer-specific mortality than those with melanoma (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% CI, 2.26-2.42). Cancer-specific survival for both cancers improved for cases diagnosed during 2012-2021 vs 2004-2011 (MCC: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89; melanoma: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76).

IN PRACTICE:

“MCC and melanoma are aggressive skin cancers with similar risk factors including male sex, older age, and UV radiation exposure. Clinicians should be alert to diagnosis of these cancers to allow for prompt treatment,” the authors wrote, adding: “It is encouraging that survival for both cancers has increased in recent years, with the largest gains in survival seen in distant stage melanoma, coinciding with the approval of BRAF and PD-1 inhibitors used for distant stage disease,” although mortality for advanced stage tumors “continues to be very high.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on January 5 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on SEER’s general staging system rather than the American Joint Committee on Cancer standard, and UVR exposure estimates did not account for individual sun protection behaviors or prior residential history. Race and ethnicity served as a proxy for UVR sensitivity, which may introduce misclassification bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Association for Dental Research, and the Colgate-Palmolive Company. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is less common and is associated with higher mortality rates than melanoma, according to a study that also reported that male gender, older age, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) are significant risk factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 19,444 MCC cases and 646,619 melanoma cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2021 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
• Ambient UVR exposure data were obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s total ozone mapping spectrometer database.
• Risk factors and cancer-specific mortality rates were evaluated for both cancers.

TAKEAWAY:

• Incidence rates per 100,000 person-years of MCC and melanoma were 0.8 and 27.3, respectively.
• Men (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72 for MCC and 1.23 for melanoma), older age groups (IRR: 2.69 for MCC and 1.62 for melanoma among those 70-79 years; and 5.68 for MCC and 2.26 for melanoma among those 80 years or older) showed higher incidences of MCC and melanoma. Non-Hispanic White individuals were at higher risk for MCC and melanoma than other racial/ethnic groups.
• Exposure to UVR was associated with higher incidences of melanoma (IRR, 1.24-1.49) and MCC (IRR, 1.15-1.20) in non-Hispanic White individuals, particularly on the head and neck. These associations were unclear among racial/ethnic groups.
• Individuals with MCC had a higher risk for cancer-specific mortality than those with melanoma (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% CI, 2.26-2.42). Cancer-specific survival for both cancers improved for cases diagnosed during 2012-2021 vs 2004-2011 (MCC: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89; melanoma: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76).

IN PRACTICE:

“MCC and melanoma are aggressive skin cancers with similar risk factors including male sex, older age, and UV radiation exposure. Clinicians should be alert to diagnosis of these cancers to allow for prompt treatment,” the authors wrote, adding: “It is encouraging that survival for both cancers has increased in recent years, with the largest gains in survival seen in distant stage melanoma, coinciding with the approval of BRAF and PD-1 inhibitors used for distant stage disease,” although mortality for advanced stage tumors “continues to be very high.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on January 5 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on SEER’s general staging system rather than the American Joint Committee on Cancer standard, and UVR exposure estimates did not account for individual sun protection behaviors or prior residential history. Race and ethnicity served as a proxy for UVR sensitivity, which may introduce misclassification bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Association for Dental Research, and the Colgate-Palmolive Company. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.

But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.

MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.

Why are certain lesions invisible with MRI? And is it dangerous for patients if these lesions are not detected? 

Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.

If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”

Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.

But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.

Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.

MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.

In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.

Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.

When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.

“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.

The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.

But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”

The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.

According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.

In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.

“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.

 

Next Steps After Negative MRI Result

What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?

The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.

Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.

The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.

Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.

These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.

Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.” 

According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.

Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.

But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.

MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.

Why are certain lesions invisible with MRI? And is it dangerous for patients if these lesions are not detected? 

Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.

If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”

Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.

But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.

Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.

MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.

In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.

Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.

When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.

“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.

The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.

But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”

The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.

According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.

In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.

“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.

 

Next Steps After Negative MRI Result

What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?

The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.

Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.

The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.

Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.

These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.

Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.” 

According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.

Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.

But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.

MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.

Why are certain lesions invisible with MRI? And is it dangerous for patients if these lesions are not detected? 

Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.

If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”

Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.

But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.

Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.

MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.

In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.

Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.

When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.

“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.

The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.

But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”

The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.

According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.

In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.

“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.

 

Next Steps After Negative MRI Result

What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?

The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.

Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.

The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.

Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.

These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.

Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.” 

According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.

Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Hidradenocarcinoma

Both the original and recurrent lesions were interpreted as a chondroid syringoma, a benign adnexal tumor; however, the third biopsy of the lesion revealed a low-grade adnexal neoplasm with irregular nests of variably sized epithelial cells demonstrating mild nuclear atypia and low mitotic activity. Given the multiple recurrences, accelerated growth, and more aggressive histologic findings, the patient was referred to our clinic for surgical management.

We elected to perform modified Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) with permanent tissue sections to enable the application of immunohistochemical stains to fully characterize the tumor. Histopathology showed a poorly circumscribed infiltrative dermal neoplasm composed of basaloid cells with a solid and cystic growth pattern in a background of hyalinized, fibrotic stroma (Figure, A and B). There were focal clear cell and squamous features as well as focal ductal differentiation (Figure, C and D). No obvious papillary structures were noted. The tumor cells were positive for D2-40, and staining for CD31 failed to reveal lymphovascular invasion. Based on the infiltrative features in conjunction with the findings from the prior biopsies, a diagnosis of hidradenocarcinoma (HAC) was made. Deep and peripheral margins were cleared after 2 stages of MMS.

Initially described in 1954, HAC is an exceedingly rare adnexal tumor of apocrine and eccrine derivation.¹ Historically, nomenclature for this entity has varied in the literature, including synonyms such as malignant nodular hidradenoma, malignant acrospiroma, solid-cystic adenocarcinoma, and malignant clear cell myoepithelioma.^2,3 Approximately 6% of all malignant eccrine tumors worldwide are HACs, which account for only 1 in 13,000 dermatopathology specimens.¹ These tumors may transform from clear cell hidradenomas (their benign counterparts) but more commonly arise de novo. Compared to benign hidradenomas, HACs are poorly circumscribed with infiltrative growth patterns on histopathology and may exhibit nuclear pleomorphism, prominent mitotic activity, necrosis, and perineural or vascular invasion.²

Clinically, HAC manifests as a 1- to 5-cm, solitary, firm, intradermal pink or violaceous nodule with possible ulceration.^2,4 The nodule often is asymptomatic but may be tender, as in our patient. There seems to be no clear anatomic site of predilection, with approximately 42% of HACs localized to the head and neck and the remainder occurring on the trunk, arms, and legs.^3,5-7 Females and males are affected equally, and lesions tend to arise in the seventh decade of life.⁷

Reports in the literature suggest that HAC is a very aggressive tumor with a generally poor prognosis.¹ Several studies have found that up to half of tumors locally recur despite aggressive surgical management, and metastasis occurs in 20% to 60% of patients.^3,8 However, a large study of US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data investigating the clinicopathologic characteristics of 289 patients with HAC revealed a more favorable prognosis.⁷ Mean overall survival and cancer-specific survival were greater than 13 years, and 10-year overall survival and cancer-specific survival rates were 60.2% and 90.5%, respectively.

Traditionally used to treat keratinocyte carcinomas, including basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, complete margin assessment with MMS is increasingly being utilized in the management of other cutaneous malignancies, including adnexal tumors.⁸ Due to its rarity, there remains no standard optimal treatment approach for HAC. One small retrospective study of 10 patients with HAC treated with MMS demonstrated favorable outcomes with no cases of recurrence, metastasis, or diseaserelated mortality in a mean 7-year follow-up period.⁹

Whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography performed in our patient approximately 1 month after MMS revealed mildly hypermetabolic left inguinal lymph nodes, which were thought to be reactive, and a question of small hypermetabolic foci in the liver. Follow-up computed tomography of the abdomen subsequently was performed and was negative for hepatic metastases. The patient will be monitored closely for local recurrence; however, the clearance of the tumor with MMS, which allowed complete margin assessment, is encouraging and supports MMS as superior to traditional surgical excision in the treatment of HAC. At his most recent examination 17 months after Mohs surgery, the patient remained tumor free.

Aggressive digital papillary adenocarcinoma (ADPA) is a rare malignant tumor originating in the sweat glands that can occur on the first toe but most commonly arises on the fingers. While both HAC and ADPA can manifest with an infiltrative growth pattern and cytologic atypia, ADPA classically reveals a well-circumscribed multinodular tumor in the dermis comprised of solid and cystic proliferation as well as papillary projections. In addition, ADPA has been described as having back-to-back glandular and ductal structures.¹⁰ Giant cell tumor of the tendon sheath is a benign fibrohistiocytic tumor that also typically manifests on the fingers but rarely can occur on the foot, including the first toe.^11,12 This tumor is more common in women and most frequently affects individuals aged 30 to 50 years.¹² Microscopically, giant cell tumor of the tendon sheath is characterized by a proliferation of osteoclastlike giant cells, epithelioid histiocytelike cells, mononuclear cells, and xanthomatous cells among collagenous bands.¹¹

Osteosarcoma is an uncommon tumor of osteoidproducing cells that usually arises in the metaphysis of long bones and manifests as a tender subcutaneous mass. It has a bimodal age distribution, peaking in adolescents and adults older than 65 years.¹³ While very rare, osteosarcoma has been reported to occur in the bones of the feet, including the phalanges.¹⁴ Given the recurrent nature of our patient’s tumor, metastasis should always be considered; however, in his case, full-body imaging was negative for additional malignancy.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Hidradenocarcinoma

Both the original and recurrent lesions were interpreted as a chondroid syringoma, a benign adnexal tumor; however, the third biopsy of the lesion revealed a low-grade adnexal neoplasm with irregular nests of variably sized epithelial cells demonstrating mild nuclear atypia and low mitotic activity. Given the multiple recurrences, accelerated growth, and more aggressive histologic findings, the patient was referred to our clinic for surgical management.

We elected to perform modified Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) with permanent tissue sections to enable the application of immunohistochemical stains to fully characterize the tumor. Histopathology showed a poorly circumscribed infiltrative dermal neoplasm composed of basaloid cells with a solid and cystic growth pattern in a background of hyalinized, fibrotic stroma (Figure, A and B). There were focal clear cell and squamous features as well as focal ductal differentiation (Figure, C and D). No obvious papillary structures were noted. The tumor cells were positive for D2-40, and staining for CD31 failed to reveal lymphovascular invasion. Based on the infiltrative features in conjunction with the findings from the prior biopsies, a diagnosis of hidradenocarcinoma (HAC) was made. Deep and peripheral margins were cleared after 2 stages of MMS.

Initially described in 1954, HAC is an exceedingly rare adnexal tumor of apocrine and eccrine derivation.¹ Historically, nomenclature for this entity has varied in the literature, including synonyms such as malignant nodular hidradenoma, malignant acrospiroma, solid-cystic adenocarcinoma, and malignant clear cell myoepithelioma.^2,3 Approximately 6% of all malignant eccrine tumors worldwide are HACs, which account for only 1 in 13,000 dermatopathology specimens.¹ These tumors may transform from clear cell hidradenomas (their benign counterparts) but more commonly arise de novo. Compared to benign hidradenomas, HACs are poorly circumscribed with infiltrative growth patterns on histopathology and may exhibit nuclear pleomorphism, prominent mitotic activity, necrosis, and perineural or vascular invasion.²

Clinically, HAC manifests as a 1- to 5-cm, solitary, firm, intradermal pink or violaceous nodule with possible ulceration.^2,4 The nodule often is asymptomatic but may be tender, as in our patient. There seems to be no clear anatomic site of predilection, with approximately 42% of HACs localized to the head and neck and the remainder occurring on the trunk, arms, and legs.^3,5-7 Females and males are affected equally, and lesions tend to arise in the seventh decade of life.⁷

Reports in the literature suggest that HAC is a very aggressive tumor with a generally poor prognosis.¹ Several studies have found that up to half of tumors locally recur despite aggressive surgical management, and metastasis occurs in 20% to 60% of patients.^3,8 However, a large study of US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data investigating the clinicopathologic characteristics of 289 patients with HAC revealed a more favorable prognosis.⁷ Mean overall survival and cancer-specific survival were greater than 13 years, and 10-year overall survival and cancer-specific survival rates were 60.2% and 90.5%, respectively.

Traditionally used to treat keratinocyte carcinomas, including basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, complete margin assessment with MMS is increasingly being utilized in the management of other cutaneous malignancies, including adnexal tumors.⁸ Due to its rarity, there remains no standard optimal treatment approach for HAC. One small retrospective study of 10 patients with HAC treated with MMS demonstrated favorable outcomes with no cases of recurrence, metastasis, or diseaserelated mortality in a mean 7-year follow-up period.⁹

Whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography performed in our patient approximately 1 month after MMS revealed mildly hypermetabolic left inguinal lymph nodes, which were thought to be reactive, and a question of small hypermetabolic foci in the liver. Follow-up computed tomography of the abdomen subsequently was performed and was negative for hepatic metastases. The patient will be monitored closely for local recurrence; however, the clearance of the tumor with MMS, which allowed complete margin assessment, is encouraging and supports MMS as superior to traditional surgical excision in the treatment of HAC. At his most recent examination 17 months after Mohs surgery, the patient remained tumor free.

Aggressive digital papillary adenocarcinoma (ADPA) is a rare malignant tumor originating in the sweat glands that can occur on the first toe but most commonly arises on the fingers. While both HAC and ADPA can manifest with an infiltrative growth pattern and cytologic atypia, ADPA classically reveals a well-circumscribed multinodular tumor in the dermis comprised of solid and cystic proliferation as well as papillary projections. In addition, ADPA has been described as having back-to-back glandular and ductal structures.¹⁰ Giant cell tumor of the tendon sheath is a benign fibrohistiocytic tumor that also typically manifests on the fingers but rarely can occur on the foot, including the first toe.^11,12 This tumor is more common in women and most frequently affects individuals aged 30 to 50 years.¹² Microscopically, giant cell tumor of the tendon sheath is characterized by a proliferation of osteoclastlike giant cells, epithelioid histiocytelike cells, mononuclear cells, and xanthomatous cells among collagenous bands.¹¹

Osteosarcoma is an uncommon tumor of osteoidproducing cells that usually arises in the metaphysis of long bones and manifests as a tender subcutaneous mass. It has a bimodal age distribution, peaking in adolescents and adults older than 65 years.¹³ While very rare, osteosarcoma has been reported to occur in the bones of the feet, including the phalanges.¹⁴ Given the recurrent nature of our patient’s tumor, metastasis should always be considered; however, in his case, full-body imaging was negative for additional malignancy.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Hidradenocarcinoma

Both the original and recurrent lesions were interpreted as a chondroid syringoma, a benign adnexal tumor; however, the third biopsy of the lesion revealed a low-grade adnexal neoplasm with irregular nests of variably sized epithelial cells demonstrating mild nuclear atypia and low mitotic activity. Given the multiple recurrences, accelerated growth, and more aggressive histologic findings, the patient was referred to our clinic for surgical management.

We elected to perform modified Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) with permanent tissue sections to enable the application of immunohistochemical stains to fully characterize the tumor. Histopathology showed a poorly circumscribed infiltrative dermal neoplasm composed of basaloid cells with a solid and cystic growth pattern in a background of hyalinized, fibrotic stroma (Figure, A and B). There were focal clear cell and squamous features as well as focal ductal differentiation (Figure, C and D). No obvious papillary structures were noted. The tumor cells were positive for D2-40, and staining for CD31 failed to reveal lymphovascular invasion. Based on the infiltrative features in conjunction with the findings from the prior biopsies, a diagnosis of hidradenocarcinoma (HAC) was made. Deep and peripheral margins were cleared after 2 stages of MMS.

Initially described in 1954, HAC is an exceedingly rare adnexal tumor of apocrine and eccrine derivation.¹ Historically, nomenclature for this entity has varied in the literature, including synonyms such as malignant nodular hidradenoma, malignant acrospiroma, solid-cystic adenocarcinoma, and malignant clear cell myoepithelioma.^2,3 Approximately 6% of all malignant eccrine tumors worldwide are HACs, which account for only 1 in 13,000 dermatopathology specimens.¹ These tumors may transform from clear cell hidradenomas (their benign counterparts) but more commonly arise de novo. Compared to benign hidradenomas, HACs are poorly circumscribed with infiltrative growth patterns on histopathology and may exhibit nuclear pleomorphism, prominent mitotic activity, necrosis, and perineural or vascular invasion.²

Clinically, HAC manifests as a 1- to 5-cm, solitary, firm, intradermal pink or violaceous nodule with possible ulceration.^2,4 The nodule often is asymptomatic but may be tender, as in our patient. There seems to be no clear anatomic site of predilection, with approximately 42% of HACs localized to the head and neck and the remainder occurring on the trunk, arms, and legs.^3,5-7 Females and males are affected equally, and lesions tend to arise in the seventh decade of life.⁷

Reports in the literature suggest that HAC is a very aggressive tumor with a generally poor prognosis.¹ Several studies have found that up to half of tumors locally recur despite aggressive surgical management, and metastasis occurs in 20% to 60% of patients.^3,8 However, a large study of US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data investigating the clinicopathologic characteristics of 289 patients with HAC revealed a more favorable prognosis.⁷ Mean overall survival and cancer-specific survival were greater than 13 years, and 10-year overall survival and cancer-specific survival rates were 60.2% and 90.5%, respectively.

Traditionally used to treat keratinocyte carcinomas, including basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, complete margin assessment with MMS is increasingly being utilized in the management of other cutaneous malignancies, including adnexal tumors.⁸ Due to its rarity, there remains no standard optimal treatment approach for HAC. One small retrospective study of 10 patients with HAC treated with MMS demonstrated favorable outcomes with no cases of recurrence, metastasis, or diseaserelated mortality in a mean 7-year follow-up period.⁹

Whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography performed in our patient approximately 1 month after MMS revealed mildly hypermetabolic left inguinal lymph nodes, which were thought to be reactive, and a question of small hypermetabolic foci in the liver. Follow-up computed tomography of the abdomen subsequently was performed and was negative for hepatic metastases. The patient will be monitored closely for local recurrence; however, the clearance of the tumor with MMS, which allowed complete margin assessment, is encouraging and supports MMS as superior to traditional surgical excision in the treatment of HAC. At his most recent examination 17 months after Mohs surgery, the patient remained tumor free.

Aggressive digital papillary adenocarcinoma (ADPA) is a rare malignant tumor originating in the sweat glands that can occur on the first toe but most commonly arises on the fingers. While both HAC and ADPA can manifest with an infiltrative growth pattern and cytologic atypia, ADPA classically reveals a well-circumscribed multinodular tumor in the dermis comprised of solid and cystic proliferation as well as papillary projections. In addition, ADPA has been described as having back-to-back glandular and ductal structures.¹⁰ Giant cell tumor of the tendon sheath is a benign fibrohistiocytic tumor that also typically manifests on the fingers but rarely can occur on the foot, including the first toe.^11,12 This tumor is more common in women and most frequently affects individuals aged 30 to 50 years.¹² Microscopically, giant cell tumor of the tendon sheath is characterized by a proliferation of osteoclastlike giant cells, epithelioid histiocytelike cells, mononuclear cells, and xanthomatous cells among collagenous bands.¹¹

Osteosarcoma is an uncommon tumor of osteoidproducing cells that usually arises in the metaphysis of long bones and manifests as a tender subcutaneous mass. It has a bimodal age distribution, peaking in adolescents and adults older than 65 years.¹³ While very rare, osteosarcoma has been reported to occur in the bones of the feet, including the phalanges.¹⁴ Given the recurrent nature of our patient’s tumor, metastasis should always be considered; however, in his case, full-body imaging was negative for additional malignancy.

TOPLINE:

Survivors of blood or marrow transplant (BMT) face a significant risk of developing cutaneous malignant neoplasms, including basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma, with a cumulative incidence of 27.4% over 30 years, according to the results of a cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 3880 BMT survivors (median age, 44 years; 55.8% men; 4.9% Black, 12.1 Hispanic, and 74.7% non-Hispanic White individuals) who underwent transplant between 1974 to 2014.
• Participants completed the BMT Survivor Study survey and were followed up for a median of 9.5 years.
• The primary outcomes were the development of subsequent cutaneous malignant neoplasms (BCC, SCC, or melanoma).

TAKEAWAY:

• The 30-year cumulative incidence of any cutaneous malignant neoplasm was 27.4% — 18% for BCC, 9.8% for SCC, and 3.7% for melanoma.
• A higher risk for skin cancer was reported for patients aged 50 years or more (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.83-2.71), and men (SHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.65).
• Allogeneic BMT with chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) increased the risk for skin cancer (SHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47), compared with autologous BMT, while post-BMT immunosuppression increased risk for all types (overall SHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.26-1.86).
• The risk for any skin cancer was significantly lower in Black individuals (SHR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.37), Hispanic individuals (SHR, 0.29; 95%CI, 0.20-0.62), and patients of other races or who were multiracial (SHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37) than in non-Hispanic White patients.

IN PRACTICE:

In the study, “risk factors for post-BMT cutaneous malignant neoplasms included pretransplant treatment with a monoclonal antibody, cGVHD, and posttransplant immunosuppression,” the authors wrote, adding that the findings “could inform targeted surveillance of BMT survivors.” Most BMT survivors, “do not undergo routine dermatologic surveillance, highlighting the need to understand risk factors and incorporate risk-informed dermatologic surveillance into survivorship care plans.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristy K. Broman, MD, MPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and was published online on December 18 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included self-reported data and possible underreporting of melanoma cases in the SEER database. Additionally, the study did not capture other risk factors for cutaneous malignant neoplasms such as skin phototype, ultraviolet light exposure, or family history. The duration of posttransplant immunosuppression was not collected, and surveys were administered at variable intervals, though all were completed more than 2 years post BMT.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Broman received grants from NCI, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American College of Surgeons. Another author reported receiving grants outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Survivors of blood or marrow transplant (BMT) face a significant risk of developing cutaneous malignant neoplasms, including basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma, with a cumulative incidence of 27.4% over 30 years, according to the results of a cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 3880 BMT survivors (median age, 44 years; 55.8% men; 4.9% Black, 12.1 Hispanic, and 74.7% non-Hispanic White individuals) who underwent transplant between 1974 to 2014.
• Participants completed the BMT Survivor Study survey and were followed up for a median of 9.5 years.
• The primary outcomes were the development of subsequent cutaneous malignant neoplasms (BCC, SCC, or melanoma).

TAKEAWAY:

• The 30-year cumulative incidence of any cutaneous malignant neoplasm was 27.4% — 18% for BCC, 9.8% for SCC, and 3.7% for melanoma.
• A higher risk for skin cancer was reported for patients aged 50 years or more (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.83-2.71), and men (SHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.65).
• Allogeneic BMT with chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) increased the risk for skin cancer (SHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47), compared with autologous BMT, while post-BMT immunosuppression increased risk for all types (overall SHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.26-1.86).
• The risk for any skin cancer was significantly lower in Black individuals (SHR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.37), Hispanic individuals (SHR, 0.29; 95%CI, 0.20-0.62), and patients of other races or who were multiracial (SHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37) than in non-Hispanic White patients.

IN PRACTICE:

In the study, “risk factors for post-BMT cutaneous malignant neoplasms included pretransplant treatment with a monoclonal antibody, cGVHD, and posttransplant immunosuppression,” the authors wrote, adding that the findings “could inform targeted surveillance of BMT survivors.” Most BMT survivors, “do not undergo routine dermatologic surveillance, highlighting the need to understand risk factors and incorporate risk-informed dermatologic surveillance into survivorship care plans.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristy K. Broman, MD, MPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and was published online on December 18 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included self-reported data and possible underreporting of melanoma cases in the SEER database. Additionally, the study did not capture other risk factors for cutaneous malignant neoplasms such as skin phototype, ultraviolet light exposure, or family history. The duration of posttransplant immunosuppression was not collected, and surveys were administered at variable intervals, though all were completed more than 2 years post BMT.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Broman received grants from NCI, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American College of Surgeons. Another author reported receiving grants outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Survivors of blood or marrow transplant (BMT) face a significant risk of developing cutaneous malignant neoplasms, including basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma, with a cumulative incidence of 27.4% over 30 years, according to the results of a cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 3880 BMT survivors (median age, 44 years; 55.8% men; 4.9% Black, 12.1 Hispanic, and 74.7% non-Hispanic White individuals) who underwent transplant between 1974 to 2014.
• Participants completed the BMT Survivor Study survey and were followed up for a median of 9.5 years.
• The primary outcomes were the development of subsequent cutaneous malignant neoplasms (BCC, SCC, or melanoma).

TAKEAWAY:

• The 30-year cumulative incidence of any cutaneous malignant neoplasm was 27.4% — 18% for BCC, 9.8% for SCC, and 3.7% for melanoma.
• A higher risk for skin cancer was reported for patients aged 50 years or more (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.83-2.71), and men (SHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.65).
• Allogeneic BMT with chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) increased the risk for skin cancer (SHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47), compared with autologous BMT, while post-BMT immunosuppression increased risk for all types (overall SHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.26-1.86).
• The risk for any skin cancer was significantly lower in Black individuals (SHR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.37), Hispanic individuals (SHR, 0.29; 95%CI, 0.20-0.62), and patients of other races or who were multiracial (SHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37) than in non-Hispanic White patients.

IN PRACTICE:

In the study, “risk factors for post-BMT cutaneous malignant neoplasms included pretransplant treatment with a monoclonal antibody, cGVHD, and posttransplant immunosuppression,” the authors wrote, adding that the findings “could inform targeted surveillance of BMT survivors.” Most BMT survivors, “do not undergo routine dermatologic surveillance, highlighting the need to understand risk factors and incorporate risk-informed dermatologic surveillance into survivorship care plans.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristy K. Broman, MD, MPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and was published online on December 18 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included self-reported data and possible underreporting of melanoma cases in the SEER database. Additionally, the study did not capture other risk factors for cutaneous malignant neoplasms such as skin phototype, ultraviolet light exposure, or family history. The duration of posttransplant immunosuppression was not collected, and surveys were administered at variable intervals, though all were completed more than 2 years post BMT.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Broman received grants from NCI, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American College of Surgeons. Another author reported receiving grants outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the immune checkpoint inhibitor cosibelimab (Unloxcyt; Checkpoint Therapeutics) for the treatment of adults with metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. 

The programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)–blocking antibody is the first and only treatment of its kind approved for advanced CSCC, according to a Checkpoint Therapeutics press release. The FDA approval was based on findings from the multicenter, open-label Study CK-301-101 trial of 109 patients. 

In that trial, the objective response rate (ORR) was 47% in 78 patients with metastatic CSCC and 48% in 31 patients with locally advanced CSCC. Median duration of response (DOR) in treated patients was not reached in those with metastatic disease and was 17.7 months in those with locally advanced disease, according to the FDA approval notice.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, constipation, nausea, headache, pruritus, edema, localized infection, and urinary tract infection.

The recommended treatment dose, according to the prescribing information, is 1200 mg given as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The agent offers “a differentiated treatment option versus available therapies by binding to PD-L1, rather than programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1), to release the inhibitory effects of PD-L1 on the anti-tumor immune response,” Checkpoint Therapeutics president and chief executive officer James Oliviero stated in the company press release. 

The agent has also “demonstrated the ability to induce antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, another potential differentiating feature of the drug compared to existing marketing therapies for CSCC,” Oliviero noted.

“CSCC is the second most common form of skin cancer, and those diagnosed with advanced disease that has recurred or metastasized face a poor prognosis,” stated Emily Ruiz, MD, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center. 

“With its dual mechanisms of action and compelling safety profile, this promising drug will provide US oncologists with an important new immunotherapy option for the treatment of CSCC,” she added. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the immune checkpoint inhibitor cosibelimab (Unloxcyt; Checkpoint Therapeutics) for the treatment of adults with metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. 

The programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)–blocking antibody is the first and only treatment of its kind approved for advanced CSCC, according to a Checkpoint Therapeutics press release. The FDA approval was based on findings from the multicenter, open-label Study CK-301-101 trial of 109 patients. 

In that trial, the objective response rate (ORR) was 47% in 78 patients with metastatic CSCC and 48% in 31 patients with locally advanced CSCC. Median duration of response (DOR) in treated patients was not reached in those with metastatic disease and was 17.7 months in those with locally advanced disease, according to the FDA approval notice.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, constipation, nausea, headache, pruritus, edema, localized infection, and urinary tract infection.

The recommended treatment dose, according to the prescribing information, is 1200 mg given as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The agent offers “a differentiated treatment option versus available therapies by binding to PD-L1, rather than programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1), to release the inhibitory effects of PD-L1 on the anti-tumor immune response,” Checkpoint Therapeutics president and chief executive officer James Oliviero stated in the company press release. 

The agent has also “demonstrated the ability to induce antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, another potential differentiating feature of the drug compared to existing marketing therapies for CSCC,” Oliviero noted.

“CSCC is the second most common form of skin cancer, and those diagnosed with advanced disease that has recurred or metastasized face a poor prognosis,” stated Emily Ruiz, MD, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center. 

“With its dual mechanisms of action and compelling safety profile, this promising drug will provide US oncologists with an important new immunotherapy option for the treatment of CSCC,” she added. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the immune checkpoint inhibitor cosibelimab (Unloxcyt; Checkpoint Therapeutics) for the treatment of adults with metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. 

The programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)–blocking antibody is the first and only treatment of its kind approved for advanced CSCC, according to a Checkpoint Therapeutics press release. The FDA approval was based on findings from the multicenter, open-label Study CK-301-101 trial of 109 patients. 

In that trial, the objective response rate (ORR) was 47% in 78 patients with metastatic CSCC and 48% in 31 patients with locally advanced CSCC. Median duration of response (DOR) in treated patients was not reached in those with metastatic disease and was 17.7 months in those with locally advanced disease, according to the FDA approval notice.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, constipation, nausea, headache, pruritus, edema, localized infection, and urinary tract infection.

The recommended treatment dose, according to the prescribing information, is 1200 mg given as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The agent offers “a differentiated treatment option versus available therapies by binding to PD-L1, rather than programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1), to release the inhibitory effects of PD-L1 on the anti-tumor immune response,” Checkpoint Therapeutics president and chief executive officer James Oliviero stated in the company press release. 

The agent has also “demonstrated the ability to induce antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, another potential differentiating feature of the drug compared to existing marketing therapies for CSCC,” Oliviero noted.

“CSCC is the second most common form of skin cancer, and those diagnosed with advanced disease that has recurred or metastasized face a poor prognosis,” stated Emily Ruiz, MD, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center. 

“With its dual mechanisms of action and compelling safety profile, this promising drug will provide US oncologists with an important new immunotherapy option for the treatment of CSCC,” she added. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK CITY — The total body skin examination with or without dermatoscopy might eventually be marginalized by noninvasive technologies that greatly reduce the need for biopsy while increasing sensitivity and specificity, according to an expert describing four such technologies now in routine use at his own institution.

For skin cancer screening, existing and coming technologies represent “the future of dermatology,” but “we can and should be [already] trying to incorporate these into routine practice,” said Jonathan Ungar, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

 

Technologies such as electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) have immediate utility for improving skin cancer detection with fewer biopsies, but this is just the beginning, according to Ungar, who is also medical director of the Kimberly and Eric J. Waldman Melanoma and Skin Cancer Center at Mount Sinai, New York City.

“There is going to be a day when we are not cutting to make a diagnosis,” he said during a presentation at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium — Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024.

 

Four Noninvasive Tools Are in Routine Use

Each of these technologies, along with total body photography (TBP), is currently in use at Mount Sinai as well as other tertiary centers to improve diagnostic accuracy at the same time they reduce invasive tests. The initial excitement about these technologies was based on their potential to avoid biopsy in cosmetically sensitive areas, but Ungar suggested that wider application is being driven by better rates of detection, less morbidity, and improved patient satisfaction.

Patients are happy to avoid invasive procedures whenever they can, Ungar noted. In addition to concern about pain or discomfort and a small but measurable risk for infection, patients face a wound that requires healing and the potential for an enduring scar whether the histology is positive for a malignancy.

While none of the four technologies Ungar outlined typically provide a yes or no answer regarding the presence of a malignancy, they do improve diagnostic accuracy with a lower rate of biopsy.

 

Each Noninvasive Tool Reduces Biopsy Rates

In the case of EIS, for example, the impedance of a painless and harmless electrical current directed into the skin with a handheld probe differentiates normal from abnormal skin through an EIS algorithm. Ungar said it does not require training. A result negative for an abnormality has about a 90% predictive value, and it means that a biopsy can be avoided if there are no other reasons for suspicion.

With a price estimated in the thousands of dollars, the device and software are “not so expensive,” particularly when the tool results in fewer biopsies, Ungar noted.

OCT has a similar profile. Again, used as an adjunct to other types of evaluations, including a history and visual inspection, this helps in modulating suspicion of malignancy. In published studies, OCT has proven superior to dermatoscopy for cancer detection. Citing a 14-study meta-analysis, Ungar said that the sensitivity of OCT for melanoma exceeds, and the specificity approaches, 90%. For basal cell cancers, it is even better.

RCM involves directing a laser into the skin to detect abnormal cells that reflect light. It enables visualization of the skin by layers to the papillary dermis in a detail that is comparable with histology, according to Ungar. Imaging performed with the device used at Mount Sinai (VivaScope 1500, Caliber Imaging & Diagnostics) is reimbursed by Medicare.

Once comfortable with the technology, scanning and interpretation take slightly more time than that required of EIS or OCT, but, like the others, it is painless and helpful for determining whether further evaluation is needed, according to Ungar.

“It is extremely useful in reducing the number of biopsies,” whether melanoma or basal cell malignancies, he said.

 

Total Body Photograph Helps With Serial Screens

While not specifically a diagnostic tool, TBP can also play a role in reducing biopsies through its highly efficient ability to document the evolution of lesions over time.

As its name implies, essentially the entire body surface is captured by multiple cameras mounted in a circle around the patient. Unlike sequential photos that require far more time to take and store and are challenging to organize and retrieve, the device used at Mount Sinai (Vectra Wb180 1360, Canfield Scientific) can complete the photos in about 2 minutes.

Software for organizing and storing the photos, to which dermatoscope images of individual lesions can be attached if helpful, results in efficient retrieval of photos at sequential visits for evaluating change in any specific lesion.

“It is very easy to use,” according to Ungar, who noted that although the underlying idea is not, the technology of taking, storing, and retrieving photographs has been “perhaps perfected” with this approach.

 

Noninvasive Screening Training Is Appropriate

Year after year, dermatology residents undergo intensive instruction to master the traditional methods of skin examination with the naked eye and the help of a dermatoscope, but Ungar considers the noninvasive tools to be another step forward. They lower miss rates while reducing the need for histopathology.

Adding these new technologies to routine patient care resonates for many experts, even if the protocols of when to use with the tool are not well established.

Angela J. Lamb, MD, an associate professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai, who has been following the work of Ungar with interest, sees merit in his argument. Not surprisingly, she thinks that any approach shown to boost skin cancer detection is something that deserves attention, but she thinks the effort to safely eliminate biopsies with a low likelihood of a positive finding cannot be ignored.

“Patients want to avoid biopsies when they can,” Lamb told this news organization, and she does not think this is limited to biopsies on the face or other cosmetically sensitive areas.

As a result, she said that she does see the rationale for incorporating the newer technologies into routine care and called this an “important” effort to improve the patient experience as well as reduce missed lesions.

Ungar reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Castle Biosciences, Dermavant, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Menlo Therapeutics, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma America, and UCB. Lamb reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

NEW YORK CITY — The total body skin examination with or without dermatoscopy might eventually be marginalized by noninvasive technologies that greatly reduce the need for biopsy while increasing sensitivity and specificity, according to an expert describing four such technologies now in routine use at his own institution.

For skin cancer screening, existing and coming technologies represent “the future of dermatology,” but “we can and should be [already] trying to incorporate these into routine practice,” said Jonathan Ungar, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

 

Technologies such as electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) have immediate utility for improving skin cancer detection with fewer biopsies, but this is just the beginning, according to Ungar, who is also medical director of the Kimberly and Eric J. Waldman Melanoma and Skin Cancer Center at Mount Sinai, New York City.

“There is going to be a day when we are not cutting to make a diagnosis,” he said during a presentation at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium — Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024.

 

Four Noninvasive Tools Are in Routine Use

Each of these technologies, along with total body photography (TBP), is currently in use at Mount Sinai as well as other tertiary centers to improve diagnostic accuracy at the same time they reduce invasive tests. The initial excitement about these technologies was based on their potential to avoid biopsy in cosmetically sensitive areas, but Ungar suggested that wider application is being driven by better rates of detection, less morbidity, and improved patient satisfaction.

Patients are happy to avoid invasive procedures whenever they can, Ungar noted. In addition to concern about pain or discomfort and a small but measurable risk for infection, patients face a wound that requires healing and the potential for an enduring scar whether the histology is positive for a malignancy.

While none of the four technologies Ungar outlined typically provide a yes or no answer regarding the presence of a malignancy, they do improve diagnostic accuracy with a lower rate of biopsy.

 

Each Noninvasive Tool Reduces Biopsy Rates

In the case of EIS, for example, the impedance of a painless and harmless electrical current directed into the skin with a handheld probe differentiates normal from abnormal skin through an EIS algorithm. Ungar said it does not require training. A result negative for an abnormality has about a 90% predictive value, and it means that a biopsy can be avoided if there are no other reasons for suspicion.

With a price estimated in the thousands of dollars, the device and software are “not so expensive,” particularly when the tool results in fewer biopsies, Ungar noted.

OCT has a similar profile. Again, used as an adjunct to other types of evaluations, including a history and visual inspection, this helps in modulating suspicion of malignancy. In published studies, OCT has proven superior to dermatoscopy for cancer detection. Citing a 14-study meta-analysis, Ungar said that the sensitivity of OCT for melanoma exceeds, and the specificity approaches, 90%. For basal cell cancers, it is even better.

RCM involves directing a laser into the skin to detect abnormal cells that reflect light. It enables visualization of the skin by layers to the papillary dermis in a detail that is comparable with histology, according to Ungar. Imaging performed with the device used at Mount Sinai (VivaScope 1500, Caliber Imaging & Diagnostics) is reimbursed by Medicare.

Once comfortable with the technology, scanning and interpretation take slightly more time than that required of EIS or OCT, but, like the others, it is painless and helpful for determining whether further evaluation is needed, according to Ungar.

“It is extremely useful in reducing the number of biopsies,” whether melanoma or basal cell malignancies, he said.

 

Total Body Photograph Helps With Serial Screens

While not specifically a diagnostic tool, TBP can also play a role in reducing biopsies through its highly efficient ability to document the evolution of lesions over time.

As its name implies, essentially the entire body surface is captured by multiple cameras mounted in a circle around the patient. Unlike sequential photos that require far more time to take and store and are challenging to organize and retrieve, the device used at Mount Sinai (Vectra Wb180 1360, Canfield Scientific) can complete the photos in about 2 minutes.

Software for organizing and storing the photos, to which dermatoscope images of individual lesions can be attached if helpful, results in efficient retrieval of photos at sequential visits for evaluating change in any specific lesion.

“It is very easy to use,” according to Ungar, who noted that although the underlying idea is not, the technology of taking, storing, and retrieving photographs has been “perhaps perfected” with this approach.

 

Noninvasive Screening Training Is Appropriate

Year after year, dermatology residents undergo intensive instruction to master the traditional methods of skin examination with the naked eye and the help of a dermatoscope, but Ungar considers the noninvasive tools to be another step forward. They lower miss rates while reducing the need for histopathology.

Adding these new technologies to routine patient care resonates for many experts, even if the protocols of when to use with the tool are not well established.

Angela J. Lamb, MD, an associate professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai, who has been following the work of Ungar with interest, sees merit in his argument. Not surprisingly, she thinks that any approach shown to boost skin cancer detection is something that deserves attention, but she thinks the effort to safely eliminate biopsies with a low likelihood of a positive finding cannot be ignored.

“Patients want to avoid biopsies when they can,” Lamb told this news organization, and she does not think this is limited to biopsies on the face or other cosmetically sensitive areas.

As a result, she said that she does see the rationale for incorporating the newer technologies into routine care and called this an “important” effort to improve the patient experience as well as reduce missed lesions.

Ungar reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Castle Biosciences, Dermavant, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Menlo Therapeutics, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma America, and UCB. Lamb reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

NEW YORK CITY — The total body skin examination with or without dermatoscopy might eventually be marginalized by noninvasive technologies that greatly reduce the need for biopsy while increasing sensitivity and specificity, according to an expert describing four such technologies now in routine use at his own institution.

For skin cancer screening, existing and coming technologies represent “the future of dermatology,” but “we can and should be [already] trying to incorporate these into routine practice,” said Jonathan Ungar, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

 

Technologies such as electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) have immediate utility for improving skin cancer detection with fewer biopsies, but this is just the beginning, according to Ungar, who is also medical director of the Kimberly and Eric J. Waldman Melanoma and Skin Cancer Center at Mount Sinai, New York City.

“There is going to be a day when we are not cutting to make a diagnosis,” he said during a presentation at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium — Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024.

 

Four Noninvasive Tools Are in Routine Use

Each of these technologies, along with total body photography (TBP), is currently in use at Mount Sinai as well as other tertiary centers to improve diagnostic accuracy at the same time they reduce invasive tests. The initial excitement about these technologies was based on their potential to avoid biopsy in cosmetically sensitive areas, but Ungar suggested that wider application is being driven by better rates of detection, less morbidity, and improved patient satisfaction.

Patients are happy to avoid invasive procedures whenever they can, Ungar noted. In addition to concern about pain or discomfort and a small but measurable risk for infection, patients face a wound that requires healing and the potential for an enduring scar whether the histology is positive for a malignancy.

While none of the four technologies Ungar outlined typically provide a yes or no answer regarding the presence of a malignancy, they do improve diagnostic accuracy with a lower rate of biopsy.

 

Each Noninvasive Tool Reduces Biopsy Rates

In the case of EIS, for example, the impedance of a painless and harmless electrical current directed into the skin with a handheld probe differentiates normal from abnormal skin through an EIS algorithm. Ungar said it does not require training. A result negative for an abnormality has about a 90% predictive value, and it means that a biopsy can be avoided if there are no other reasons for suspicion.

With a price estimated in the thousands of dollars, the device and software are “not so expensive,” particularly when the tool results in fewer biopsies, Ungar noted.

OCT has a similar profile. Again, used as an adjunct to other types of evaluations, including a history and visual inspection, this helps in modulating suspicion of malignancy. In published studies, OCT has proven superior to dermatoscopy for cancer detection. Citing a 14-study meta-analysis, Ungar said that the sensitivity of OCT for melanoma exceeds, and the specificity approaches, 90%. For basal cell cancers, it is even better.

RCM involves directing a laser into the skin to detect abnormal cells that reflect light. It enables visualization of the skin by layers to the papillary dermis in a detail that is comparable with histology, according to Ungar. Imaging performed with the device used at Mount Sinai (VivaScope 1500, Caliber Imaging & Diagnostics) is reimbursed by Medicare.

Once comfortable with the technology, scanning and interpretation take slightly more time than that required of EIS or OCT, but, like the others, it is painless and helpful for determining whether further evaluation is needed, according to Ungar.

“It is extremely useful in reducing the number of biopsies,” whether melanoma or basal cell malignancies, he said.

 

Total Body Photograph Helps With Serial Screens

While not specifically a diagnostic tool, TBP can also play a role in reducing biopsies through its highly efficient ability to document the evolution of lesions over time.

As its name implies, essentially the entire body surface is captured by multiple cameras mounted in a circle around the patient. Unlike sequential photos that require far more time to take and store and are challenging to organize and retrieve, the device used at Mount Sinai (Vectra Wb180 1360, Canfield Scientific) can complete the photos in about 2 minutes.

Software for organizing and storing the photos, to which dermatoscope images of individual lesions can be attached if helpful, results in efficient retrieval of photos at sequential visits for evaluating change in any specific lesion.

“It is very easy to use,” according to Ungar, who noted that although the underlying idea is not, the technology of taking, storing, and retrieving photographs has been “perhaps perfected” with this approach.

 

Noninvasive Screening Training Is Appropriate

Year after year, dermatology residents undergo intensive instruction to master the traditional methods of skin examination with the naked eye and the help of a dermatoscope, but Ungar considers the noninvasive tools to be another step forward. They lower miss rates while reducing the need for histopathology.

Adding these new technologies to routine patient care resonates for many experts, even if the protocols of when to use with the tool are not well established.

Angela J. Lamb, MD, an associate professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai, who has been following the work of Ungar with interest, sees merit in his argument. Not surprisingly, she thinks that any approach shown to boost skin cancer detection is something that deserves attention, but she thinks the effort to safely eliminate biopsies with a low likelihood of a positive finding cannot be ignored.

“Patients want to avoid biopsies when they can,” Lamb told this news organization, and she does not think this is limited to biopsies on the face or other cosmetically sensitive areas.

As a result, she said that she does see the rationale for incorporating the newer technologies into routine care and called this an “important” effort to improve the patient experience as well as reduce missed lesions.

Ungar reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Castle Biosciences, Dermavant, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Menlo Therapeutics, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma America, and UCB. Lamb reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

Daniel C. Butler, MD, is associate professor of dermatology and director of the new Inflammatory and Aging Skin Research Program in the Division of Dermatology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona. Before returning to Arizona, where he had attended medical school, Butler practiced and was a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and its geriatric dermatology clinic. He is a co-founder and continues to co-lead the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) Geriatric Dermatology Expert Resource Group (ERG).

Butler’s interest in geriatric dermatology is rooted in his experience growing up with four grandparents and witnessing their wisdom, relationships, moments with loved ones, and other unique and desirable parts of growing old. “When I looked later at how aging was perceived in dermatology, I found it was a lot about ‘antiaging,’” he told this news organization. “I thought there was a needed voice in dermatology for healthy aging, for all the desirable things that only growing old can provide, along with all the incredible ‘antiaging’ things we can do.”

In interviews, Butler spoke about research priorities in geriatric dermatology, how the “4M” model of geriatrics should be applied within dermatology, how dermatologists can best work with older complex patients, and more. The conversation was edited for clarity and length.

 

What is geriatric dermatology? It is described by the AAD’s Geriatric Dermatology ERG as “an emerging subspecialty.” Yet it’s also viewed more broadly. Please speak about its various identities and meanings and its importance for dermatology.

I’d describe geriatric dermatology as a “supra-specialty” in theory because it encapsulates a part of many practices. If you’re a general dermatologist, about 50% of your patients are over the age of 65. If you’re a Mohs surgeon, you’re seeing a strong majority of over 65 patients. And in various specialty clinics, such as inflammatory skin disease, geriatric dermatology pertains to you. In many ways, it can be viewed as a mindset.

From a framework standpoint, and as a field, geriatric dermatology is a basic science initiative, a clinical initiative, an educational initiative, and an advocacy initiative. The goal is to be able to influence, grow, and learn in each of these categories for our older patients. This is happening: Research in this field has progressed, and education has progressed, which has driven some progress in clinical care.

 

How has research progressed in the basic science of aging skin? What are key questions for dermatology?

There has been a lot of basic science research on aging skin and on how an aging immune system, for instance, is reflected in conditions such as bullous pemphigoid, atopic dermatitis (AD), and chronic itch. But aging involves more than immunosenescence. I think of aging skin as a three-headed monster that involves changes in the skin barrier and the microbiome as well. But is there a primary piece of aging in the skin? What comes first or influences the other? More research on these questions can potentially influence our treatments.

With respect to the immune system, what we’re finding in the skin is that age-related change is not a decline in the immune system per se, but rather aberrance in response. Parts of the system tend to become overactive, with a skew toward overexpression of type 2 inflammation. This can be problematic, driving conditions such as chronic itch.

With respect to the skin barrier, we lose essential fatty acids, and we lose a lot of our recovery ability and our ability to respond quickly to environmental stressors. But are barrier changes triggering the immune system? Or is it the other way around?

The microbiome, which is a big focus of research, involves similar chicken-and-egg discussions. Is it the microbiome that changes and alters the barrier, which then entices the immune system? Which one happens first? We have a lot to learn, and there’s probably not one answer for every patient.

 

Please speak about research more broadly. What questions and issues need to be answered and addressed to improve the dermatologic care of older adults?

In general, research in dermatology is very disease-specific and not particularly conducive to looking at the larger demographic populations. We have a huge opportunity, therefore, to break the mold and grow geriatric dermatology as an area of population-based research — so that geriatric dermatology research encompasses not only the melanoma researcher who’s trying to understand how aging influences the melanocytes but also the epidemiologic researcher looking at how our diagnoses and coding and prescription practices are different in the 65-plus age group.

Clinically speaking, researchers want to better understand how aging influences the clinical presentations of our diseases. And there’s research to be done on best practices. For example, what are the best practices for treating basal cell carcinomas in patients with mild cognitive impairment? How should we consider the use of topicals in a patient who has severe arthritis or who lives alone? And then how should we teach practical approaches to help providers meet people where they are?

Looking at it from a healthcare system standpoint, there are many care delivery and access issues — practical pieces — to research, and we’re getting a lot better with this. We’re also advocating not only for more inclusion of older adults in clinical trials of treatments but also for the use of evaluations and outcomes that are relevant and important for older adults.

One piece of good news is that we’re seeing safer treatment options with tremendous efficacy that target known pathways for diseases like AD and chronic itch that affect older adults. Again, now we must find ways to improve access to these novel, safe options.

Our research program at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, which we’re just getting off the ground, aims to be dual-sided, looking both at the basic science of aging skin and at access and care delivery issues, such as how to ensure that patients on Medicare have access to medications that are at least on par with others with private insurance.

 

What are the most common dermatologic problems experienced by older adults?

Based on my experience and on research that we expect to be published soon, it’s absolutely nonmelanoma skin cancers, precancers like actinic keratoses — and on the inflammatory disease side, itch, AD, and psoriasis. Of course, also common are the age-related changes to the skin that we put in the benign category, such as solar lentigines.

How does age influence dermatologic diseases from a pathophysiological and clinical standpoint?

Diseases overall are very similar and respond to the same treatments, but age in and of itself does influence little pieces. For example, there is more crossover in the presentation of psoriasis and AD in older adults, leading to delays in the diagnosis of psoriasis.

With AD, we’ve found that itch is the predominant symptom for older adults rather than the red rash. We see higher or more severe itch scores in older adults with AD with less visual changes on the skin than in younger cohorts. And rash occurs in different locations than in young patients. Older adults typically present with it on their chest, back, and across the trunk, rather than in folded areas. They’re also more likely to get it on their legs in a nummular pattern as opposed to the more traditional flexural area presentation.

 

What unique considerations need to be made in treating older adults? How should the 4M model of geriatrics be applied to dermatologic care?

Our care model pushes us to be very algorithmic, but at the end of the day, what’s really important are the 4Ms: Mobility, medication, mentation, and “what matters most.” As you’re having your shared decision-making conversations with your patients and their families, these should be your priorities.

A patient with physical limitations, for instance, may not be able to apply a topical cream twice a day all over the body. They may have comorbidities and treatments for these comorbidities that may conflict with medications you’re considering.

And then mentation is so important. For a long time, we used antihistamines for older adults, but this has been proven to be bad for their mentation and risky in other ways. We need to be sure we’re prioritizing their ability to be clear mentally when we’re prescribing medications and even when we’re considering surgical approaches. Do they show capacity for that procedure or treatment, and how will they respond to that treatment later on?

Using the 4M model to drive conversations is a way to get all of us to connect to the patient and learn about what’s most important for them. In many ways, geriatrics is about taking a step back from your specialist skills and thinking about how you would want a family member treated.

We want to avoid treating just the lesion or the pathologic diagnosis. We want to avoid the “conveyor belt” from a biopsy to Mohs. I have 95-year-olds who say, “Heck yeah, if Mohs is the best treatment, that’s what I want.” And I have 70-year-olds who say, “I think I’ll go with another option,” and that’s the right decision for them. It’s having the conversation that matters.

 

In practice, given time constraints and other confines, how can dermatologists best work with more complex older patients? What are your practical tips?

People talk about having 45-minute “golden year” conversations with their older patients, but it doesn’t have to be this way. In pursuing geriatric dermatology, I decided early on that I wanted to make sure it was practical, so I’ve focused on maximizing shorter visits and on embracing the concept that relationships can be developed over time. Each time we meet with someone, we’re building equity to have bigger conversations later on.

I can have a 15-minute conversation about whether my patient may want to have Mohs surgery, for instance, or escalate treatment to a systemic agent for their chronic inflammatory disease. If that time isn’t enough, I can encourage further thought about treatment options, acknowledge that decisions aren’t necessarily easy, and schedule a follow-up or offer to call the patient after clinic to continue the conversation.

Sometimes, when I’m at an impasse and my patient is unsure how to proceed, I’ll use clear metrics relevant to older adults — sleep, activity level, and caregiver burden — to help my patient. If someone is not sleeping because of their lesion — if they’re so itchy or their inflammatory disease is uncontrolled, for instance — I’ll point out that the side effects of not sleeping are worse than the medications or surgery we’d pursue. If someone removes themselves from an activity due to their skin condition, that’s a red flag. And if the caregiver in the room is overwhelmed or frustrated by having to put cream on twice a day, I’ll use this to advance treatment.

 

What resources are available for dermatologists interested in improving their geriatric dermatology skills or advancing the area?

For those interested in investigating these issues or improving their practices, the AAD’s Geriatric Dermatology ERG is always welcoming of new members. The ERG will have an all-inclusive meeting at the 2025 annual AAD meeting in March.

The AAD also has educational modules on geriatric dermatology that were recently published as an initiative of our ERG. More information is available on the website. Also valuable is the ElderDerm conference hosted by the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; the second such conference takes place in May 2025.

Butler reported that he had no relevant financial disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Daniel C. Butler, MD, is associate professor of dermatology and director of the new Inflammatory and Aging Skin Research Program in the Division of Dermatology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona. Before returning to Arizona, where he had attended medical school, Butler practiced and was a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and its geriatric dermatology clinic. He is a co-founder and continues to co-lead the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) Geriatric Dermatology Expert Resource Group (ERG).

Butler’s interest in geriatric dermatology is rooted in his experience growing up with four grandparents and witnessing their wisdom, relationships, moments with loved ones, and other unique and desirable parts of growing old. “When I looked later at how aging was perceived in dermatology, I found it was a lot about ‘antiaging,’” he told this news organization. “I thought there was a needed voice in dermatology for healthy aging, for all the desirable things that only growing old can provide, along with all the incredible ‘antiaging’ things we can do.”

In interviews, Butler spoke about research priorities in geriatric dermatology, how the “4M” model of geriatrics should be applied within dermatology, how dermatologists can best work with older complex patients, and more. The conversation was edited for clarity and length.

 

What is geriatric dermatology? It is described by the AAD’s Geriatric Dermatology ERG as “an emerging subspecialty.” Yet it’s also viewed more broadly. Please speak about its various identities and meanings and its importance for dermatology.

I’d describe geriatric dermatology as a “supra-specialty” in theory because it encapsulates a part of many practices. If you’re a general dermatologist, about 50% of your patients are over the age of 65. If you’re a Mohs surgeon, you’re seeing a strong majority of over 65 patients. And in various specialty clinics, such as inflammatory skin disease, geriatric dermatology pertains to you. In many ways, it can be viewed as a mindset.

From a framework standpoint, and as a field, geriatric dermatology is a basic science initiative, a clinical initiative, an educational initiative, and an advocacy initiative. The goal is to be able to influence, grow, and learn in each of these categories for our older patients. This is happening: Research in this field has progressed, and education has progressed, which has driven some progress in clinical care.

 

How has research progressed in the basic science of aging skin? What are key questions for dermatology?

There has been a lot of basic science research on aging skin and on how an aging immune system, for instance, is reflected in conditions such as bullous pemphigoid, atopic dermatitis (AD), and chronic itch. But aging involves more than immunosenescence. I think of aging skin as a three-headed monster that involves changes in the skin barrier and the microbiome as well. But is there a primary piece of aging in the skin? What comes first or influences the other? More research on these questions can potentially influence our treatments.

With respect to the immune system, what we’re finding in the skin is that age-related change is not a decline in the immune system per se, but rather aberrance in response. Parts of the system tend to become overactive, with a skew toward overexpression of type 2 inflammation. This can be problematic, driving conditions such as chronic itch.

With respect to the skin barrier, we lose essential fatty acids, and we lose a lot of our recovery ability and our ability to respond quickly to environmental stressors. But are barrier changes triggering the immune system? Or is it the other way around?

The microbiome, which is a big focus of research, involves similar chicken-and-egg discussions. Is it the microbiome that changes and alters the barrier, which then entices the immune system? Which one happens first? We have a lot to learn, and there’s probably not one answer for every patient.

 

Please speak about research more broadly. What questions and issues need to be answered and addressed to improve the dermatologic care of older adults?

In general, research in dermatology is very disease-specific and not particularly conducive to looking at the larger demographic populations. We have a huge opportunity, therefore, to break the mold and grow geriatric dermatology as an area of population-based research — so that geriatric dermatology research encompasses not only the melanoma researcher who’s trying to understand how aging influences the melanocytes but also the epidemiologic researcher looking at how our diagnoses and coding and prescription practices are different in the 65-plus age group.

Clinically speaking, researchers want to better understand how aging influences the clinical presentations of our diseases. And there’s research to be done on best practices. For example, what are the best practices for treating basal cell carcinomas in patients with mild cognitive impairment? How should we consider the use of topicals in a patient who has severe arthritis or who lives alone? And then how should we teach practical approaches to help providers meet people where they are?

Looking at it from a healthcare system standpoint, there are many care delivery and access issues — practical pieces — to research, and we’re getting a lot better with this. We’re also advocating not only for more inclusion of older adults in clinical trials of treatments but also for the use of evaluations and outcomes that are relevant and important for older adults.

One piece of good news is that we’re seeing safer treatment options with tremendous efficacy that target known pathways for diseases like AD and chronic itch that affect older adults. Again, now we must find ways to improve access to these novel, safe options.

Our research program at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, which we’re just getting off the ground, aims to be dual-sided, looking both at the basic science of aging skin and at access and care delivery issues, such as how to ensure that patients on Medicare have access to medications that are at least on par with others with private insurance.

 

What are the most common dermatologic problems experienced by older adults?

Based on my experience and on research that we expect to be published soon, it’s absolutely nonmelanoma skin cancers, precancers like actinic keratoses — and on the inflammatory disease side, itch, AD, and psoriasis. Of course, also common are the age-related changes to the skin that we put in the benign category, such as solar lentigines.

How does age influence dermatologic diseases from a pathophysiological and clinical standpoint?

Diseases overall are very similar and respond to the same treatments, but age in and of itself does influence little pieces. For example, there is more crossover in the presentation of psoriasis and AD in older adults, leading to delays in the diagnosis of psoriasis.

With AD, we’ve found that itch is the predominant symptom for older adults rather than the red rash. We see higher or more severe itch scores in older adults with AD with less visual changes on the skin than in younger cohorts. And rash occurs in different locations than in young patients. Older adults typically present with it on their chest, back, and across the trunk, rather than in folded areas. They’re also more likely to get it on their legs in a nummular pattern as opposed to the more traditional flexural area presentation.

 

What unique considerations need to be made in treating older adults? How should the 4M model of geriatrics be applied to dermatologic care?

Our care model pushes us to be very algorithmic, but at the end of the day, what’s really important are the 4Ms: Mobility, medication, mentation, and “what matters most.” As you’re having your shared decision-making conversations with your patients and their families, these should be your priorities.

A patient with physical limitations, for instance, may not be able to apply a topical cream twice a day all over the body. They may have comorbidities and treatments for these comorbidities that may conflict with medications you’re considering.

And then mentation is so important. For a long time, we used antihistamines for older adults, but this has been proven to be bad for their mentation and risky in other ways. We need to be sure we’re prioritizing their ability to be clear mentally when we’re prescribing medications and even when we’re considering surgical approaches. Do they show capacity for that procedure or treatment, and how will they respond to that treatment later on?

Using the 4M model to drive conversations is a way to get all of us to connect to the patient and learn about what’s most important for them. In many ways, geriatrics is about taking a step back from your specialist skills and thinking about how you would want a family member treated.

We want to avoid treating just the lesion or the pathologic diagnosis. We want to avoid the “conveyor belt” from a biopsy to Mohs. I have 95-year-olds who say, “Heck yeah, if Mohs is the best treatment, that’s what I want.” And I have 70-year-olds who say, “I think I’ll go with another option,” and that’s the right decision for them. It’s having the conversation that matters.

 

In practice, given time constraints and other confines, how can dermatologists best work with more complex older patients? What are your practical tips?

People talk about having 45-minute “golden year” conversations with their older patients, but it doesn’t have to be this way. In pursuing geriatric dermatology, I decided early on that I wanted to make sure it was practical, so I’ve focused on maximizing shorter visits and on embracing the concept that relationships can be developed over time. Each time we meet with someone, we’re building equity to have bigger conversations later on.

I can have a 15-minute conversation about whether my patient may want to have Mohs surgery, for instance, or escalate treatment to a systemic agent for their chronic inflammatory disease. If that time isn’t enough, I can encourage further thought about treatment options, acknowledge that decisions aren’t necessarily easy, and schedule a follow-up or offer to call the patient after clinic to continue the conversation.

Sometimes, when I’m at an impasse and my patient is unsure how to proceed, I’ll use clear metrics relevant to older adults — sleep, activity level, and caregiver burden — to help my patient. If someone is not sleeping because of their lesion — if they’re so itchy or their inflammatory disease is uncontrolled, for instance — I’ll point out that the side effects of not sleeping are worse than the medications or surgery we’d pursue. If someone removes themselves from an activity due to their skin condition, that’s a red flag. And if the caregiver in the room is overwhelmed or frustrated by having to put cream on twice a day, I’ll use this to advance treatment.

 

What resources are available for dermatologists interested in improving their geriatric dermatology skills or advancing the area?

For those interested in investigating these issues or improving their practices, the AAD’s Geriatric Dermatology ERG is always welcoming of new members. The ERG will have an all-inclusive meeting at the 2025 annual AAD meeting in March.

The AAD also has educational modules on geriatric dermatology that were recently published as an initiative of our ERG. More information is available on the website. Also valuable is the ElderDerm conference hosted by the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; the second such conference takes place in May 2025.

Butler reported that he had no relevant financial disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Daniel C. Butler, MD, is associate professor of dermatology and director of the new Inflammatory and Aging Skin Research Program in the Division of Dermatology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona. Before returning to Arizona, where he had attended medical school, Butler practiced and was a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and its geriatric dermatology clinic. He is a co-founder and continues to co-lead the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) Geriatric Dermatology Expert Resource Group (ERG).

Butler’s interest in geriatric dermatology is rooted in his experience growing up with four grandparents and witnessing their wisdom, relationships, moments with loved ones, and other unique and desirable parts of growing old. “When I looked later at how aging was perceived in dermatology, I found it was a lot about ‘antiaging,’” he told this news organization. “I thought there was a needed voice in dermatology for healthy aging, for all the desirable things that only growing old can provide, along with all the incredible ‘antiaging’ things we can do.”

In interviews, Butler spoke about research priorities in geriatric dermatology, how the “4M” model of geriatrics should be applied within dermatology, how dermatologists can best work with older complex patients, and more. The conversation was edited for clarity and length.

 

What is geriatric dermatology? It is described by the AAD’s Geriatric Dermatology ERG as “an emerging subspecialty.” Yet it’s also viewed more broadly. Please speak about its various identities and meanings and its importance for dermatology.

I’d describe geriatric dermatology as a “supra-specialty” in theory because it encapsulates a part of many practices. If you’re a general dermatologist, about 50% of your patients are over the age of 65. If you’re a Mohs surgeon, you’re seeing a strong majority of over 65 patients. And in various specialty clinics, such as inflammatory skin disease, geriatric dermatology pertains to you. In many ways, it can be viewed as a mindset.

From a framework standpoint, and as a field, geriatric dermatology is a basic science initiative, a clinical initiative, an educational initiative, and an advocacy initiative. The goal is to be able to influence, grow, and learn in each of these categories for our older patients. This is happening: Research in this field has progressed, and education has progressed, which has driven some progress in clinical care.

 

How has research progressed in the basic science of aging skin? What are key questions for dermatology?

There has been a lot of basic science research on aging skin and on how an aging immune system, for instance, is reflected in conditions such as bullous pemphigoid, atopic dermatitis (AD), and chronic itch. But aging involves more than immunosenescence. I think of aging skin as a three-headed monster that involves changes in the skin barrier and the microbiome as well. But is there a primary piece of aging in the skin? What comes first or influences the other? More research on these questions can potentially influence our treatments.

With respect to the immune system, what we’re finding in the skin is that age-related change is not a decline in the immune system per se, but rather aberrance in response. Parts of the system tend to become overactive, with a skew toward overexpression of type 2 inflammation. This can be problematic, driving conditions such as chronic itch.

With respect to the skin barrier, we lose essential fatty acids, and we lose a lot of our recovery ability and our ability to respond quickly to environmental stressors. But are barrier changes triggering the immune system? Or is it the other way around?

The microbiome, which is a big focus of research, involves similar chicken-and-egg discussions. Is it the microbiome that changes and alters the barrier, which then entices the immune system? Which one happens first? We have a lot to learn, and there’s probably not one answer for every patient.

 

Please speak about research more broadly. What questions and issues need to be answered and addressed to improve the dermatologic care of older adults?

In general, research in dermatology is very disease-specific and not particularly conducive to looking at the larger demographic populations. We have a huge opportunity, therefore, to break the mold and grow geriatric dermatology as an area of population-based research — so that geriatric dermatology research encompasses not only the melanoma researcher who’s trying to understand how aging influences the melanocytes but also the epidemiologic researcher looking at how our diagnoses and coding and prescription practices are different in the 65-plus age group.

Clinically speaking, researchers want to better understand how aging influences the clinical presentations of our diseases. And there’s research to be done on best practices. For example, what are the best practices for treating basal cell carcinomas in patients with mild cognitive impairment? How should we consider the use of topicals in a patient who has severe arthritis or who lives alone? And then how should we teach practical approaches to help providers meet people where they are?

Looking at it from a healthcare system standpoint, there are many care delivery and access issues — practical pieces — to research, and we’re getting a lot better with this. We’re also advocating not only for more inclusion of older adults in clinical trials of treatments but also for the use of evaluations and outcomes that are relevant and important for older adults.

One piece of good news is that we’re seeing safer treatment options with tremendous efficacy that target known pathways for diseases like AD and chronic itch that affect older adults. Again, now we must find ways to improve access to these novel, safe options.

Our research program at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, which we’re just getting off the ground, aims to be dual-sided, looking both at the basic science of aging skin and at access and care delivery issues, such as how to ensure that patients on Medicare have access to medications that are at least on par with others with private insurance.

 

What are the most common dermatologic problems experienced by older adults?

Based on my experience and on research that we expect to be published soon, it’s absolutely nonmelanoma skin cancers, precancers like actinic keratoses — and on the inflammatory disease side, itch, AD, and psoriasis. Of course, also common are the age-related changes to the skin that we put in the benign category, such as solar lentigines.

How does age influence dermatologic diseases from a pathophysiological and clinical standpoint?

Diseases overall are very similar and respond to the same treatments, but age in and of itself does influence little pieces. For example, there is more crossover in the presentation of psoriasis and AD in older adults, leading to delays in the diagnosis of psoriasis.

With AD, we’ve found that itch is the predominant symptom for older adults rather than the red rash. We see higher or more severe itch scores in older adults with AD with less visual changes on the skin than in younger cohorts. And rash occurs in different locations than in young patients. Older adults typically present with it on their chest, back, and across the trunk, rather than in folded areas. They’re also more likely to get it on their legs in a nummular pattern as opposed to the more traditional flexural area presentation.

 

What unique considerations need to be made in treating older adults? How should the 4M model of geriatrics be applied to dermatologic care?

Our care model pushes us to be very algorithmic, but at the end of the day, what’s really important are the 4Ms: Mobility, medication, mentation, and “what matters most.” As you’re having your shared decision-making conversations with your patients and their families, these should be your priorities.

A patient with physical limitations, for instance, may not be able to apply a topical cream twice a day all over the body. They may have comorbidities and treatments for these comorbidities that may conflict with medications you’re considering.

And then mentation is so important. For a long time, we used antihistamines for older adults, but this has been proven to be bad for their mentation and risky in other ways. We need to be sure we’re prioritizing their ability to be clear mentally when we’re prescribing medications and even when we’re considering surgical approaches. Do they show capacity for that procedure or treatment, and how will they respond to that treatment later on?

Using the 4M model to drive conversations is a way to get all of us to connect to the patient and learn about what’s most important for them. In many ways, geriatrics is about taking a step back from your specialist skills and thinking about how you would want a family member treated.

We want to avoid treating just the lesion or the pathologic diagnosis. We want to avoid the “conveyor belt” from a biopsy to Mohs. I have 95-year-olds who say, “Heck yeah, if Mohs is the best treatment, that’s what I want.” And I have 70-year-olds who say, “I think I’ll go with another option,” and that’s the right decision for them. It’s having the conversation that matters.

 

In practice, given time constraints and other confines, how can dermatologists best work with more complex older patients? What are your practical tips?

People talk about having 45-minute “golden year” conversations with their older patients, but it doesn’t have to be this way. In pursuing geriatric dermatology, I decided early on that I wanted to make sure it was practical, so I’ve focused on maximizing shorter visits and on embracing the concept that relationships can be developed over time. Each time we meet with someone, we’re building equity to have bigger conversations later on.

I can have a 15-minute conversation about whether my patient may want to have Mohs surgery, for instance, or escalate treatment to a systemic agent for their chronic inflammatory disease. If that time isn’t enough, I can encourage further thought about treatment options, acknowledge that decisions aren’t necessarily easy, and schedule a follow-up or offer to call the patient after clinic to continue the conversation.

Sometimes, when I’m at an impasse and my patient is unsure how to proceed, I’ll use clear metrics relevant to older adults — sleep, activity level, and caregiver burden — to help my patient. If someone is not sleeping because of their lesion — if they’re so itchy or their inflammatory disease is uncontrolled, for instance — I’ll point out that the side effects of not sleeping are worse than the medications or surgery we’d pursue. If someone removes themselves from an activity due to their skin condition, that’s a red flag. And if the caregiver in the room is overwhelmed or frustrated by having to put cream on twice a day, I’ll use this to advance treatment.

 

What resources are available for dermatologists interested in improving their geriatric dermatology skills or advancing the area?

For those interested in investigating these issues or improving their practices, the AAD’s Geriatric Dermatology ERG is always welcoming of new members. The ERG will have an all-inclusive meeting at the 2025 annual AAD meeting in March.

The AAD also has educational modules on geriatric dermatology that were recently published as an initiative of our ERG. More information is available on the website. Also valuable is the ElderDerm conference hosted by the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; the second such conference takes place in May 2025.

Butler reported that he had no relevant financial disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, lipid-lowering drugs, were associated with a 22% lower risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), an effect that was particularly significant among men, those older than 65 years, and those with immunosuppression.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the risk for NMSC — basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) — in patients with ASCVD on PCSK9 inhibitors, researchers analyzed data from the US Collaborative Network in the TriNetX database of adults aged ≥ 40 years with ASCVD who received statin therapy between 2016 and 2022.
• A total of 73,636 patients were included, divided equally between those receiving a PCSK9 inhibitor (evolocumab, alirocumab, or inclisiran) plus statin therapy and the control group (those on statin therapy only).
• The analysis used propensity score matching for head-to-head comparisons, with hazard ratios (HRs) estimated using Cox proportional hazard models.
• Stratified analyses examined outcomes by age, sex, Fitzpatrick skin type, and immune status. (Immunosuppressed patients were those treated with immunosuppressants for more than 90 days in the year before the index date — the date when exposed patients were first prescribed a PCSK9 inhibitor, which was also index date for matched patients in the statin-only group.)

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with ASCVD in the PCSK9 group showed significantly lower risks for NMSC (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.87), BCC (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and SCC (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.93) than control individuals on a statin only (P < .001 for all three).
• Both evolocumab and alirocumab demonstrated similar protective effects against the development of NMSC.
• The reduced risk for NMSC was particularly notable among patients aged 65-79 years (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.86) and those aged ≥ 80 years (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91).
• Men showed a more pronounced reduction in the risk for NMSC (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.83) than women (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11). The effect on lowering NMSC risk was also evident among immunosuppressed patients in the PCSK9 group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.75).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest the promising pleiotropic effect of PCSK9 inhibitors on the chemoprevention of NMSC,” the study authors wrote. Referring to previous studies that “provided mechanistic clues to our findings,” they added that “further studies are required to investigate the underlying mechanisms and establish causality.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Cheng-Yuan Li, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, and was published online in The British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Electronic health records lack information on sun protection habits, family history of skin cancer, diet, body mass index, and air pollution exposure, risk factors for NMSC. The study also lacked detailed information on enrollees’ lipid profiles and was focused mostly on patients in the United States, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other regions.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, lipid-lowering drugs, were associated with a 22% lower risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), an effect that was particularly significant among men, those older than 65 years, and those with immunosuppression.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the risk for NMSC — basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) — in patients with ASCVD on PCSK9 inhibitors, researchers analyzed data from the US Collaborative Network in the TriNetX database of adults aged ≥ 40 years with ASCVD who received statin therapy between 2016 and 2022.
• A total of 73,636 patients were included, divided equally between those receiving a PCSK9 inhibitor (evolocumab, alirocumab, or inclisiran) plus statin therapy and the control group (those on statin therapy only).
• The analysis used propensity score matching for head-to-head comparisons, with hazard ratios (HRs) estimated using Cox proportional hazard models.
• Stratified analyses examined outcomes by age, sex, Fitzpatrick skin type, and immune status. (Immunosuppressed patients were those treated with immunosuppressants for more than 90 days in the year before the index date — the date when exposed patients were first prescribed a PCSK9 inhibitor, which was also index date for matched patients in the statin-only group.)

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with ASCVD in the PCSK9 group showed significantly lower risks for NMSC (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.87), BCC (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and SCC (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.93) than control individuals on a statin only (P < .001 for all three).
• Both evolocumab and alirocumab demonstrated similar protective effects against the development of NMSC.
• The reduced risk for NMSC was particularly notable among patients aged 65-79 years (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.86) and those aged ≥ 80 years (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91).
• Men showed a more pronounced reduction in the risk for NMSC (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.83) than women (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11). The effect on lowering NMSC risk was also evident among immunosuppressed patients in the PCSK9 group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.75).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest the promising pleiotropic effect of PCSK9 inhibitors on the chemoprevention of NMSC,” the study authors wrote. Referring to previous studies that “provided mechanistic clues to our findings,” they added that “further studies are required to investigate the underlying mechanisms and establish causality.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Cheng-Yuan Li, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, and was published online in The British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Electronic health records lack information on sun protection habits, family history of skin cancer, diet, body mass index, and air pollution exposure, risk factors for NMSC. The study also lacked detailed information on enrollees’ lipid profiles and was focused mostly on patients in the United States, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other regions.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, lipid-lowering drugs, were associated with a 22% lower risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), an effect that was particularly significant among men, those older than 65 years, and those with immunosuppression.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the risk for NMSC — basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) — in patients with ASCVD on PCSK9 inhibitors, researchers analyzed data from the US Collaborative Network in the TriNetX database of adults aged ≥ 40 years with ASCVD who received statin therapy between 2016 and 2022.
• A total of 73,636 patients were included, divided equally between those receiving a PCSK9 inhibitor (evolocumab, alirocumab, or inclisiran) plus statin therapy and the control group (those on statin therapy only).
• The analysis used propensity score matching for head-to-head comparisons, with hazard ratios (HRs) estimated using Cox proportional hazard models.
• Stratified analyses examined outcomes by age, sex, Fitzpatrick skin type, and immune status. (Immunosuppressed patients were those treated with immunosuppressants for more than 90 days in the year before the index date — the date when exposed patients were first prescribed a PCSK9 inhibitor, which was also index date for matched patients in the statin-only group.)

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with ASCVD in the PCSK9 group showed significantly lower risks for NMSC (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.87), BCC (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and SCC (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.93) than control individuals on a statin only (P < .001 for all three).
• Both evolocumab and alirocumab demonstrated similar protective effects against the development of NMSC.
• The reduced risk for NMSC was particularly notable among patients aged 65-79 years (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.86) and those aged ≥ 80 years (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91).
• Men showed a more pronounced reduction in the risk for NMSC (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.83) than women (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11). The effect on lowering NMSC risk was also evident among immunosuppressed patients in the PCSK9 group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.75).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest the promising pleiotropic effect of PCSK9 inhibitors on the chemoprevention of NMSC,” the study authors wrote. Referring to previous studies that “provided mechanistic clues to our findings,” they added that “further studies are required to investigate the underlying mechanisms and establish causality.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Cheng-Yuan Li, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, and was published online in The British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Electronic health records lack information on sun protection habits, family history of skin cancer, diet, body mass index, and air pollution exposure, risk factors for NMSC. The study also lacked detailed information on enrollees’ lipid profiles and was focused mostly on patients in the United States, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other regions.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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