Melanoma

To the Editor:

A 58-year-old man with a pigmented lesion on the left lower eyelid was referred to the oculoplastic clinic by an outside ophthalmologist. The patient had noticed the lesion growing over the course of the last 4 to 5 months. He reported scant amounts of blood and discharge coming from the nose and left eye the week prior, which persisted for 3 days. He had no associated pain or discomfort. A slit-lamp examination revealed a pigmented left lower eyelid lesion measuring 20×15 mm with telangiectasia and an eyelid margin abnormality with no palpable lymphadenopathy. The patient was diagnosed with clinical stage T3N0M0 malignant conjunctival melanoma of the left eyelid based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification. It is thought to have originated from conjunctival primary acquired melanosis (PAM). The T3 stage is defined as malignant melanoma with local invasion; the lesion involved the eyelid and puncta as well as canalicular portions of the lacrimal drainage system.¹ The bloody discharge was attributed to the involvement of the canalicular system, which drains tears from the eye to the nose. Melanomas can bleed, so any bloody discharge from the eye also will come through the ipsilateral nasal passage. Oncology evaluated the lesion to help determine the stage, and they found no lymph node involvement or brain, neck, chest, abdominal, or pelvic metastasis by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was discussed with head and neck oncology specialists and was ultimately not performed per the recommendation from the Head and Neck Oncology Board; it is not a common modality for managing conjunctival melanoma because it has not been shown to alter morbidity and mortality.

The entire eyelid from the medial canthus to the lateral canthus was removed without touching the pigmented mass to ensure a “no-touch” technique removal of the mass. The no-touch technique primarily is utilized to decrease the likelihood of instrumental seeding of healthy tissues or the vascular system.² This technique focuses on preventing any direct manipulation of the tumor and avoiding an incisional biopsy as well as removal of the tumor en bloc. The margins were cutaneous—3 mm lateral to the lateral canthus, 5 mm below the lid margin, and 3 mm medial to the medial canthus—with dissection of the medial tissue from the orbital rim and lacrimal sac fossa. The lacrimal sac and lower canaliculus were then resected. The conjunctiva 5 mm inferior to the pigmented mass and the entire palpebral conjunctiva was resected to the inferior fornix across the entire palpebral conjunctiva of the lower eyelid (Figure). The eyelid and lacrimal portions were removed as a unit. Essentially, the entire lower eyelid (full thickness), including the lateral canthus, medial canthus, canaliculus, and lacrimal sac, were removed en bloc. The final tumor staging after tissue evaluation by pathology and systemic evaluation by oncology was pT3N0bM0.

A tarsoconjunctival (Hughes) flap from the upper eyelid was used to reconstruct the posterior lamella (tarsus/conjunctiva) of the lower eyelid, and a full-thickness skin graft harvested from the ipsilateral upper eyelid was used to reconstruct the anterior lamella (skin) of the lower eyelid. The reconstruction site was allowed to heal for 4 weeks before severing the tarsoconjunctival graft to allow the separation of the upper and lower eyelids. Adjunctive topical ophthalmic chemotherapy (mitomycin C 0.04%) was started 4 weeks after the last surgery. The medication was applied 4 times daily for 1 week and restarted after the conjunctival erythema and injection subsided, which was approximately 2.5 weeks, on average. The regimen of applying the medication (1 week on and 2.5 weeks off) was completed for 4 cycles. At 1 year follow-up after his diagnosis, the patient was without local recurrence or evidence of systemic metastasis. We plan to have him continue ophthalmic and oncologic evaluation every 3 to 4 months for the next 24 months, and then every 6 months for years 2 through 5.

Ocular melanoma can be further divided into uveal and conjunctival types, both arising from the respective tissue. Melanoma of the conjunctiva commonly arises from PAM with atypia, which is an acquired conjunctival pigmented lesion similar to a skin nevus that has the potential to become dysplastic. In a genetic analysis of 78 conjunctival melanomas, BRAF mutations were identified in 29% (23/78) of tumors, and NRAS mutations were detected in 18% (14/78) of tumors³; however, in our case, there were no BRAF or NRAS mutations detected. In a study of 84,836 cases that included a diagnosis of melanoma, ocular melanoma comprised 5.2% of melanomas, with cutaneous, mucosal, and unknown primary sites totaling the remaining percentage of melanomas. Of 4522 patients with ocular melanomas, 85% had uveal melanomas; 4.8% had conjunctival melanoma; and 10.2% were classified as other—comprised of cornea, not otherwise specified (NOS); retina; lacrimal gland; orbit, NOS; overlapping lesion of the eye; and eye, NOS.⁴ Melanomas of the uvea, including the ciliary body, choroid, and iris, result from a notably different pathogenesis than conjunctival melanoma, with the former being primarily associated with GNAQ and GNA mutations.³ Ciliary body and choroidal melanomas each have a different pathogenesis for occurrence, with choroidal melanoma being mostly from metastasis and ciliary body melanoma from mutations or metastasis.

Pigmented lesions on the conjunctiva or sclera arise from either melanocytes or nonmelanocytes and have a diverse differential diagnosis, including congenital melanosis, conjunctival nevi, PAM or secondary acquired melanosis, or conjunctival melanoma. The diagnosis of uveal melanoma should be based on fundoscopic examination by an experienced clinician. Uveal melanoma is unlike most other cancers in that diagnosis can be by clinical fundoscopic examination alone. Imaging studies such as ultrasound and fluorescein angiography can be performed for prognostication and characterization. Fine needle aspiration biopsy for molecular analysis is becoming more routine, but the results rarely affect the plan of care. Primary treatment of uveal melanoma should strive to preserve vision and prevent metastasis; however, a primary modality has yet to show notable results in decreasing distant disease spread or overall survival. Treatment of the primary tumor should involve consideration of tumor size, location, health of the patient, and patient preference.^1,5

For patients with melanoma arising from the conjunctiva, initial management should focus on local disease control, including wide local excision to avoid seeding, supplemented with cryotherapy and alcohol epitheliectomy to the cornea to ensure local tumor extinction.^2,6 Techniques including enucleation and orbital exenteration historically have been used for treatment of extensive disease, but this approach has not been associated with improvement in mortality and is a cause of notable morbidity.^7,8 Sentinel lymph node biopsy has an established role in the management of cutaneous melanoma, but its use in the setting of conjunctival melanoma is controversial, with studies showing that up to 50% of patients with local recurrence can develop distant metastasis with no evidence of regional lymph node involvement.^9,10 When the tumor is present at the surgical margins or in the case that lesions cannot be fully excised, adjuvant therapy may improve long-term control and prevent recurrence following surgical intervention. Mitomycin C 0.04% is the most commonly used topical chemotherapy agent because it has an established role in the treatment of PAM, but it remains adjuvant therapy for conjunctival melanoma due to the relatively poor outcomes when it is used for primary therapy.¹¹

In one study, recurrence rates for conjunctival melanoma were 26%, 51%, and 65% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively.¹² Risk factors for recurrence include increased tumor thickness, incomplete excision, positive margins, surgical excision without adjuvant therapy, and nonlimbal location.¹³ A multivariate analysis of 150 patients showed that the melanoma location not touching the limbus (P=.01) and pathologic evidence of tumor to the lateral margin (P=.02) were related to tumor recurrence, with relative risks (IQR) of 2.3 (1.2-4.6) and 2.9 (1.2-7.1), respectively. Careful surgical planning using wide microsurgical excisional biopsy emphasizing a no-touch technique as well as supplemental alcohol therapy for the cornea and conjunctiva is advised.¹²

To the Editor:

A 58-year-old man with a pigmented lesion on the left lower eyelid was referred to the oculoplastic clinic by an outside ophthalmologist. The patient had noticed the lesion growing over the course of the last 4 to 5 months. He reported scant amounts of blood and discharge coming from the nose and left eye the week prior, which persisted for 3 days. He had no associated pain or discomfort. A slit-lamp examination revealed a pigmented left lower eyelid lesion measuring 20×15 mm with telangiectasia and an eyelid margin abnormality with no palpable lymphadenopathy. The patient was diagnosed with clinical stage T3N0M0 malignant conjunctival melanoma of the left eyelid based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification. It is thought to have originated from conjunctival primary acquired melanosis (PAM). The T3 stage is defined as malignant melanoma with local invasion; the lesion involved the eyelid and puncta as well as canalicular portions of the lacrimal drainage system.¹ The bloody discharge was attributed to the involvement of the canalicular system, which drains tears from the eye to the nose. Melanomas can bleed, so any bloody discharge from the eye also will come through the ipsilateral nasal passage. Oncology evaluated the lesion to help determine the stage, and they found no lymph node involvement or brain, neck, chest, abdominal, or pelvic metastasis by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was discussed with head and neck oncology specialists and was ultimately not performed per the recommendation from the Head and Neck Oncology Board; it is not a common modality for managing conjunctival melanoma because it has not been shown to alter morbidity and mortality.

The entire eyelid from the medial canthus to the lateral canthus was removed without touching the pigmented mass to ensure a “no-touch” technique removal of the mass. The no-touch technique primarily is utilized to decrease the likelihood of instrumental seeding of healthy tissues or the vascular system.² This technique focuses on preventing any direct manipulation of the tumor and avoiding an incisional biopsy as well as removal of the tumor en bloc. The margins were cutaneous—3 mm lateral to the lateral canthus, 5 mm below the lid margin, and 3 mm medial to the medial canthus—with dissection of the medial tissue from the orbital rim and lacrimal sac fossa. The lacrimal sac and lower canaliculus were then resected. The conjunctiva 5 mm inferior to the pigmented mass and the entire palpebral conjunctiva was resected to the inferior fornix across the entire palpebral conjunctiva of the lower eyelid (Figure). The eyelid and lacrimal portions were removed as a unit. Essentially, the entire lower eyelid (full thickness), including the lateral canthus, medial canthus, canaliculus, and lacrimal sac, were removed en bloc. The final tumor staging after tissue evaluation by pathology and systemic evaluation by oncology was pT3N0bM0.

A tarsoconjunctival (Hughes) flap from the upper eyelid was used to reconstruct the posterior lamella (tarsus/conjunctiva) of the lower eyelid, and a full-thickness skin graft harvested from the ipsilateral upper eyelid was used to reconstruct the anterior lamella (skin) of the lower eyelid. The reconstruction site was allowed to heal for 4 weeks before severing the tarsoconjunctival graft to allow the separation of the upper and lower eyelids. Adjunctive topical ophthalmic chemotherapy (mitomycin C 0.04%) was started 4 weeks after the last surgery. The medication was applied 4 times daily for 1 week and restarted after the conjunctival erythema and injection subsided, which was approximately 2.5 weeks, on average. The regimen of applying the medication (1 week on and 2.5 weeks off) was completed for 4 cycles. At 1 year follow-up after his diagnosis, the patient was without local recurrence or evidence of systemic metastasis. We plan to have him continue ophthalmic and oncologic evaluation every 3 to 4 months for the next 24 months, and then every 6 months for years 2 through 5.

Ocular melanoma can be further divided into uveal and conjunctival types, both arising from the respective tissue. Melanoma of the conjunctiva commonly arises from PAM with atypia, which is an acquired conjunctival pigmented lesion similar to a skin nevus that has the potential to become dysplastic. In a genetic analysis of 78 conjunctival melanomas, BRAF mutations were identified in 29% (23/78) of tumors, and NRAS mutations were detected in 18% (14/78) of tumors³; however, in our case, there were no BRAF or NRAS mutations detected. In a study of 84,836 cases that included a diagnosis of melanoma, ocular melanoma comprised 5.2% of melanomas, with cutaneous, mucosal, and unknown primary sites totaling the remaining percentage of melanomas. Of 4522 patients with ocular melanomas, 85% had uveal melanomas; 4.8% had conjunctival melanoma; and 10.2% were classified as other—comprised of cornea, not otherwise specified (NOS); retina; lacrimal gland; orbit, NOS; overlapping lesion of the eye; and eye, NOS.⁴ Melanomas of the uvea, including the ciliary body, choroid, and iris, result from a notably different pathogenesis than conjunctival melanoma, with the former being primarily associated with GNAQ and GNA mutations.³ Ciliary body and choroidal melanomas each have a different pathogenesis for occurrence, with choroidal melanoma being mostly from metastasis and ciliary body melanoma from mutations or metastasis.

Pigmented lesions on the conjunctiva or sclera arise from either melanocytes or nonmelanocytes and have a diverse differential diagnosis, including congenital melanosis, conjunctival nevi, PAM or secondary acquired melanosis, or conjunctival melanoma. The diagnosis of uveal melanoma should be based on fundoscopic examination by an experienced clinician. Uveal melanoma is unlike most other cancers in that diagnosis can be by clinical fundoscopic examination alone. Imaging studies such as ultrasound and fluorescein angiography can be performed for prognostication and characterization. Fine needle aspiration biopsy for molecular analysis is becoming more routine, but the results rarely affect the plan of care. Primary treatment of uveal melanoma should strive to preserve vision and prevent metastasis; however, a primary modality has yet to show notable results in decreasing distant disease spread or overall survival. Treatment of the primary tumor should involve consideration of tumor size, location, health of the patient, and patient preference.^1,5

For patients with melanoma arising from the conjunctiva, initial management should focus on local disease control, including wide local excision to avoid seeding, supplemented with cryotherapy and alcohol epitheliectomy to the cornea to ensure local tumor extinction.^2,6 Techniques including enucleation and orbital exenteration historically have been used for treatment of extensive disease, but this approach has not been associated with improvement in mortality and is a cause of notable morbidity.^7,8 Sentinel lymph node biopsy has an established role in the management of cutaneous melanoma, but its use in the setting of conjunctival melanoma is controversial, with studies showing that up to 50% of patients with local recurrence can develop distant metastasis with no evidence of regional lymph node involvement.^9,10 When the tumor is present at the surgical margins or in the case that lesions cannot be fully excised, adjuvant therapy may improve long-term control and prevent recurrence following surgical intervention. Mitomycin C 0.04% is the most commonly used topical chemotherapy agent because it has an established role in the treatment of PAM, but it remains adjuvant therapy for conjunctival melanoma due to the relatively poor outcomes when it is used for primary therapy.¹¹

In one study, recurrence rates for conjunctival melanoma were 26%, 51%, and 65% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively.¹² Risk factors for recurrence include increased tumor thickness, incomplete excision, positive margins, surgical excision without adjuvant therapy, and nonlimbal location.¹³ A multivariate analysis of 150 patients showed that the melanoma location not touching the limbus (P=.01) and pathologic evidence of tumor to the lateral margin (P=.02) were related to tumor recurrence, with relative risks (IQR) of 2.3 (1.2-4.6) and 2.9 (1.2-7.1), respectively. Careful surgical planning using wide microsurgical excisional biopsy emphasizing a no-touch technique as well as supplemental alcohol therapy for the cornea and conjunctiva is advised.¹²

To the Editor:

A 58-year-old man with a pigmented lesion on the left lower eyelid was referred to the oculoplastic clinic by an outside ophthalmologist. The patient had noticed the lesion growing over the course of the last 4 to 5 months. He reported scant amounts of blood and discharge coming from the nose and left eye the week prior, which persisted for 3 days. He had no associated pain or discomfort. A slit-lamp examination revealed a pigmented left lower eyelid lesion measuring 20×15 mm with telangiectasia and an eyelid margin abnormality with no palpable lymphadenopathy. The patient was diagnosed with clinical stage T3N0M0 malignant conjunctival melanoma of the left eyelid based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification. It is thought to have originated from conjunctival primary acquired melanosis (PAM). The T3 stage is defined as malignant melanoma with local invasion; the lesion involved the eyelid and puncta as well as canalicular portions of the lacrimal drainage system.¹ The bloody discharge was attributed to the involvement of the canalicular system, which drains tears from the eye to the nose. Melanomas can bleed, so any bloody discharge from the eye also will come through the ipsilateral nasal passage. Oncology evaluated the lesion to help determine the stage, and they found no lymph node involvement or brain, neck, chest, abdominal, or pelvic metastasis by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was discussed with head and neck oncology specialists and was ultimately not performed per the recommendation from the Head and Neck Oncology Board; it is not a common modality for managing conjunctival melanoma because it has not been shown to alter morbidity and mortality.

The entire eyelid from the medial canthus to the lateral canthus was removed without touching the pigmented mass to ensure a “no-touch” technique removal of the mass. The no-touch technique primarily is utilized to decrease the likelihood of instrumental seeding of healthy tissues or the vascular system.² This technique focuses on preventing any direct manipulation of the tumor and avoiding an incisional biopsy as well as removal of the tumor en bloc. The margins were cutaneous—3 mm lateral to the lateral canthus, 5 mm below the lid margin, and 3 mm medial to the medial canthus—with dissection of the medial tissue from the orbital rim and lacrimal sac fossa. The lacrimal sac and lower canaliculus were then resected. The conjunctiva 5 mm inferior to the pigmented mass and the entire palpebral conjunctiva was resected to the inferior fornix across the entire palpebral conjunctiva of the lower eyelid (Figure). The eyelid and lacrimal portions were removed as a unit. Essentially, the entire lower eyelid (full thickness), including the lateral canthus, medial canthus, canaliculus, and lacrimal sac, were removed en bloc. The final tumor staging after tissue evaluation by pathology and systemic evaluation by oncology was pT3N0bM0.

A tarsoconjunctival (Hughes) flap from the upper eyelid was used to reconstruct the posterior lamella (tarsus/conjunctiva) of the lower eyelid, and a full-thickness skin graft harvested from the ipsilateral upper eyelid was used to reconstruct the anterior lamella (skin) of the lower eyelid. The reconstruction site was allowed to heal for 4 weeks before severing the tarsoconjunctival graft to allow the separation of the upper and lower eyelids. Adjunctive topical ophthalmic chemotherapy (mitomycin C 0.04%) was started 4 weeks after the last surgery. The medication was applied 4 times daily for 1 week and restarted after the conjunctival erythema and injection subsided, which was approximately 2.5 weeks, on average. The regimen of applying the medication (1 week on and 2.5 weeks off) was completed for 4 cycles. At 1 year follow-up after his diagnosis, the patient was without local recurrence or evidence of systemic metastasis. We plan to have him continue ophthalmic and oncologic evaluation every 3 to 4 months for the next 24 months, and then every 6 months for years 2 through 5.

Ocular melanoma can be further divided into uveal and conjunctival types, both arising from the respective tissue. Melanoma of the conjunctiva commonly arises from PAM with atypia, which is an acquired conjunctival pigmented lesion similar to a skin nevus that has the potential to become dysplastic. In a genetic analysis of 78 conjunctival melanomas, BRAF mutations were identified in 29% (23/78) of tumors, and NRAS mutations were detected in 18% (14/78) of tumors³; however, in our case, there were no BRAF or NRAS mutations detected. In a study of 84,836 cases that included a diagnosis of melanoma, ocular melanoma comprised 5.2% of melanomas, with cutaneous, mucosal, and unknown primary sites totaling the remaining percentage of melanomas. Of 4522 patients with ocular melanomas, 85% had uveal melanomas; 4.8% had conjunctival melanoma; and 10.2% were classified as other—comprised of cornea, not otherwise specified (NOS); retina; lacrimal gland; orbit, NOS; overlapping lesion of the eye; and eye, NOS.⁴ Melanomas of the uvea, including the ciliary body, choroid, and iris, result from a notably different pathogenesis than conjunctival melanoma, with the former being primarily associated with GNAQ and GNA mutations.³ Ciliary body and choroidal melanomas each have a different pathogenesis for occurrence, with choroidal melanoma being mostly from metastasis and ciliary body melanoma from mutations or metastasis.

Pigmented lesions on the conjunctiva or sclera arise from either melanocytes or nonmelanocytes and have a diverse differential diagnosis, including congenital melanosis, conjunctival nevi, PAM or secondary acquired melanosis, or conjunctival melanoma. The diagnosis of uveal melanoma should be based on fundoscopic examination by an experienced clinician. Uveal melanoma is unlike most other cancers in that diagnosis can be by clinical fundoscopic examination alone. Imaging studies such as ultrasound and fluorescein angiography can be performed for prognostication and characterization. Fine needle aspiration biopsy for molecular analysis is becoming more routine, but the results rarely affect the plan of care. Primary treatment of uveal melanoma should strive to preserve vision and prevent metastasis; however, a primary modality has yet to show notable results in decreasing distant disease spread or overall survival. Treatment of the primary tumor should involve consideration of tumor size, location, health of the patient, and patient preference.^1,5

For patients with melanoma arising from the conjunctiva, initial management should focus on local disease control, including wide local excision to avoid seeding, supplemented with cryotherapy and alcohol epitheliectomy to the cornea to ensure local tumor extinction.^2,6 Techniques including enucleation and orbital exenteration historically have been used for treatment of extensive disease, but this approach has not been associated with improvement in mortality and is a cause of notable morbidity.^7,8 Sentinel lymph node biopsy has an established role in the management of cutaneous melanoma, but its use in the setting of conjunctival melanoma is controversial, with studies showing that up to 50% of patients with local recurrence can develop distant metastasis with no evidence of regional lymph node involvement.^9,10 When the tumor is present at the surgical margins or in the case that lesions cannot be fully excised, adjuvant therapy may improve long-term control and prevent recurrence following surgical intervention. Mitomycin C 0.04% is the most commonly used topical chemotherapy agent because it has an established role in the treatment of PAM, but it remains adjuvant therapy for conjunctival melanoma due to the relatively poor outcomes when it is used for primary therapy.¹¹

In one study, recurrence rates for conjunctival melanoma were 26%, 51%, and 65% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively.¹² Risk factors for recurrence include increased tumor thickness, incomplete excision, positive margins, surgical excision without adjuvant therapy, and nonlimbal location.¹³ A multivariate analysis of 150 patients showed that the melanoma location not touching the limbus (P=.01) and pathologic evidence of tumor to the lateral margin (P=.02) were related to tumor recurrence, with relative risks (IQR) of 2.3 (1.2-4.6) and 2.9 (1.2-7.1), respectively. Careful surgical planning using wide microsurgical excisional biopsy emphasizing a no-touch technique as well as supplemental alcohol therapy for the cornea and conjunctiva is advised.¹²

An injection of bupivacaine following Mohs micrographic surgery procedures that have notable postsurgical pain significantly reduces pain scores and, importantly, use of postsurgical narcotics, a randomized trial shows.

“Single-dose, in-office bupivacaine administration immediately following reconstructions known to be high risk for pain reduces postoperative narcotic use and acute pain during the time period when our patients have the highest levels of pain,” said first author Vanessa B. Voss, MD, of the University of Missouri–Columbia, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Dr. Vanessa Voss

“It was well tolerated, there were no adverse effects, and we recommend the consideration of using this in Mohs micrographic surgery reconstructions that are at the highest risk for pain,” she said.

Recent research has shown that Mohs micrographic surgeons have the highest rates of opioid prescribing of all dermatologists, with about 11% of patients undergoing a Mohs procedure prescribed the drugs for postoperative use, Dr. Voss explained.

Yet, with the ongoing opioid epidemic and even short courses of postoperative opioids placing patients at risk for addiction, the pressure is on to find alternative, nonaddictive strategies for the treatment of acute postoperative pain.

Bupivacaine is commonly used intraoperatively with other types of surgeries to reduce postoperative pain, with a favorable duration of action lasting up to 7 hours, compared with just 2-3 hours with lidocaine. And while its use in Mohs surgery is typically also intraoperative, along with lidocaine, the unique postoperative treatment approach in Mohs surgery has not been well studied, Dr. Voss noted.

To investigate, Dr. Voss and colleagues conducted the prospective, multicenter randomized trial, enrolling 174 patients undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery for skin cancer.

Patients were receiving complex flap reconstructions that have been specifically designated in an American Academy of Dermatology position statement to be high risk for pain following Mohs surgeries, and hence, more likely to involve prescriptions for opioids. These include reconstruction flaps of the scalp, ear, nose or lip, a wedge repair of the ear or lip, or a Mustarde cheek rotation flap.

The mean age of the patients was about 69 years, and about 65% were male. The two groups had no significant differences in demographics, tumor types, or repairs. They were randomized to receive either local injections of bupivacaine 0.5% (with no epinephrine) or placebo with sterile saline injection immediately following the procedure, with the total amount of injection standardized and dependent upon the flap surface area, ranging from 2.5 to 5 cm³.

For postoperative pain, all patients were prescribed acetaminophen 1,000 mg alternating with ibuprofen 400 mg, and tramadol, with instructions to only use tramadol as needed for breakthrough pain.

The reported use of narcotic analgesics by participants was significantly higher among those receiving placebo versus bupivacaine in the first 24 hours following surgery (odds ratio, 2.18; P = .03), as well as in the second 24 hours (OR, 2.18; P = .08) and at 48 hours combined (OR, 2.58; P < .01).

Those in the bupivacaine group also reported lower average pain scores, on a scale of 0-10, during the first 8-hour interval (mean difference, 1.6; P < .001). Importantly, overall, reports of pain medication use and the percentage of patients reporting pain under control were similar between groups, despite lower opioid use in the bupivacaine group.

“The percentage of patients reporting their pain to be under control was similar at all time intervals in both groups, so this means the bupivacaine group had their pain well-controlled despite fewer narcotics, with significant reductions in opioid use,” Dr. Voss noted.

Bupivacaine, though generally regarded as safe, has a reputation for being the most cardiotoxic of the local anesthetic agents; however, there were no such side effects reported in the study. Dr. Voss said the likely explanation is the use of low doses.

“In our study, we had no cardiotoxic effects when using up to 5 cc of 0.5%, which equates to 25 mg per patient,” she explained. This is considered a “very low dose,” since the maximum in the Food and Drug Administration pamphlet for local infiltration is 175 mg per patient every 3 hours, “yet is sufficient for reducing pain/narcotic use.”

She added that “surgeons must be careful to avoid accidental intravascular injection, which could increase risks of systemic toxicity, but this is very rare in the reconstruction settings described.”

Overall, the study suggests a potentially beneficial and unique nonopioid approach that is currently lacking for Mohs procedures associated with a high level of pain. “These findings offer a very effective intervention to reduce postoperative opioid use in this subset of patients,” Dr. Voss told this news organization. “There is not any other intervention that I am aware of to address this, although further study into other long-acting anesthetics may demonstrate similar effects.”

Dr. Justin J. Leitenberger

Commenting on the study, Justin J. Leitenberger, MD, session moderator, said that these “data could be impactful for reducing pain as well as the need for opioid medication after dermatologic surgery, both of which would be significant for our patients and public health outcomes.”

Among the challenges in treating pain following Mohs surgeries is that “every patient has a different pain threshold and expectation after surgery,” said Dr. Leitenberger, assistant professor of medicine and dermatology and codirector of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and laser and cosmetic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Patients undergoing larger repairs in tense areas of skin can experience increased pain and require prescription pain medication,” he said. “Bupivacaine, in this study, shows promise to provide longer lasting pain control from the surgical appointment and easier bridging to nonopioid pain control.”

Regarding the potential cardiotoxicities associated with the drug, Dr. Leitenberger agreed that the risks are low, and added that many surgeons have, in fact, switched to full use of bupivacaine, as opposed to combination with lidocaine, apparently without problems. “This is a small dose locally to the area after a procedure and I agree that the risks are minuscule,” he said.

“Of note, during national lidocaine shortages over the past few years, many practices transitioned to exclusive use of bupivacaine for the entire Mohs procedure, and [anecdotally], this transition did not result in toxicities that were reported,” Dr. Leitenberger said.

GW Medical Faculty Associates

Commenting further, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and hematology/oncology at George Washington University and director of cutaneous oncology at the GW Cancer Center, both in Washington, also agreed that the benefits appear important. “The benefit from using bupivacaine is encouraging on multiple levels,” he said in an interview.

“Given all that we know about opioids and their negative side effect profile as well as their limited help in cutaneous surgery pain control, the use of long-acting anesthetics is an innovative and reasonable approach to provide pain control in the immediate postoperative window when patients tend to have the most pain,” said Dr. Patel, who is also director of dermatologic surgery at George Washington University.

“After this window, acetaminophen and ibuprofen, which have been shown when used in tandem in an alternating schedule to be superior to opioids, provides an effective pain regimen,” he said. “For larger and more pain-sensitive patients, this appears to be a promising combination.”

Dr. Voss, Dr. Leitenberger, and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

An injection of bupivacaine following Mohs micrographic surgery procedures that have notable postsurgical pain significantly reduces pain scores and, importantly, use of postsurgical narcotics, a randomized trial shows.

“Single-dose, in-office bupivacaine administration immediately following reconstructions known to be high risk for pain reduces postoperative narcotic use and acute pain during the time period when our patients have the highest levels of pain,” said first author Vanessa B. Voss, MD, of the University of Missouri–Columbia, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Dr. Vanessa Voss

“It was well tolerated, there were no adverse effects, and we recommend the consideration of using this in Mohs micrographic surgery reconstructions that are at the highest risk for pain,” she said.

Recent research has shown that Mohs micrographic surgeons have the highest rates of opioid prescribing of all dermatologists, with about 11% of patients undergoing a Mohs procedure prescribed the drugs for postoperative use, Dr. Voss explained.

Yet, with the ongoing opioid epidemic and even short courses of postoperative opioids placing patients at risk for addiction, the pressure is on to find alternative, nonaddictive strategies for the treatment of acute postoperative pain.

Bupivacaine is commonly used intraoperatively with other types of surgeries to reduce postoperative pain, with a favorable duration of action lasting up to 7 hours, compared with just 2-3 hours with lidocaine. And while its use in Mohs surgery is typically also intraoperative, along with lidocaine, the unique postoperative treatment approach in Mohs surgery has not been well studied, Dr. Voss noted.

To investigate, Dr. Voss and colleagues conducted the prospective, multicenter randomized trial, enrolling 174 patients undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery for skin cancer.

Patients were receiving complex flap reconstructions that have been specifically designated in an American Academy of Dermatology position statement to be high risk for pain following Mohs surgeries, and hence, more likely to involve prescriptions for opioids. These include reconstruction flaps of the scalp, ear, nose or lip, a wedge repair of the ear or lip, or a Mustarde cheek rotation flap.

The mean age of the patients was about 69 years, and about 65% were male. The two groups had no significant differences in demographics, tumor types, or repairs. They were randomized to receive either local injections of bupivacaine 0.5% (with no epinephrine) or placebo with sterile saline injection immediately following the procedure, with the total amount of injection standardized and dependent upon the flap surface area, ranging from 2.5 to 5 cm³.

For postoperative pain, all patients were prescribed acetaminophen 1,000 mg alternating with ibuprofen 400 mg, and tramadol, with instructions to only use tramadol as needed for breakthrough pain.

The reported use of narcotic analgesics by participants was significantly higher among those receiving placebo versus bupivacaine in the first 24 hours following surgery (odds ratio, 2.18; P = .03), as well as in the second 24 hours (OR, 2.18; P = .08) and at 48 hours combined (OR, 2.58; P < .01).

Those in the bupivacaine group also reported lower average pain scores, on a scale of 0-10, during the first 8-hour interval (mean difference, 1.6; P < .001). Importantly, overall, reports of pain medication use and the percentage of patients reporting pain under control were similar between groups, despite lower opioid use in the bupivacaine group.

“The percentage of patients reporting their pain to be under control was similar at all time intervals in both groups, so this means the bupivacaine group had their pain well-controlled despite fewer narcotics, with significant reductions in opioid use,” Dr. Voss noted.

Bupivacaine, though generally regarded as safe, has a reputation for being the most cardiotoxic of the local anesthetic agents; however, there were no such side effects reported in the study. Dr. Voss said the likely explanation is the use of low doses.

“In our study, we had no cardiotoxic effects when using up to 5 cc of 0.5%, which equates to 25 mg per patient,” she explained. This is considered a “very low dose,” since the maximum in the Food and Drug Administration pamphlet for local infiltration is 175 mg per patient every 3 hours, “yet is sufficient for reducing pain/narcotic use.”

She added that “surgeons must be careful to avoid accidental intravascular injection, which could increase risks of systemic toxicity, but this is very rare in the reconstruction settings described.”

Overall, the study suggests a potentially beneficial and unique nonopioid approach that is currently lacking for Mohs procedures associated with a high level of pain. “These findings offer a very effective intervention to reduce postoperative opioid use in this subset of patients,” Dr. Voss told this news organization. “There is not any other intervention that I am aware of to address this, although further study into other long-acting anesthetics may demonstrate similar effects.”

Dr. Justin J. Leitenberger

Commenting on the study, Justin J. Leitenberger, MD, session moderator, said that these “data could be impactful for reducing pain as well as the need for opioid medication after dermatologic surgery, both of which would be significant for our patients and public health outcomes.”

Among the challenges in treating pain following Mohs surgeries is that “every patient has a different pain threshold and expectation after surgery,” said Dr. Leitenberger, assistant professor of medicine and dermatology and codirector of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and laser and cosmetic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Patients undergoing larger repairs in tense areas of skin can experience increased pain and require prescription pain medication,” he said. “Bupivacaine, in this study, shows promise to provide longer lasting pain control from the surgical appointment and easier bridging to nonopioid pain control.”

Regarding the potential cardiotoxicities associated with the drug, Dr. Leitenberger agreed that the risks are low, and added that many surgeons have, in fact, switched to full use of bupivacaine, as opposed to combination with lidocaine, apparently without problems. “This is a small dose locally to the area after a procedure and I agree that the risks are minuscule,” he said.

“Of note, during national lidocaine shortages over the past few years, many practices transitioned to exclusive use of bupivacaine for the entire Mohs procedure, and [anecdotally], this transition did not result in toxicities that were reported,” Dr. Leitenberger said.

GW Medical Faculty Associates

Commenting further, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and hematology/oncology at George Washington University and director of cutaneous oncology at the GW Cancer Center, both in Washington, also agreed that the benefits appear important. “The benefit from using bupivacaine is encouraging on multiple levels,” he said in an interview.

“Given all that we know about opioids and their negative side effect profile as well as their limited help in cutaneous surgery pain control, the use of long-acting anesthetics is an innovative and reasonable approach to provide pain control in the immediate postoperative window when patients tend to have the most pain,” said Dr. Patel, who is also director of dermatologic surgery at George Washington University.

“After this window, acetaminophen and ibuprofen, which have been shown when used in tandem in an alternating schedule to be superior to opioids, provides an effective pain regimen,” he said. “For larger and more pain-sensitive patients, this appears to be a promising combination.”

Dr. Voss, Dr. Leitenberger, and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

An injection of bupivacaine following Mohs micrographic surgery procedures that have notable postsurgical pain significantly reduces pain scores and, importantly, use of postsurgical narcotics, a randomized trial shows.

“Single-dose, in-office bupivacaine administration immediately following reconstructions known to be high risk for pain reduces postoperative narcotic use and acute pain during the time period when our patients have the highest levels of pain,” said first author Vanessa B. Voss, MD, of the University of Missouri–Columbia, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Dr. Vanessa Voss

“It was well tolerated, there were no adverse effects, and we recommend the consideration of using this in Mohs micrographic surgery reconstructions that are at the highest risk for pain,” she said.

Recent research has shown that Mohs micrographic surgeons have the highest rates of opioid prescribing of all dermatologists, with about 11% of patients undergoing a Mohs procedure prescribed the drugs for postoperative use, Dr. Voss explained.

Yet, with the ongoing opioid epidemic and even short courses of postoperative opioids placing patients at risk for addiction, the pressure is on to find alternative, nonaddictive strategies for the treatment of acute postoperative pain.

Bupivacaine is commonly used intraoperatively with other types of surgeries to reduce postoperative pain, with a favorable duration of action lasting up to 7 hours, compared with just 2-3 hours with lidocaine. And while its use in Mohs surgery is typically also intraoperative, along with lidocaine, the unique postoperative treatment approach in Mohs surgery has not been well studied, Dr. Voss noted.

To investigate, Dr. Voss and colleagues conducted the prospective, multicenter randomized trial, enrolling 174 patients undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery for skin cancer.

Patients were receiving complex flap reconstructions that have been specifically designated in an American Academy of Dermatology position statement to be high risk for pain following Mohs surgeries, and hence, more likely to involve prescriptions for opioids. These include reconstruction flaps of the scalp, ear, nose or lip, a wedge repair of the ear or lip, or a Mustarde cheek rotation flap.

The mean age of the patients was about 69 years, and about 65% were male. The two groups had no significant differences in demographics, tumor types, or repairs. They were randomized to receive either local injections of bupivacaine 0.5% (with no epinephrine) or placebo with sterile saline injection immediately following the procedure, with the total amount of injection standardized and dependent upon the flap surface area, ranging from 2.5 to 5 cm³.

For postoperative pain, all patients were prescribed acetaminophen 1,000 mg alternating with ibuprofen 400 mg, and tramadol, with instructions to only use tramadol as needed for breakthrough pain.

The reported use of narcotic analgesics by participants was significantly higher among those receiving placebo versus bupivacaine in the first 24 hours following surgery (odds ratio, 2.18; P = .03), as well as in the second 24 hours (OR, 2.18; P = .08) and at 48 hours combined (OR, 2.58; P < .01).

Those in the bupivacaine group also reported lower average pain scores, on a scale of 0-10, during the first 8-hour interval (mean difference, 1.6; P < .001). Importantly, overall, reports of pain medication use and the percentage of patients reporting pain under control were similar between groups, despite lower opioid use in the bupivacaine group.

“The percentage of patients reporting their pain to be under control was similar at all time intervals in both groups, so this means the bupivacaine group had their pain well-controlled despite fewer narcotics, with significant reductions in opioid use,” Dr. Voss noted.

Bupivacaine, though generally regarded as safe, has a reputation for being the most cardiotoxic of the local anesthetic agents; however, there were no such side effects reported in the study. Dr. Voss said the likely explanation is the use of low doses.

“In our study, we had no cardiotoxic effects when using up to 5 cc of 0.5%, which equates to 25 mg per patient,” she explained. This is considered a “very low dose,” since the maximum in the Food and Drug Administration pamphlet for local infiltration is 175 mg per patient every 3 hours, “yet is sufficient for reducing pain/narcotic use.”

She added that “surgeons must be careful to avoid accidental intravascular injection, which could increase risks of systemic toxicity, but this is very rare in the reconstruction settings described.”

Overall, the study suggests a potentially beneficial and unique nonopioid approach that is currently lacking for Mohs procedures associated with a high level of pain. “These findings offer a very effective intervention to reduce postoperative opioid use in this subset of patients,” Dr. Voss told this news organization. “There is not any other intervention that I am aware of to address this, although further study into other long-acting anesthetics may demonstrate similar effects.”

Dr. Justin J. Leitenberger

Commenting on the study, Justin J. Leitenberger, MD, session moderator, said that these “data could be impactful for reducing pain as well as the need for opioid medication after dermatologic surgery, both of which would be significant for our patients and public health outcomes.”

Among the challenges in treating pain following Mohs surgeries is that “every patient has a different pain threshold and expectation after surgery,” said Dr. Leitenberger, assistant professor of medicine and dermatology and codirector of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and laser and cosmetic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Patients undergoing larger repairs in tense areas of skin can experience increased pain and require prescription pain medication,” he said. “Bupivacaine, in this study, shows promise to provide longer lasting pain control from the surgical appointment and easier bridging to nonopioid pain control.”

Regarding the potential cardiotoxicities associated with the drug, Dr. Leitenberger agreed that the risks are low, and added that many surgeons have, in fact, switched to full use of bupivacaine, as opposed to combination with lidocaine, apparently without problems. “This is a small dose locally to the area after a procedure and I agree that the risks are minuscule,” he said.

“Of note, during national lidocaine shortages over the past few years, many practices transitioned to exclusive use of bupivacaine for the entire Mohs procedure, and [anecdotally], this transition did not result in toxicities that were reported,” Dr. Leitenberger said.

GW Medical Faculty Associates

Commenting further, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and hematology/oncology at George Washington University and director of cutaneous oncology at the GW Cancer Center, both in Washington, also agreed that the benefits appear important. “The benefit from using bupivacaine is encouraging on multiple levels,” he said in an interview.

“Given all that we know about opioids and their negative side effect profile as well as their limited help in cutaneous surgery pain control, the use of long-acting anesthetics is an innovative and reasonable approach to provide pain control in the immediate postoperative window when patients tend to have the most pain,” said Dr. Patel, who is also director of dermatologic surgery at George Washington University.

“After this window, acetaminophen and ibuprofen, which have been shown when used in tandem in an alternating schedule to be superior to opioids, provides an effective pain regimen,” he said. “For larger and more pain-sensitive patients, this appears to be a promising combination.”

Dr. Voss, Dr. Leitenberger, and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

To the Editor:

Skin cancer represents a notable health care burden of rising incidence.^1-3 Nondermatologist health care providers play a key role in skin cancer screening through the use of skin cancer examination (SCE)^1,4; however, several factors including poor diagnostic accuracy, low confidence, and lack of training have contributed to limited use of the SCE by these providers.^4,5 Therefore, it is important to identify and implement changes in the medical school curriculum that can facilitate improved use of SCE in clinical practice. We sought to examine factors in the medical school curriculum that influence skin cancer education.

A voluntary electronic survey was distributed through class email and social media to all medical student classes at 4 medical schools (Figure). Responses were collected between March 2 and April 20, 2020. Survey items assessed demographics and curricular factors that influence skin cancer education. Our study was approved by the Institutional Review Board for Human Research of the Medical University of South Carolina (Charleston, South Carolina).

Knowledge of the clinical features of melanoma was assessed by asking participants to correctly identify at least 5 of 6 pigmented lesions as concerning or not concerning for melanoma. Confidence in performing the SCE—the primary outcome—was measured by dichotomizing a 4-point Likert-type scale (“very confident” and “moderately confident” against “slightly confident” and “not at all confident”).

Logistic regression was used to examine curricular factors associated with confidence; descriptive statistics were used for remaining analyses. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 statistical software. Prior to analysis, responses from the University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville were excluded because the response rate was less than 20%.

The survey was distributed to 1524 students; 619 (40.6%) answered at least 1 question, with a variable response rate to each item (eTable 1). Most respondents were female (351 [56.7%]); 438 (70.8%) were White.

Most respondents said that they received 3 hours or less of general skin cancer (74.9%) or SCE-specific (93.0%) education by the end of their fourth year of medical training. Lecture was the most common method of instruction. Education was provided most often by dermatologists (48.6%), followed by general practice physicians (21.2%). Numerous (26.9%) fourth-year respondents reported that they had never observed SCE; even more (47.6%) had never performed SCE. Almost half of second- and third-year students (43.2% and 44.8%, respectively) considered themselves knowledgeable about the clinical features of melanoma, but only 31.9% of fourth-year students considered themselves knowledgeable.

Only 24.1% of fourth-year students reported confidence performing SCE (eTable 1). Students who received most of their instruction through real clinical encounters were 4.14 times more likely to be confident performing SCE than students who had been given lecture-based learning. Students who performed 1 to 3 SCE or 4 or more SCE were 3.02 and 32.25 times, respectively, more likely to be confident than students who had never performed SCE (eTable 2).

Consistent with a recent study,⁶ our results reflect the discrepancy between the burden and education of skin cancer. This is especially demonstrated by our cohort’s low confidence in performing SCE, a metric associated with both intention to perform and actual performance of SCE in practice.^4,5 We also observed a downward trend in knowledge among students who were about to enter residency, potentially indicating the need for longitudinal training.

Given curricular time constraints, it is essential that medical schools implement changes in learning that will have the greatest impact. Although our results strongly support the efficacy of hands-on clinical training, exposure to dermatology in the second half of medical school training is limited nationwide.⁶ Concentrated efforts to increase clinical exposure might help prepare future physicians in all specialties to combat the burden of this disease.

Limitations of our study include the potential for selection and recall biases. Although our survey spanned multiple institutions in different regions of the United States, results might not be universally representative.

Acknowledgments—We thank Dirk Elston, MD, and Amy Wahlquist, MS (both from Charleston, South Carolina), who helped facilitate the survey on which our research is based. We also acknowledge the assistance of Philip Carmon, MD (Columbia, South Carolina); Julie Flugel (Columbia, South Carolina); Algimantas Simpson, MD (Columbia, South Carolina); Nathan Jasperse, MD (Irvine, California); Jeremy Teruel, MD (Charleston, South Carolina); Alan Snyder, MD, MSCR (Charleston, South Carolina); John Bosland (Charleston, South Carolina); and Daniel Spangler (Greenville, South Carolina).

To the Editor:

Skin cancer represents a notable health care burden of rising incidence.^1-3 Nondermatologist health care providers play a key role in skin cancer screening through the use of skin cancer examination (SCE)^1,4; however, several factors including poor diagnostic accuracy, low confidence, and lack of training have contributed to limited use of the SCE by these providers.^4,5 Therefore, it is important to identify and implement changes in the medical school curriculum that can facilitate improved use of SCE in clinical practice. We sought to examine factors in the medical school curriculum that influence skin cancer education.

A voluntary electronic survey was distributed through class email and social media to all medical student classes at 4 medical schools (Figure). Responses were collected between March 2 and April 20, 2020. Survey items assessed demographics and curricular factors that influence skin cancer education. Our study was approved by the Institutional Review Board for Human Research of the Medical University of South Carolina (Charleston, South Carolina).

Knowledge of the clinical features of melanoma was assessed by asking participants to correctly identify at least 5 of 6 pigmented lesions as concerning or not concerning for melanoma. Confidence in performing the SCE—the primary outcome—was measured by dichotomizing a 4-point Likert-type scale (“very confident” and “moderately confident” against “slightly confident” and “not at all confident”).

Logistic regression was used to examine curricular factors associated with confidence; descriptive statistics were used for remaining analyses. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 statistical software. Prior to analysis, responses from the University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville were excluded because the response rate was less than 20%.

The survey was distributed to 1524 students; 619 (40.6%) answered at least 1 question, with a variable response rate to each item (eTable 1). Most respondents were female (351 [56.7%]); 438 (70.8%) were White.

Most respondents said that they received 3 hours or less of general skin cancer (74.9%) or SCE-specific (93.0%) education by the end of their fourth year of medical training. Lecture was the most common method of instruction. Education was provided most often by dermatologists (48.6%), followed by general practice physicians (21.2%). Numerous (26.9%) fourth-year respondents reported that they had never observed SCE; even more (47.6%) had never performed SCE. Almost half of second- and third-year students (43.2% and 44.8%, respectively) considered themselves knowledgeable about the clinical features of melanoma, but only 31.9% of fourth-year students considered themselves knowledgeable.

Only 24.1% of fourth-year students reported confidence performing SCE (eTable 1). Students who received most of their instruction through real clinical encounters were 4.14 times more likely to be confident performing SCE than students who had been given lecture-based learning. Students who performed 1 to 3 SCE or 4 or more SCE were 3.02 and 32.25 times, respectively, more likely to be confident than students who had never performed SCE (eTable 2).

Consistent with a recent study,⁶ our results reflect the discrepancy between the burden and education of skin cancer. This is especially demonstrated by our cohort’s low confidence in performing SCE, a metric associated with both intention to perform and actual performance of SCE in practice.^4,5 We also observed a downward trend in knowledge among students who were about to enter residency, potentially indicating the need for longitudinal training.

Given curricular time constraints, it is essential that medical schools implement changes in learning that will have the greatest impact. Although our results strongly support the efficacy of hands-on clinical training, exposure to dermatology in the second half of medical school training is limited nationwide.⁶ Concentrated efforts to increase clinical exposure might help prepare future physicians in all specialties to combat the burden of this disease.

Limitations of our study include the potential for selection and recall biases. Although our survey spanned multiple institutions in different regions of the United States, results might not be universally representative.

Acknowledgments—We thank Dirk Elston, MD, and Amy Wahlquist, MS (both from Charleston, South Carolina), who helped facilitate the survey on which our research is based. We also acknowledge the assistance of Philip Carmon, MD (Columbia, South Carolina); Julie Flugel (Columbia, South Carolina); Algimantas Simpson, MD (Columbia, South Carolina); Nathan Jasperse, MD (Irvine, California); Jeremy Teruel, MD (Charleston, South Carolina); Alan Snyder, MD, MSCR (Charleston, South Carolina); John Bosland (Charleston, South Carolina); and Daniel Spangler (Greenville, South Carolina).

To the Editor:

Skin cancer represents a notable health care burden of rising incidence.^1-3 Nondermatologist health care providers play a key role in skin cancer screening through the use of skin cancer examination (SCE)^1,4; however, several factors including poor diagnostic accuracy, low confidence, and lack of training have contributed to limited use of the SCE by these providers.^4,5 Therefore, it is important to identify and implement changes in the medical school curriculum that can facilitate improved use of SCE in clinical practice. We sought to examine factors in the medical school curriculum that influence skin cancer education.

A voluntary electronic survey was distributed through class email and social media to all medical student classes at 4 medical schools (Figure). Responses were collected between March 2 and April 20, 2020. Survey items assessed demographics and curricular factors that influence skin cancer education. Our study was approved by the Institutional Review Board for Human Research of the Medical University of South Carolina (Charleston, South Carolina).

Knowledge of the clinical features of melanoma was assessed by asking participants to correctly identify at least 5 of 6 pigmented lesions as concerning or not concerning for melanoma. Confidence in performing the SCE—the primary outcome—was measured by dichotomizing a 4-point Likert-type scale (“very confident” and “moderately confident” against “slightly confident” and “not at all confident”).

Logistic regression was used to examine curricular factors associated with confidence; descriptive statistics were used for remaining analyses. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 statistical software. Prior to analysis, responses from the University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville were excluded because the response rate was less than 20%.

The survey was distributed to 1524 students; 619 (40.6%) answered at least 1 question, with a variable response rate to each item (eTable 1). Most respondents were female (351 [56.7%]); 438 (70.8%) were White.

Most respondents said that they received 3 hours or less of general skin cancer (74.9%) or SCE-specific (93.0%) education by the end of their fourth year of medical training. Lecture was the most common method of instruction. Education was provided most often by dermatologists (48.6%), followed by general practice physicians (21.2%). Numerous (26.9%) fourth-year respondents reported that they had never observed SCE; even more (47.6%) had never performed SCE. Almost half of second- and third-year students (43.2% and 44.8%, respectively) considered themselves knowledgeable about the clinical features of melanoma, but only 31.9% of fourth-year students considered themselves knowledgeable.

Only 24.1% of fourth-year students reported confidence performing SCE (eTable 1). Students who received most of their instruction through real clinical encounters were 4.14 times more likely to be confident performing SCE than students who had been given lecture-based learning. Students who performed 1 to 3 SCE or 4 or more SCE were 3.02 and 32.25 times, respectively, more likely to be confident than students who had never performed SCE (eTable 2).

Consistent with a recent study,⁶ our results reflect the discrepancy between the burden and education of skin cancer. This is especially demonstrated by our cohort’s low confidence in performing SCE, a metric associated with both intention to perform and actual performance of SCE in practice.^4,5 We also observed a downward trend in knowledge among students who were about to enter residency, potentially indicating the need for longitudinal training.

Given curricular time constraints, it is essential that medical schools implement changes in learning that will have the greatest impact. Although our results strongly support the efficacy of hands-on clinical training, exposure to dermatology in the second half of medical school training is limited nationwide.⁶ Concentrated efforts to increase clinical exposure might help prepare future physicians in all specialties to combat the burden of this disease.

Limitations of our study include the potential for selection and recall biases. Although our survey spanned multiple institutions in different regions of the United States, results might not be universally representative.

Acknowledgments—We thank Dirk Elston, MD, and Amy Wahlquist, MS (both from Charleston, South Carolina), who helped facilitate the survey on which our research is based. We also acknowledge the assistance of Philip Carmon, MD (Columbia, South Carolina); Julie Flugel (Columbia, South Carolina); Algimantas Simpson, MD (Columbia, South Carolina); Nathan Jasperse, MD (Irvine, California); Jeremy Teruel, MD (Charleston, South Carolina); Alan Snyder, MD, MSCR (Charleston, South Carolina); John Bosland (Charleston, South Carolina); and Daniel Spangler (Greenville, South Carolina).

New results from a phase 3 clinical trial may shut the door on the addition of progressive death–1 or PD–ligand 1 inhibitors to the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF V600–mutated melanoma.

The approach seemed promising, given the efficacy of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in metastatic melanoma, and the relatively short response times to BRAF and MEK inhibitors could potentially be supplemented by longer response times associated with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The two categories also have different mechanisms of action and nonoverlapping toxicities, which led to an expectation that the combination would be well tolerated.

But the new study joins two previous randomized, controlled trials that also failed to show much clinical benefit. IMspire150 assigned BRAF V600–mutated melanoma patients to vemurafenib and cobimetinib plus the anti–PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab or placebo. The treatment arm had a small benefit in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.78), which led to Food and Drug Administration approval of the combination, though there was no significant difference when the two cohorts were assessed by an independent review committee. The KEYNOTE-022 trial examined dabrafenib plus trametinib with or without the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab, and found no difference in investigator-assessed progression free survival.

The new study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. In an accompanying editorial, Margaret K. Callahan, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Paul B. Chapman, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York, speculated that the toxicity of the triplet combination might explain the latest failure, since patients in the triplet arm had more treatment interruptions and dose reductions than the doublet arm (32% received full-dose dabrafenib vs. 54% in the doublet arm), which may have undermined efficacy.

Citing the fact that there are now three randomized, controlled trials with discouraging results, “we believe that there are sufficient data now to be confident that the addition of anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 antibodies to combination RAFi [RAF inhibitors] plus MEKi [MEK inhibitors] is not associated with a significant clinical benefit and should not be studied further in melanoma.

Moreover, “there is some evidence of harm,” the editorial authors wrote. “As the additional toxicity of triplet combination limited the delivery of combination RAFi plus MEKi therapy in COMBI-I. Focus should turn instead to optimizing doses and schedules of combination RAFi plus MEKi and checkpoint inhibitors, developing treatment strategies to overcome resistance to these therapies, and determining how best to sequence combination RAFi plus MEKi therapy and checkpoint inhibitors. Regarding the latter point, there are several sequential therapy trials currently underway in previously untreated patients with BRAF V600–mutated melanoma.”

In the study, patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib and trametinib plus the anti–PD receptor–1 antibody spartalizumab or placebo. After a median follow-up of 27.2 months, mean progression-free survival was 16.2 months in the spartalizumab arm and 12.0 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .042). The spartalizumab group had a 69% objective response rate versus 64% in the placebo group. 55% of the spartalizumab group experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, compared with 33% in the placebo group.

“These results do not support broad use of first-line immunotherapy plus targeted therapy combination, but they provide additional data toward understanding the optimal application of these therapeutic classes in patients with BRAF V600–mutant metastatic melanoma,” the authors of the study wrote.

The study was funded by F Hoffmann–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Callahan has been employed at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Kleo Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Callahan has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Moderna Therapeutics, Merck, and Immunocore. Dr. Chapman has stock or ownership interest in Rgenix; has consulted for or advised Merck, Pfizer, and Black Diamond Therapeutics; and has received research funding from Genentech.

New results from a phase 3 clinical trial may shut the door on the addition of progressive death–1 or PD–ligand 1 inhibitors to the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF V600–mutated melanoma.

The approach seemed promising, given the efficacy of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in metastatic melanoma, and the relatively short response times to BRAF and MEK inhibitors could potentially be supplemented by longer response times associated with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The two categories also have different mechanisms of action and nonoverlapping toxicities, which led to an expectation that the combination would be well tolerated.

But the new study joins two previous randomized, controlled trials that also failed to show much clinical benefit. IMspire150 assigned BRAF V600–mutated melanoma patients to vemurafenib and cobimetinib plus the anti–PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab or placebo. The treatment arm had a small benefit in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.78), which led to Food and Drug Administration approval of the combination, though there was no significant difference when the two cohorts were assessed by an independent review committee. The KEYNOTE-022 trial examined dabrafenib plus trametinib with or without the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab, and found no difference in investigator-assessed progression free survival.

The new study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. In an accompanying editorial, Margaret K. Callahan, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Paul B. Chapman, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York, speculated that the toxicity of the triplet combination might explain the latest failure, since patients in the triplet arm had more treatment interruptions and dose reductions than the doublet arm (32% received full-dose dabrafenib vs. 54% in the doublet arm), which may have undermined efficacy.

Citing the fact that there are now three randomized, controlled trials with discouraging results, “we believe that there are sufficient data now to be confident that the addition of anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 antibodies to combination RAFi [RAF inhibitors] plus MEKi [MEK inhibitors] is not associated with a significant clinical benefit and should not be studied further in melanoma.

Moreover, “there is some evidence of harm,” the editorial authors wrote. “As the additional toxicity of triplet combination limited the delivery of combination RAFi plus MEKi therapy in COMBI-I. Focus should turn instead to optimizing doses and schedules of combination RAFi plus MEKi and checkpoint inhibitors, developing treatment strategies to overcome resistance to these therapies, and determining how best to sequence combination RAFi plus MEKi therapy and checkpoint inhibitors. Regarding the latter point, there are several sequential therapy trials currently underway in previously untreated patients with BRAF V600–mutated melanoma.”

In the study, patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib and trametinib plus the anti–PD receptor–1 antibody spartalizumab or placebo. After a median follow-up of 27.2 months, mean progression-free survival was 16.2 months in the spartalizumab arm and 12.0 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .042). The spartalizumab group had a 69% objective response rate versus 64% in the placebo group. 55% of the spartalizumab group experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, compared with 33% in the placebo group.

“These results do not support broad use of first-line immunotherapy plus targeted therapy combination, but they provide additional data toward understanding the optimal application of these therapeutic classes in patients with BRAF V600–mutant metastatic melanoma,” the authors of the study wrote.

The study was funded by F Hoffmann–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Callahan has been employed at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Kleo Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Callahan has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Moderna Therapeutics, Merck, and Immunocore. Dr. Chapman has stock or ownership interest in Rgenix; has consulted for or advised Merck, Pfizer, and Black Diamond Therapeutics; and has received research funding from Genentech.

New results from a phase 3 clinical trial may shut the door on the addition of progressive death–1 or PD–ligand 1 inhibitors to the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF V600–mutated melanoma.

The approach seemed promising, given the efficacy of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in metastatic melanoma, and the relatively short response times to BRAF and MEK inhibitors could potentially be supplemented by longer response times associated with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The two categories also have different mechanisms of action and nonoverlapping toxicities, which led to an expectation that the combination would be well tolerated.

But the new study joins two previous randomized, controlled trials that also failed to show much clinical benefit. IMspire150 assigned BRAF V600–mutated melanoma patients to vemurafenib and cobimetinib plus the anti–PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab or placebo. The treatment arm had a small benefit in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.78), which led to Food and Drug Administration approval of the combination, though there was no significant difference when the two cohorts were assessed by an independent review committee. The KEYNOTE-022 trial examined dabrafenib plus trametinib with or without the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab, and found no difference in investigator-assessed progression free survival.

The new study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. In an accompanying editorial, Margaret K. Callahan, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Paul B. Chapman, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York, speculated that the toxicity of the triplet combination might explain the latest failure, since patients in the triplet arm had more treatment interruptions and dose reductions than the doublet arm (32% received full-dose dabrafenib vs. 54% in the doublet arm), which may have undermined efficacy.

Citing the fact that there are now three randomized, controlled trials with discouraging results, “we believe that there are sufficient data now to be confident that the addition of anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 antibodies to combination RAFi [RAF inhibitors] plus MEKi [MEK inhibitors] is not associated with a significant clinical benefit and should not be studied further in melanoma.

Moreover, “there is some evidence of harm,” the editorial authors wrote. “As the additional toxicity of triplet combination limited the delivery of combination RAFi plus MEKi therapy in COMBI-I. Focus should turn instead to optimizing doses and schedules of combination RAFi plus MEKi and checkpoint inhibitors, developing treatment strategies to overcome resistance to these therapies, and determining how best to sequence combination RAFi plus MEKi therapy and checkpoint inhibitors. Regarding the latter point, there are several sequential therapy trials currently underway in previously untreated patients with BRAF V600–mutated melanoma.”

In the study, patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib and trametinib plus the anti–PD receptor–1 antibody spartalizumab or placebo. After a median follow-up of 27.2 months, mean progression-free survival was 16.2 months in the spartalizumab arm and 12.0 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .042). The spartalizumab group had a 69% objective response rate versus 64% in the placebo group. 55% of the spartalizumab group experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, compared with 33% in the placebo group.

“These results do not support broad use of first-line immunotherapy plus targeted therapy combination, but they provide additional data toward understanding the optimal application of these therapeutic classes in patients with BRAF V600–mutant metastatic melanoma,” the authors of the study wrote.

The study was funded by F Hoffmann–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Callahan has been employed at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Kleo Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Callahan has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Moderna Therapeutics, Merck, and Immunocore. Dr. Chapman has stock or ownership interest in Rgenix; has consulted for or advised Merck, Pfizer, and Black Diamond Therapeutics; and has received research funding from Genentech.

A mutation in a gene involved in chromatin remodeling is associated with aggressive melanoma, according to a new study that combined in vitro and animal model data.

The gene, ARID2, is a part of the switch/sucrose nonfermentable (SWI/SNF) complex, which maneuvers cellular structures called nucleosomes to make cellular DNA accessible. About 20% of human cancers have a mutation within the SWI/SNF complex.

In the new study, published in Cell Reports, researchers reported that the ARID2 subunit was mutated in about 13% of melanoma patients identified through the Cancer Genome Atlas.

ARID2 mutations have been found in early melanoma lesions, which the authors suggested may play a role in early cancer cell dissemination. Other studies have shown SWI/SNF mutations, including ARID2 mutations, in melanoma metastases, especially the brain.

The researchers also found an up-regulation of synaptic pathways in melanoma cells as well as the Cancer Genome Atlas, which also suggests a potential role of ARID2 loss in metastasis or targeting the brain, since synaptic activation in cancer cells has been shown elsewhere to influence cell migration and survival in the brain.

“We look forward to future studies that investigate the role of the PBAF complex ... in order to better tailor treatments for melanoma patients,” wrote the study authors, who were led by Emily Bernstein, PhD, a professor in oncological sciences with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The SWI/SNF complex includes a subcomplex that targets specific DNA sequences or chromatin reader domains. There are multiple versions of the targeting subcomplex, but two of the most frequently occurring are BAF and PBAF. The most commonly mutated subunit in melanoma is ARID2, which is part of PBAF, and contains an AT-rich region responsible for non–sequence-specific DNA interactions. There is evidence that it plays a role in tumor suppression. In mouse tumors, depletion of ARID2 is associated with increased sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibition and destruction by T cells.

To better understand the role of ARID2 in tumor suppression, the researchers used CRISPR-Cas9 to create ARID2 deficiency in a known human metastatic melanoma cell line. They found there was reduced chromatin accessibility and accompanying gene expression among some PBAF and shared BAF-PBAF–occupied regions. There was also increased chromatin accessibility and gene expression in BAF-occupied regions, and these changes were associated with tumor aggression. In mice, they led to metastasis of distal organs.

This mechanism appears to be conserved between different melanoma cell lines, but deregulated transcriptional targets were different depending on the dominant transcription factors in the cell line. That suggests that the effect of ARID2 mutation or loss may be different depending on the stage of melanoma progression or level of invasiveness. “As melanoma comprises transcriptionally distinct, heterogeneous cell populations, we envision future studies utilizing single-cell methodologies to better understand the nuanced effects of ARID2 loss within subpopulations of cells in human melanoma tumors,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by the fact that not all ARID2 mutations lead to complete loss of protein, and may lead instead to aberrant complexes.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

A mutation in a gene involved in chromatin remodeling is associated with aggressive melanoma, according to a new study that combined in vitro and animal model data.

The gene, ARID2, is a part of the switch/sucrose nonfermentable (SWI/SNF) complex, which maneuvers cellular structures called nucleosomes to make cellular DNA accessible. About 20% of human cancers have a mutation within the SWI/SNF complex.

In the new study, published in Cell Reports, researchers reported that the ARID2 subunit was mutated in about 13% of melanoma patients identified through the Cancer Genome Atlas.

ARID2 mutations have been found in early melanoma lesions, which the authors suggested may play a role in early cancer cell dissemination. Other studies have shown SWI/SNF mutations, including ARID2 mutations, in melanoma metastases, especially the brain.

The researchers also found an up-regulation of synaptic pathways in melanoma cells as well as the Cancer Genome Atlas, which also suggests a potential role of ARID2 loss in metastasis or targeting the brain, since synaptic activation in cancer cells has been shown elsewhere to influence cell migration and survival in the brain.

“We look forward to future studies that investigate the role of the PBAF complex ... in order to better tailor treatments for melanoma patients,” wrote the study authors, who were led by Emily Bernstein, PhD, a professor in oncological sciences with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The SWI/SNF complex includes a subcomplex that targets specific DNA sequences or chromatin reader domains. There are multiple versions of the targeting subcomplex, but two of the most frequently occurring are BAF and PBAF. The most commonly mutated subunit in melanoma is ARID2, which is part of PBAF, and contains an AT-rich region responsible for non–sequence-specific DNA interactions. There is evidence that it plays a role in tumor suppression. In mouse tumors, depletion of ARID2 is associated with increased sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibition and destruction by T cells.

To better understand the role of ARID2 in tumor suppression, the researchers used CRISPR-Cas9 to create ARID2 deficiency in a known human metastatic melanoma cell line. They found there was reduced chromatin accessibility and accompanying gene expression among some PBAF and shared BAF-PBAF–occupied regions. There was also increased chromatin accessibility and gene expression in BAF-occupied regions, and these changes were associated with tumor aggression. In mice, they led to metastasis of distal organs.

This mechanism appears to be conserved between different melanoma cell lines, but deregulated transcriptional targets were different depending on the dominant transcription factors in the cell line. That suggests that the effect of ARID2 mutation or loss may be different depending on the stage of melanoma progression or level of invasiveness. “As melanoma comprises transcriptionally distinct, heterogeneous cell populations, we envision future studies utilizing single-cell methodologies to better understand the nuanced effects of ARID2 loss within subpopulations of cells in human melanoma tumors,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by the fact that not all ARID2 mutations lead to complete loss of protein, and may lead instead to aberrant complexes.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

A mutation in a gene involved in chromatin remodeling is associated with aggressive melanoma, according to a new study that combined in vitro and animal model data.

The gene, ARID2, is a part of the switch/sucrose nonfermentable (SWI/SNF) complex, which maneuvers cellular structures called nucleosomes to make cellular DNA accessible. About 20% of human cancers have a mutation within the SWI/SNF complex.

In the new study, published in Cell Reports, researchers reported that the ARID2 subunit was mutated in about 13% of melanoma patients identified through the Cancer Genome Atlas.

ARID2 mutations have been found in early melanoma lesions, which the authors suggested may play a role in early cancer cell dissemination. Other studies have shown SWI/SNF mutations, including ARID2 mutations, in melanoma metastases, especially the brain.

The researchers also found an up-regulation of synaptic pathways in melanoma cells as well as the Cancer Genome Atlas, which also suggests a potential role of ARID2 loss in metastasis or targeting the brain, since synaptic activation in cancer cells has been shown elsewhere to influence cell migration and survival in the brain.

“We look forward to future studies that investigate the role of the PBAF complex ... in order to better tailor treatments for melanoma patients,” wrote the study authors, who were led by Emily Bernstein, PhD, a professor in oncological sciences with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The SWI/SNF complex includes a subcomplex that targets specific DNA sequences or chromatin reader domains. There are multiple versions of the targeting subcomplex, but two of the most frequently occurring are BAF and PBAF. The most commonly mutated subunit in melanoma is ARID2, which is part of PBAF, and contains an AT-rich region responsible for non–sequence-specific DNA interactions. There is evidence that it plays a role in tumor suppression. In mouse tumors, depletion of ARID2 is associated with increased sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibition and destruction by T cells.

To better understand the role of ARID2 in tumor suppression, the researchers used CRISPR-Cas9 to create ARID2 deficiency in a known human metastatic melanoma cell line. They found there was reduced chromatin accessibility and accompanying gene expression among some PBAF and shared BAF-PBAF–occupied regions. There was also increased chromatin accessibility and gene expression in BAF-occupied regions, and these changes were associated with tumor aggression. In mice, they led to metastasis of distal organs.

This mechanism appears to be conserved between different melanoma cell lines, but deregulated transcriptional targets were different depending on the dominant transcription factors in the cell line. That suggests that the effect of ARID2 mutation or loss may be different depending on the stage of melanoma progression or level of invasiveness. “As melanoma comprises transcriptionally distinct, heterogeneous cell populations, we envision future studies utilizing single-cell methodologies to better understand the nuanced effects of ARID2 loss within subpopulations of cells in human melanoma tumors,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by the fact that not all ARID2 mutations lead to complete loss of protein, and may lead instead to aberrant complexes.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

There has been increasing awareness of field cancerization in dermatology and how it relates to actinic damage, actinic keratoses (AKs), and the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs). The concept of field cancerization, which was first described in the context of oropharyngeal SCCs, attempted to explain the repeated observation of local recurrences that were instead multiple primary oropharyngeal SCCs occurring within a specific region of tissue. It was hypothesized that the tissue surrounding a malignancy also harbors irreversible oncogenic damage and therefore predisposes the surrounding tissue to developing further malignancy.¹ The development of additional malignant lesions would be considered distinct from a true recurrence of the original malignancy.

Field cancerization may be partially explained by a genetic basis, as mutations in the tumor suppressor gene, TP53—the most frequently observed mutation in cutaneous SCCs—also is found in sun-exposed but clinically normal skin.^2,3 The finding of oncogenic mutations in nonlesional skin supports the theory of field cancerization, in which a region contains multiple genetically altered populations, some of which may progress to cancer. Because there currently is no widely accepted clinical definition or validated clinical measurement of field cancerization in dermatology, it may be difficult for dermatologists to recognize which patients may be at risk for developing further malignancy in a potential area of field cancerization. Willenbrink et al⁴ updated the definition of field cancerization in dermatology as “multifocal clinical atypia characterized by AKs or SCCs in situ with or without invasive disease occurring in a field exposed to chronic UV radiation.” Managing patients with field cancerization can be challenging. Herein, we discuss updates to nonsurgical field-directed and lesion-directed therapies as well as other emerging therapies.

Field-Directed Therapies

Topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and imiquimod cream 5% used as field-directed therapies help reduce the extent of AKs and actinic damage in areas of possible field cancerization.⁵ The addition of calcipotriol to topical 5-FU, which theoretically augments the skin’s T-cell antitumor response via the cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin, recently has been studied using short treatment courses resulting in an 87.8% reduction in AKs compared to a 26.3% reduction with topical 5-FU alone (when used twice daily for 4 days) and conferred a reduced risk of cutaneous SCCs 3 years after treatment (hazard ratio, 0.215 [95% CI, 0.048-0.972]; P=.032).^6,7 Chemowraps using topical 5-FU may be considered in more difficult-to-treat areas of field cancerization with multiple AKs or keratinocyte carcinomas of the lower extremities.⁸ The routine use of chemowraps—weekly application of 5-FU covered with an occlusive dressing—may be limited by the inability to control the extent of epidermal damage and subsequent systemic absorption. Ingenol mebutate, which was approved for treatment of AKs in 2012, was removed from both the European and US markets in 2020 because the medication may paradoxically increase the long-term incidence of skin cancer.⁹

Meta-analysis has shown that photodynamic therapy (PDT) with aminolevulinic acid demonstrated complete AK clearance in 75.8% of patients (N=156)(95% CI, 55.4%-96.2%).¹⁰ A more recent method of PDT using natural sunlight as the activation source demonstrated AK clearance of 95.5%, and it appeared to be a less painful alternative to traditional PDT.¹¹ Tacalcitol, another form of vitamin D, also has been shown to enhance the efficacy of PDT for AKs.¹²

Field-directed treatment with erbium:YAG and CO₂ lasers, which physically remove the actinically damaged epidermis, have been shown to possibly be as efficacious as topical 5-FU and 30% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) but possibly inferior to PDT.¹³ There has been growing interest in laser-assisted therapy, in which an ablative fractional laser is used to generate microscopic channels to theoretically enhance the absorption of a topical medication. A meta-analysis of the use of laser-assisted therapy for photosensitizing agents in PDT demonstrated a 33% increased chance of AK clearance compared to PDT alone (P<.01).¹⁴

Lesion-Directed Therapies

Multiple KAs or cutaneous SCCs may develop in an area of field cancerization, and surgically treating these multiple lesions in a concentrated area may be challenging. Intralesional agents, including methotrexate, 5-FU, bleomycin, and interferon, are known treatments for KAs.¹⁵ Intralesional 5-FU (25 mg once weekly for 3–4 weeks) in particular produced complete resolution in 92% of cutaneous SCCs and may be optimal for multiple or rapidly growing lesions, especially on the extremities.¹⁶

Oral Therapies

Oral therapies are considered in high-risk patients with multiple or recurrent cutaneous SCCs or in those who are immunosuppressed. Two trials demonstrated that nicotinamide 500 mg twice daily for 4 and 12 months decreased AKs by 29% to 35% and 13% (average of 3–5 fewer AKs as compared to baseline), respectively.^17,18 A meta-analysis found a reduction of cutaneous SCCs (rate ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.26-0.88]; I²=67%; 552 patients, 5 trials), and given the favorable safety profile, nicotinamide can be considered for chemoprevention.¹⁹

Acitretin, shown to reduce AKs by 13.4% to 50%, is the primary oral chemoprevention recommended in transplant recipients.²⁰ Interestingly, a recent meta-analysis failed to find significant differences between the efficacy of acitretin and nicotinamide.²¹ The tolerability of acitretin requires serious consideration, as 52.2% of patients withdrew due to adverse effects in one trial.²²

Capecitabine (250–1150 mg twice daily), the oral form of 5-FU, decreased the incidence of AKs and cutaneous SCCs in 53% and 72% of transplant recipients, respectively.²³ Although several reports observed paradoxical eruptions of AKs following capecitabine for other malignancies, this actually underscores the efficacy of capecitabine, as the newly emerged AKs resolved thereafter.²⁴ Still, the evidence supporting capecitabine does not include any controlled studies.

Novel Therapies

In 2021, tirbanibulin ointment 1%, a Src tyrosine kinase inhibitor of tubulin polymerization that induces p53 expression and subsequent cell death, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of AKs.²⁵ Two trials reported AK clearance rates of 44% and 54% with application of tirbanibulin once daily for 5 days (vs 5% and 13%, respectively, with placebo, each with P<.001) at 2 months and a sustained clearance rate of 27% at 1 year. The predominant adverse effects were local skin reactions, including application-site pain, pruritus, mild erythema, or scaling. Unlike in other treatments such as 5-FU or cryotherapy, erosions, dyspigmentation, or scarring were not notably observed.

Intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), an oncolytic, genetically modified herpes simplex virus type 1 that incites antitumor immune responses, received US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015 for the treatment of cutaneous and lymph node metastases of melanoma that are unable to be surgically resected. More recently, T-VEC has been investigated for oropharyngeal SCC. A phase 1 and phase 2 trial of 17 stage III/IV SCC patients receiving T-VEC and cisplatin demonstrated pathologic remission in 14 of 15 (93%) patients, with 82.4% survival at 29 months.²⁶ A multicenter phase 1b trial of 36 patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck SCCs treated with T-VEC and pembrolizumab exhibited a tolerable safety profile, and 5 cases had a partial response.²⁷ However, phase 3 trials of T-VEC have yet to be pursued. Regarding its potential use for cutaneous SCCs, it has been reportedly used in a liver transplant recipient with metastatic cutaneous SCCs who received 2 doses of T-VEC (1 month apart) and attained remission of disease.²⁸ There currently is a phase 2 trial examining the effectiveness of T-VEC in patients with cutaneous SCCs (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03714828).

Final Thoughts

It is important for dermatologists to bear in mind the possible role of field cancerization in their comprehensive care of patients at risk for multiple skin cancers. Management of areas of field cancerization can be challenging, particularly in patients who develop multiple KAs or cutaneous SCCs in a concentrated area and may need to involve different levels of treatment options, including field-directed therapies and lesion-directed therapies, as well as systemic chemoprevention.

There has been increasing awareness of field cancerization in dermatology and how it relates to actinic damage, actinic keratoses (AKs), and the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs). The concept of field cancerization, which was first described in the context of oropharyngeal SCCs, attempted to explain the repeated observation of local recurrences that were instead multiple primary oropharyngeal SCCs occurring within a specific region of tissue. It was hypothesized that the tissue surrounding a malignancy also harbors irreversible oncogenic damage and therefore predisposes the surrounding tissue to developing further malignancy.¹ The development of additional malignant lesions would be considered distinct from a true recurrence of the original malignancy.

Field cancerization may be partially explained by a genetic basis, as mutations in the tumor suppressor gene, TP53—the most frequently observed mutation in cutaneous SCCs—also is found in sun-exposed but clinically normal skin.^2,3 The finding of oncogenic mutations in nonlesional skin supports the theory of field cancerization, in which a region contains multiple genetically altered populations, some of which may progress to cancer. Because there currently is no widely accepted clinical definition or validated clinical measurement of field cancerization in dermatology, it may be difficult for dermatologists to recognize which patients may be at risk for developing further malignancy in a potential area of field cancerization. Willenbrink et al⁴ updated the definition of field cancerization in dermatology as “multifocal clinical atypia characterized by AKs or SCCs in situ with or without invasive disease occurring in a field exposed to chronic UV radiation.” Managing patients with field cancerization can be challenging. Herein, we discuss updates to nonsurgical field-directed and lesion-directed therapies as well as other emerging therapies.

Field-Directed Therapies

Topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and imiquimod cream 5% used as field-directed therapies help reduce the extent of AKs and actinic damage in areas of possible field cancerization.⁵ The addition of calcipotriol to topical 5-FU, which theoretically augments the skin’s T-cell antitumor response via the cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin, recently has been studied using short treatment courses resulting in an 87.8% reduction in AKs compared to a 26.3% reduction with topical 5-FU alone (when used twice daily for 4 days) and conferred a reduced risk of cutaneous SCCs 3 years after treatment (hazard ratio, 0.215 [95% CI, 0.048-0.972]; P=.032).^6,7 Chemowraps using topical 5-FU may be considered in more difficult-to-treat areas of field cancerization with multiple AKs or keratinocyte carcinomas of the lower extremities.⁸ The routine use of chemowraps—weekly application of 5-FU covered with an occlusive dressing—may be limited by the inability to control the extent of epidermal damage and subsequent systemic absorption. Ingenol mebutate, which was approved for treatment of AKs in 2012, was removed from both the European and US markets in 2020 because the medication may paradoxically increase the long-term incidence of skin cancer.⁹

Meta-analysis has shown that photodynamic therapy (PDT) with aminolevulinic acid demonstrated complete AK clearance in 75.8% of patients (N=156)(95% CI, 55.4%-96.2%).¹⁰ A more recent method of PDT using natural sunlight as the activation source demonstrated AK clearance of 95.5%, and it appeared to be a less painful alternative to traditional PDT.¹¹ Tacalcitol, another form of vitamin D, also has been shown to enhance the efficacy of PDT for AKs.¹²

Field-directed treatment with erbium:YAG and CO₂ lasers, which physically remove the actinically damaged epidermis, have been shown to possibly be as efficacious as topical 5-FU and 30% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) but possibly inferior to PDT.¹³ There has been growing interest in laser-assisted therapy, in which an ablative fractional laser is used to generate microscopic channels to theoretically enhance the absorption of a topical medication. A meta-analysis of the use of laser-assisted therapy for photosensitizing agents in PDT demonstrated a 33% increased chance of AK clearance compared to PDT alone (P<.01).¹⁴

Lesion-Directed Therapies

Multiple KAs or cutaneous SCCs may develop in an area of field cancerization, and surgically treating these multiple lesions in a concentrated area may be challenging. Intralesional agents, including methotrexate, 5-FU, bleomycin, and interferon, are known treatments for KAs.¹⁵ Intralesional 5-FU (25 mg once weekly for 3–4 weeks) in particular produced complete resolution in 92% of cutaneous SCCs and may be optimal for multiple or rapidly growing lesions, especially on the extremities.¹⁶

Oral Therapies

Oral therapies are considered in high-risk patients with multiple or recurrent cutaneous SCCs or in those who are immunosuppressed. Two trials demonstrated that nicotinamide 500 mg twice daily for 4 and 12 months decreased AKs by 29% to 35% and 13% (average of 3–5 fewer AKs as compared to baseline), respectively.^17,18 A meta-analysis found a reduction of cutaneous SCCs (rate ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.26-0.88]; I²=67%; 552 patients, 5 trials), and given the favorable safety profile, nicotinamide can be considered for chemoprevention.¹⁹

Acitretin, shown to reduce AKs by 13.4% to 50%, is the primary oral chemoprevention recommended in transplant recipients.²⁰ Interestingly, a recent meta-analysis failed to find significant differences between the efficacy of acitretin and nicotinamide.²¹ The tolerability of acitretin requires serious consideration, as 52.2% of patients withdrew due to adverse effects in one trial.²²

Capecitabine (250–1150 mg twice daily), the oral form of 5-FU, decreased the incidence of AKs and cutaneous SCCs in 53% and 72% of transplant recipients, respectively.²³ Although several reports observed paradoxical eruptions of AKs following capecitabine for other malignancies, this actually underscores the efficacy of capecitabine, as the newly emerged AKs resolved thereafter.²⁴ Still, the evidence supporting capecitabine does not include any controlled studies.

Novel Therapies

In 2021, tirbanibulin ointment 1%, a Src tyrosine kinase inhibitor of tubulin polymerization that induces p53 expression and subsequent cell death, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of AKs.²⁵ Two trials reported AK clearance rates of 44% and 54% with application of tirbanibulin once daily for 5 days (vs 5% and 13%, respectively, with placebo, each with P<.001) at 2 months and a sustained clearance rate of 27% at 1 year. The predominant adverse effects were local skin reactions, including application-site pain, pruritus, mild erythema, or scaling. Unlike in other treatments such as 5-FU or cryotherapy, erosions, dyspigmentation, or scarring were not notably observed.

Intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), an oncolytic, genetically modified herpes simplex virus type 1 that incites antitumor immune responses, received US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015 for the treatment of cutaneous and lymph node metastases of melanoma that are unable to be surgically resected. More recently, T-VEC has been investigated for oropharyngeal SCC. A phase 1 and phase 2 trial of 17 stage III/IV SCC patients receiving T-VEC and cisplatin demonstrated pathologic remission in 14 of 15 (93%) patients, with 82.4% survival at 29 months.²⁶ A multicenter phase 1b trial of 36 patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck SCCs treated with T-VEC and pembrolizumab exhibited a tolerable safety profile, and 5 cases had a partial response.²⁷ However, phase 3 trials of T-VEC have yet to be pursued. Regarding its potential use for cutaneous SCCs, it has been reportedly used in a liver transplant recipient with metastatic cutaneous SCCs who received 2 doses of T-VEC (1 month apart) and attained remission of disease.²⁸ There currently is a phase 2 trial examining the effectiveness of T-VEC in patients with cutaneous SCCs (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03714828).

Final Thoughts

It is important for dermatologists to bear in mind the possible role of field cancerization in their comprehensive care of patients at risk for multiple skin cancers. Management of areas of field cancerization can be challenging, particularly in patients who develop multiple KAs or cutaneous SCCs in a concentrated area and may need to involve different levels of treatment options, including field-directed therapies and lesion-directed therapies, as well as systemic chemoprevention.

There has been increasing awareness of field cancerization in dermatology and how it relates to actinic damage, actinic keratoses (AKs), and the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs). The concept of field cancerization, which was first described in the context of oropharyngeal SCCs, attempted to explain the repeated observation of local recurrences that were instead multiple primary oropharyngeal SCCs occurring within a specific region of tissue. It was hypothesized that the tissue surrounding a malignancy also harbors irreversible oncogenic damage and therefore predisposes the surrounding tissue to developing further malignancy.¹ The development of additional malignant lesions would be considered distinct from a true recurrence of the original malignancy.

Field cancerization may be partially explained by a genetic basis, as mutations in the tumor suppressor gene, TP53—the most frequently observed mutation in cutaneous SCCs—also is found in sun-exposed but clinically normal skin.^2,3 The finding of oncogenic mutations in nonlesional skin supports the theory of field cancerization, in which a region contains multiple genetically altered populations, some of which may progress to cancer. Because there currently is no widely accepted clinical definition or validated clinical measurement of field cancerization in dermatology, it may be difficult for dermatologists to recognize which patients may be at risk for developing further malignancy in a potential area of field cancerization. Willenbrink et al⁴ updated the definition of field cancerization in dermatology as “multifocal clinical atypia characterized by AKs or SCCs in situ with or without invasive disease occurring in a field exposed to chronic UV radiation.” Managing patients with field cancerization can be challenging. Herein, we discuss updates to nonsurgical field-directed and lesion-directed therapies as well as other emerging therapies.

Field-Directed Therapies

Topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and imiquimod cream 5% used as field-directed therapies help reduce the extent of AKs and actinic damage in areas of possible field cancerization.⁵ The addition of calcipotriol to topical 5-FU, which theoretically augments the skin’s T-cell antitumor response via the cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin, recently has been studied using short treatment courses resulting in an 87.8% reduction in AKs compared to a 26.3% reduction with topical 5-FU alone (when used twice daily for 4 days) and conferred a reduced risk of cutaneous SCCs 3 years after treatment (hazard ratio, 0.215 [95% CI, 0.048-0.972]; P=.032).^6,7 Chemowraps using topical 5-FU may be considered in more difficult-to-treat areas of field cancerization with multiple AKs or keratinocyte carcinomas of the lower extremities.⁸ The routine use of chemowraps—weekly application of 5-FU covered with an occlusive dressing—may be limited by the inability to control the extent of epidermal damage and subsequent systemic absorption. Ingenol mebutate, which was approved for treatment of AKs in 2012, was removed from both the European and US markets in 2020 because the medication may paradoxically increase the long-term incidence of skin cancer.⁹

Meta-analysis has shown that photodynamic therapy (PDT) with aminolevulinic acid demonstrated complete AK clearance in 75.8% of patients (N=156)(95% CI, 55.4%-96.2%).¹⁰ A more recent method of PDT using natural sunlight as the activation source demonstrated AK clearance of 95.5%, and it appeared to be a less painful alternative to traditional PDT.¹¹ Tacalcitol, another form of vitamin D, also has been shown to enhance the efficacy of PDT for AKs.¹²

Field-directed treatment with erbium:YAG and CO₂ lasers, which physically remove the actinically damaged epidermis, have been shown to possibly be as efficacious as topical 5-FU and 30% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) but possibly inferior to PDT.¹³ There has been growing interest in laser-assisted therapy, in which an ablative fractional laser is used to generate microscopic channels to theoretically enhance the absorption of a topical medication. A meta-analysis of the use of laser-assisted therapy for photosensitizing agents in PDT demonstrated a 33% increased chance of AK clearance compared to PDT alone (P<.01).¹⁴

Lesion-Directed Therapies

Multiple KAs or cutaneous SCCs may develop in an area of field cancerization, and surgically treating these multiple lesions in a concentrated area may be challenging. Intralesional agents, including methotrexate, 5-FU, bleomycin, and interferon, are known treatments for KAs.¹⁵ Intralesional 5-FU (25 mg once weekly for 3–4 weeks) in particular produced complete resolution in 92% of cutaneous SCCs and may be optimal for multiple or rapidly growing lesions, especially on the extremities.¹⁶

Oral Therapies

Oral therapies are considered in high-risk patients with multiple or recurrent cutaneous SCCs or in those who are immunosuppressed. Two trials demonstrated that nicotinamide 500 mg twice daily for 4 and 12 months decreased AKs by 29% to 35% and 13% (average of 3–5 fewer AKs as compared to baseline), respectively.^17,18 A meta-analysis found a reduction of cutaneous SCCs (rate ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.26-0.88]; I²=67%; 552 patients, 5 trials), and given the favorable safety profile, nicotinamide can be considered for chemoprevention.¹⁹

Acitretin, shown to reduce AKs by 13.4% to 50%, is the primary oral chemoprevention recommended in transplant recipients.²⁰ Interestingly, a recent meta-analysis failed to find significant differences between the efficacy of acitretin and nicotinamide.²¹ The tolerability of acitretin requires serious consideration, as 52.2% of patients withdrew due to adverse effects in one trial.²²

Capecitabine (250–1150 mg twice daily), the oral form of 5-FU, decreased the incidence of AKs and cutaneous SCCs in 53% and 72% of transplant recipients, respectively.²³ Although several reports observed paradoxical eruptions of AKs following capecitabine for other malignancies, this actually underscores the efficacy of capecitabine, as the newly emerged AKs resolved thereafter.²⁴ Still, the evidence supporting capecitabine does not include any controlled studies.

Novel Therapies

In 2021, tirbanibulin ointment 1%, a Src tyrosine kinase inhibitor of tubulin polymerization that induces p53 expression and subsequent cell death, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of AKs.²⁵ Two trials reported AK clearance rates of 44% and 54% with application of tirbanibulin once daily for 5 days (vs 5% and 13%, respectively, with placebo, each with P<.001) at 2 months and a sustained clearance rate of 27% at 1 year. The predominant adverse effects were local skin reactions, including application-site pain, pruritus, mild erythema, or scaling. Unlike in other treatments such as 5-FU or cryotherapy, erosions, dyspigmentation, or scarring were not notably observed.

Intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), an oncolytic, genetically modified herpes simplex virus type 1 that incites antitumor immune responses, received US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015 for the treatment of cutaneous and lymph node metastases of melanoma that are unable to be surgically resected. More recently, T-VEC has been investigated for oropharyngeal SCC. A phase 1 and phase 2 trial of 17 stage III/IV SCC patients receiving T-VEC and cisplatin demonstrated pathologic remission in 14 of 15 (93%) patients, with 82.4% survival at 29 months.²⁶ A multicenter phase 1b trial of 36 patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck SCCs treated with T-VEC and pembrolizumab exhibited a tolerable safety profile, and 5 cases had a partial response.²⁷ However, phase 3 trials of T-VEC have yet to be pursued. Regarding its potential use for cutaneous SCCs, it has been reportedly used in a liver transplant recipient with metastatic cutaneous SCCs who received 2 doses of T-VEC (1 month apart) and attained remission of disease.²⁸ There currently is a phase 2 trial examining the effectiveness of T-VEC in patients with cutaneous SCCs (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03714828).

Final Thoughts

It is important for dermatologists to bear in mind the possible role of field cancerization in their comprehensive care of patients at risk for multiple skin cancers. Management of areas of field cancerization can be challenging, particularly in patients who develop multiple KAs or cutaneous SCCs in a concentrated area and may need to involve different levels of treatment options, including field-directed therapies and lesion-directed therapies, as well as systemic chemoprevention.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

Just in time for Memorial Day outings, a new report on sunscreens is out.

The news isn’t all sunny. About 75% of more than 1,850 sunscreen products evaluated offer inferior sun protection or have worrisome ingredients, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy group that just issued its 16th annual Guide to Sunscreens.

In response, dermatologists, including the president of the American Academy of Dermatology, say that although some concerns have been raised about the safety of some sunscreen ingredients, sunscreens themselves remain an important tool in the fight against skin cancer. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, 1 in 5 Americans will get skin cancer by age 70. Melanoma, the most deadly, has a 5-year survival rate of 99% if caught early.
 

2022 report

Overall, the Environmental Working Group found that about 1 in 4 sunscreens, or about 500 products, met their standards for providing adequate sun protection and avoiding ingredients linked to known health harms. Products meant for babies and children did slightly better, with about 1 in 3 meeting the standards. The group evaluated mineral sunscreens, also called physical sunscreens, and non-mineral sunscreens, also called chemical sunscreens. Mineral sunscreens contain zinc oxide or titanium dioxide and sit on the skin to deflect the sun’s rays. Chemical sunscreens, with ingredients such as oxybenzone or avobenzone, are partially absorbed into the skin.

Among the group’s concerns:

• The use of oxybenzone in the non-mineral sunscreens. About 30% of the non-mineral sunscreens have it, says Carla Burns, senior director for cosmetic science for the Environmental Working Group. Oxybenzone is a potential hormone disrupter and a skin sensitizer that may harm children and adults, she says. Some progress has been made, as the group found oxybenzone in 66% of the non-mineral sunscreens it reviewed in 2019. (The FDA is seeking more information on oxybenzone and many other sunscreen ingredients.)
• Contamination of sunscreens with benzene, which has been linked to leukemia and other blood disorders, according to the National Cancer Institute. But industry experts stress that that chemical is found in trace amounts in personal care products and does not pose a safety concern. “Benzene is a chemical that is ubiquitous in the environment and not an intentionally added ingredient in personal care products. People worldwide are exposed daily to benzene from indoor and outdoor sources, including air, drinking water, and food and beverages,” the Personal Care Products Council, an industry group, said in a statement.
• Protection from ultraviolet A (UVA) rays is often inadequate, according to research published last year by the Environmental Working Group.

Products on the ‘best’ list

The Environmental Working Group found that 282 recreational sunscreens met its criteria. Among them:

• Coral Safe Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30
• Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Mineral Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30
• Mad Hippie Facial Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30+

The group chose 86 non-mineral sunscreens as better options, including:

• Alba Botanica Hawaiian Sunscreen Lotion, Aloe Vera, SPF 30
• Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Stick, SPF 50+
• Black Girl Sunscreen Melanin Boosting Moisturizing Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30

And 70 sunscreens made the kids’ best list, including:

• True Baby Everyday Play Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30+
• Sun Biologic Kids’ Sunscreen Stick, SPF 30+
• Kiss My Face Organic Kids’ Defense Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30

Industry response, FDA actions

In a statement, Alexandra Kowcz, chief scientist at the Personal Care Products Council, pointed out that “as part of a daily safe-sun regimen, sunscreen products help prevent sunburn and reduce skin cancer risk. It is unfortunate that as Americans spend more time outdoors, the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) 2022 Guide to Sunscreens resorts to fear-mongering with misleading information that could keep consumers from using sunscreens altogether.”

The FDA has asked for more information about certain ingredients to further evaluate products, she says, and industry is working with the agency. The FDA says it is attempting to improve the quality, safety and effectiveness of over-the-counter sunscreen products. In September, 2021, the FDA issued a proposal for regulating OTC sunscreen products, as required under the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security) Act. The effective date for the final order can’t be earlier than September 2022, the CARES Act says.
 

Dermatologists weigh in

“Every time something like this gets published, my patients come in hysterical,” says Michele Green, MD, a New York City dermatologist who reviewed the report for WebMD. She acknowledges that more research is needed on some sunscreen ingredients. “We really do not know the long-term consequence of oxybenzone,” she says.

Her advice: If her patients have melasma (a skin condition with brown patches on the face), she advises them to use both a chemical and a mineral sunscreen. “I don’t tell my patients in general not to use the chemical [sunscreens].”

For children, she says, the mineral sunscreens may be preferred. On her own children, who are teens, she uses the mineral sunscreens, due to possible concern about hormone disruption.

In a statement, Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, says that “sunscreen is an important part of a comprehensive sun protection strategy.”

Besides a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher for exposed skin, the academy recommends seeking shade and wearing sun-protective clothing to reduce skin cancer risk.

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

Just in time for Memorial Day outings, a new report on sunscreens is out.

The news isn’t all sunny. About 75% of more than 1,850 sunscreen products evaluated offer inferior sun protection or have worrisome ingredients, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy group that just issued its 16th annual Guide to Sunscreens.

In response, dermatologists, including the president of the American Academy of Dermatology, say that although some concerns have been raised about the safety of some sunscreen ingredients, sunscreens themselves remain an important tool in the fight against skin cancer. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, 1 in 5 Americans will get skin cancer by age 70. Melanoma, the most deadly, has a 5-year survival rate of 99% if caught early.
 

2022 report

Overall, the Environmental Working Group found that about 1 in 4 sunscreens, or about 500 products, met their standards for providing adequate sun protection and avoiding ingredients linked to known health harms. Products meant for babies and children did slightly better, with about 1 in 3 meeting the standards. The group evaluated mineral sunscreens, also called physical sunscreens, and non-mineral sunscreens, also called chemical sunscreens. Mineral sunscreens contain zinc oxide or titanium dioxide and sit on the skin to deflect the sun’s rays. Chemical sunscreens, with ingredients such as oxybenzone or avobenzone, are partially absorbed into the skin.

Among the group’s concerns:

• The use of oxybenzone in the non-mineral sunscreens. About 30% of the non-mineral sunscreens have it, says Carla Burns, senior director for cosmetic science for the Environmental Working Group. Oxybenzone is a potential hormone disrupter and a skin sensitizer that may harm children and adults, she says. Some progress has been made, as the group found oxybenzone in 66% of the non-mineral sunscreens it reviewed in 2019. (The FDA is seeking more information on oxybenzone and many other sunscreen ingredients.)
• Contamination of sunscreens with benzene, which has been linked to leukemia and other blood disorders, according to the National Cancer Institute. But industry experts stress that that chemical is found in trace amounts in personal care products and does not pose a safety concern. “Benzene is a chemical that is ubiquitous in the environment and not an intentionally added ingredient in personal care products. People worldwide are exposed daily to benzene from indoor and outdoor sources, including air, drinking water, and food and beverages,” the Personal Care Products Council, an industry group, said in a statement.
• Protection from ultraviolet A (UVA) rays is often inadequate, according to research published last year by the Environmental Working Group.

Products on the ‘best’ list

The Environmental Working Group found that 282 recreational sunscreens met its criteria. Among them:

• Coral Safe Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30
• Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Mineral Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30
• Mad Hippie Facial Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30+

The group chose 86 non-mineral sunscreens as better options, including:

• Alba Botanica Hawaiian Sunscreen Lotion, Aloe Vera, SPF 30
• Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Stick, SPF 50+
• Black Girl Sunscreen Melanin Boosting Moisturizing Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30

And 70 sunscreens made the kids’ best list, including:

• True Baby Everyday Play Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30+
• Sun Biologic Kids’ Sunscreen Stick, SPF 30+
• Kiss My Face Organic Kids’ Defense Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30

Industry response, FDA actions

In a statement, Alexandra Kowcz, chief scientist at the Personal Care Products Council, pointed out that “as part of a daily safe-sun regimen, sunscreen products help prevent sunburn and reduce skin cancer risk. It is unfortunate that as Americans spend more time outdoors, the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) 2022 Guide to Sunscreens resorts to fear-mongering with misleading information that could keep consumers from using sunscreens altogether.”

The FDA has asked for more information about certain ingredients to further evaluate products, she says, and industry is working with the agency. The FDA says it is attempting to improve the quality, safety and effectiveness of over-the-counter sunscreen products. In September, 2021, the FDA issued a proposal for regulating OTC sunscreen products, as required under the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security) Act. The effective date for the final order can’t be earlier than September 2022, the CARES Act says.
 

Dermatologists weigh in

“Every time something like this gets published, my patients come in hysterical,” says Michele Green, MD, a New York City dermatologist who reviewed the report for WebMD. She acknowledges that more research is needed on some sunscreen ingredients. “We really do not know the long-term consequence of oxybenzone,” she says.

Her advice: If her patients have melasma (a skin condition with brown patches on the face), she advises them to use both a chemical and a mineral sunscreen. “I don’t tell my patients in general not to use the chemical [sunscreens].”

For children, she says, the mineral sunscreens may be preferred. On her own children, who are teens, she uses the mineral sunscreens, due to possible concern about hormone disruption.

In a statement, Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, says that “sunscreen is an important part of a comprehensive sun protection strategy.”

Besides a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher for exposed skin, the academy recommends seeking shade and wearing sun-protective clothing to reduce skin cancer risk.

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

Just in time for Memorial Day outings, a new report on sunscreens is out.

The news isn’t all sunny. About 75% of more than 1,850 sunscreen products evaluated offer inferior sun protection or have worrisome ingredients, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy group that just issued its 16th annual Guide to Sunscreens.

In response, dermatologists, including the president of the American Academy of Dermatology, say that although some concerns have been raised about the safety of some sunscreen ingredients, sunscreens themselves remain an important tool in the fight against skin cancer. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, 1 in 5 Americans will get skin cancer by age 70. Melanoma, the most deadly, has a 5-year survival rate of 99% if caught early.
 

2022 report

Overall, the Environmental Working Group found that about 1 in 4 sunscreens, or about 500 products, met their standards for providing adequate sun protection and avoiding ingredients linked to known health harms. Products meant for babies and children did slightly better, with about 1 in 3 meeting the standards. The group evaluated mineral sunscreens, also called physical sunscreens, and non-mineral sunscreens, also called chemical sunscreens. Mineral sunscreens contain zinc oxide or titanium dioxide and sit on the skin to deflect the sun’s rays. Chemical sunscreens, with ingredients such as oxybenzone or avobenzone, are partially absorbed into the skin.

Among the group’s concerns:

• The use of oxybenzone in the non-mineral sunscreens. About 30% of the non-mineral sunscreens have it, says Carla Burns, senior director for cosmetic science for the Environmental Working Group. Oxybenzone is a potential hormone disrupter and a skin sensitizer that may harm children and adults, she says. Some progress has been made, as the group found oxybenzone in 66% of the non-mineral sunscreens it reviewed in 2019. (The FDA is seeking more information on oxybenzone and many other sunscreen ingredients.)
• Contamination of sunscreens with benzene, which has been linked to leukemia and other blood disorders, according to the National Cancer Institute. But industry experts stress that that chemical is found in trace amounts in personal care products and does not pose a safety concern. “Benzene is a chemical that is ubiquitous in the environment and not an intentionally added ingredient in personal care products. People worldwide are exposed daily to benzene from indoor and outdoor sources, including air, drinking water, and food and beverages,” the Personal Care Products Council, an industry group, said in a statement.
• Protection from ultraviolet A (UVA) rays is often inadequate, according to research published last year by the Environmental Working Group.

Products on the ‘best’ list

The Environmental Working Group found that 282 recreational sunscreens met its criteria. Among them:

• Coral Safe Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30
• Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Mineral Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30
• Mad Hippie Facial Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30+

The group chose 86 non-mineral sunscreens as better options, including:

• Alba Botanica Hawaiian Sunscreen Lotion, Aloe Vera, SPF 30
• Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Stick, SPF 50+
• Black Girl Sunscreen Melanin Boosting Moisturizing Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30

And 70 sunscreens made the kids’ best list, including:

• True Baby Everyday Play Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30+
• Sun Biologic Kids’ Sunscreen Stick, SPF 30+
• Kiss My Face Organic Kids’ Defense Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30

Industry response, FDA actions

In a statement, Alexandra Kowcz, chief scientist at the Personal Care Products Council, pointed out that “as part of a daily safe-sun regimen, sunscreen products help prevent sunburn and reduce skin cancer risk. It is unfortunate that as Americans spend more time outdoors, the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) 2022 Guide to Sunscreens resorts to fear-mongering with misleading information that could keep consumers from using sunscreens altogether.”

The FDA has asked for more information about certain ingredients to further evaluate products, she says, and industry is working with the agency. The FDA says it is attempting to improve the quality, safety and effectiveness of over-the-counter sunscreen products. In September, 2021, the FDA issued a proposal for regulating OTC sunscreen products, as required under the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security) Act. The effective date for the final order can’t be earlier than September 2022, the CARES Act says.
 

Dermatologists weigh in

“Every time something like this gets published, my patients come in hysterical,” says Michele Green, MD, a New York City dermatologist who reviewed the report for WebMD. She acknowledges that more research is needed on some sunscreen ingredients. “We really do not know the long-term consequence of oxybenzone,” she says.

Her advice: If her patients have melasma (a skin condition with brown patches on the face), she advises them to use both a chemical and a mineral sunscreen. “I don’t tell my patients in general not to use the chemical [sunscreens].”

For children, she says, the mineral sunscreens may be preferred. On her own children, who are teens, she uses the mineral sunscreens, due to possible concern about hormone disruption.

In a statement, Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, says that “sunscreen is an important part of a comprehensive sun protection strategy.”

Besides a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher for exposed skin, the academy recommends seeking shade and wearing sun-protective clothing to reduce skin cancer risk.

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

Approximately 50% of melanomas contain BRAF mutations, which occur in a greater proportion of melanomas found on sites of intermittent sun exposure.¹BRAF-mutated melanomas have been associated with high levels of early-life ambient UV exposure, especially between ages 0 and 20 years.² In addition, studies have shown that BRAF-mutated melanomas commonly are found on the trunk and extremities.^1-3BRAF mutations also have been associated with younger age, superficial spreading subtype and low tumor thickness, absence of dermal melanocyte mitosis, low Ki-67 score, low phospho-histone H3 score, pigmented melanoma, advanced melanoma stage, and conjunctival melanoma.^4-7BRAF mutations are found more frequently in metastatic melanoma lesions than primary melanomas, suggesting that BRAF mutations may be acquired during metastasis.⁸ Studies have shown different conclusions on the effect of BRAF mutation on melanoma-related death.^5,9,10

The aim of this study was to identify trends in BRAF V600E–mutated melanoma according to age, sex, and melanoma-specific survival among Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents with a first diagnosis of melanoma at 18 to 60 years of age.

Methods

In total, 638 patients aged 18 to 60 years who resided in Olmsted County and had a first lifetime diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma between 1970 and 2009 were retrospectively identified as a part of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP). The REP is a health records linkage system that encompasses almost all sources of medical care available to the local population of Olmsted County.¹¹ This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (Rochester, Minnesota).

Of the 638 individuals identified in the REP, 536 had been seen at Mayo Clinic and thus potentially had tissue blocks available for the study of BRAF mutation expression. Of these 536 patients, 156 did not have sufficient residual tissue available. As a result, 380 (60%) of the original 638 patients had available blocks with sufficient tissue for immunohistochemical analysis of BRAF expression. Only primary cutaneous melanomas were included in the present study.

All specimens were reviewed by a board-certified dermatopathologist (J.S.L.) for appropriateness of inclusion, which involved confirmation of the diagnosis of melanoma, histologic type of melanoma, and presence of sufficient residual tissue for immunohistochemical stains.

All specimens were originally diagnosed as malignant melanoma at the time of clinical care by at least 2 board-certified dermatopathologists. For the purposes of this study, all specimens were rereviewed for diagnostic accuracy. We required that specimens exhibit severe cytologic and architectural atypia as well as other features favoring melanoma, such as consumption of rete pegs, pagetosis, confluence of junctional melanocytes, evidence of regression, lack of maturation of melanocytes with descent into the dermis, or mitotic figures among the dermal melanocyte population.

The available tissue blocks were retrieved, sectioned, confirmed as melanoma, and stained with a mouse antihuman BRAF V600E monoclonal antibody (clone VE1; Spring Bioscience) to determine the presence of a BRAF V600E mutation. BRAF staining was evaluated in conjunction with a review of the associated slides stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Cytoplasmic staining of melanocytes for BRAF was graded as negative, focal or partial positive (<50% of tumor), or diffuse positive (>50% of tumor)(Figure 1). When a melanoma arose in association with a nevus, we considered only the melanoma component for BRAF staining. We categorized the histologic type as superficial spreading, nodular, or lentigo maligna, and the location as head and neck, trunk, or extremities.

Results

Clinical and Tumor Characteristics—Of the 380 tissue specimens that underwent BRAF V600E analysis, 247 had negative staining; 106 had diffuse strong staining; and 27 had focal or partial staining. In total, 133 (35%) were positive, either partially or diffusely. The median age for patients who had negative staining was 45 years; for those with positive staining, it was 41 years (P=.07).

The patients who met inclusion criteria (n=380) were compared with those who were excluded (n=258)(eTable 1). The groups were similar on the basis of sex; age; and melanoma location, stage, and histologic subtype. However, some evidence showed that patients included in the study received the diagnosis of melanoma more recently (1970-1989, 13.2%; 1990-1999, 28.7%; 2000-2009, 58.2%) than those who were excluded (1970-1989, 24.7%; 1990-1999, 23.5%; 2000-2009, 51.8%)(P=.02).

BRAF V600E expression was more commonly found in superficial spreading (37.7%) and nodular melanomas (35.0%) than in situ melanomas (17.1%)(P=.01). Other characteristics of BRAF V600E expression are described in eTable 2. Overall, invasive and advanced melanomas were significantly more likely to harbor BRAF V600E expression than noninvasive melanomas (39.6% and 37.9%, respectively, vs 17.9%; P=.003). However, advanced melanomas more commonly expressed BRAF positivity among women, and invasive melanomas more commonly expressed BRAF positivity among men (eTable 2).

Survival—Survival analyses were limited to 297 patients with confirmed invasive or advanced disease. Of these, 180 (61%) had no BRAF V600E staining; 25 (8%) had partial staining; and 92 (31%) had diffuse positive staining. In total, 117 patients (39%) had a BRAF-mutated melanoma.

Among the patients still alive, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of follow-up was 10.2 (7.0-16.8) years. Thirty-nine patients with invasive or advanced disease had died of any cause at a median (IQR) of 3.0 (1.3-10.2) years after diagnosis. In total, 26 patients died of melanoma at a median (IQR) follow-up of 2.5 (1.3-7.4) years after diagnosis. Eight women and 18 men died of malignant melanoma. Five deaths occurred because of malignant melanoma among patients aged 18 to 39 years, and 21 occurred among patients aged 40 to 60 years. In the 18- to 39-year-old group, all 5 deaths were among patients with a BRAF-positive melanoma. Estimated disease-specific survival rate (95% CI; number still at risk) at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after diagnosis was 94% (91%-97%; 243), 91% (87%-95%; 142), 89% (85%-94%; 87), and 88% (83%-93%; 45), respectively.

Comment

We found that melanomas with BRAF mutations were more likely in advanced and invasive melanoma. The frequency of BRAF mutations among melanomas that were considered advanced was higher in women than men. Although the number of deaths was limited, women with a melanoma with BRAF expression were more likely to die of melanoma, young adults with a BRAF-mutated melanoma had an almost 10-fold increased risk of dying from any cause, and middle-aged adults showed no increased risk of death. These findings suggest that young adults who are genetically prone to a BRAF-mutated melanoma could be at a disadvantage for all-cause mortality. Although this finding was significant, the 95% CI was large, and further studies would be warranted before sound conclusions could be made.

Melanoma has been increasing in incidence across all age groups in Olmsted County over the last 4 decades.^12-14 However, our results show that the percentage of BRAF-mutated melanomas in this population has been stable over time, with no statistically significant difference by age or sex. Other confounding factors may have an influence, such as increased rates of early detection and diagnosis of melanoma in contemporary times. Our data suggest that patients included in the BRAF-mutation analysis study had received the diagnosis of melanoma more recently than those who were excluded from the study, which could be due to older melanomas being less likely to have adequate tissue specimens available for immunohistochemical staining/evaluation.

Prior research has shown that BRAF-mutated melanomas typically occur on the trunk and are more likely in individuals with more than 14 nevi on the back.² In the present cohort, BRAF-positive melanomas had a predisposition toward the trunk but also were found on the head, neck, and extremities—areas that are more likely to have long-term sun damage. One suggestion is that 2 distinct pathways for melanoma development exist: one associated with a large number of melanocytic nevi (that is more prone to genetic mutations in melanocytes) and the other associated with long-term sun exposure.^15,16 The combination of these hypotheses suggests that individuals who are prone to the development of large numbers of nevi may require sun exposure for the initial insult, but the development of melanoma may be carried out by other factors after this initial sun exposure insult, whereas individuals without large numbers of nevi who may have less genetic risk may require continued long-term sun exposure for melanoma to develop.¹⁷

Our study had limitations, including the small numbers of deaths overall and cause-specific deaths of metastatic melanoma, which limited our ability to conduct more extensive multivariable modeling. Also, the retrospective nature and time frame of looking back 4 decades did not allow us to have information sufficient to categorize some patients as having dysplastic nevus syndrome or not, which would be a potentially interesting variable to include in the analysis. Because the number of deaths in the 18- to 39-year-old cohort was only 5, further statistical comparison regarding tumor type and other variables pertaining to BRAF positivity were not possible. In addition, our data were collected from patients residing in a single geographic county (Olmsted County, Minnesota), which may limit generalizability. Lastly, BRAF V600E mutations were identified through immunostaining only, not molecular data, so it is possible some patients had false-negative immunohistochemistry findings and thus were not identified.

Conclusion

BRAF-mutated melanomas were found in 35% of our cohort, with no significant change in the percentage of melanomas with BRAF V600E mutations over the last 4 decades in this population. In addition, no differences or significant trends existed according to sex and BRAF-mutated melanoma development. Women with BRAF-mutated melanomas were more likely to die of metastatic melanoma than men, and young adults with BRAF-mutated melanomas had a higher all-cause mortality risk. Further research is needed to decipher what effect BRAF-mutated melanomas have on metastasis and cause-specific death in women as well as all-cause mortality in young adults.

Acknowledgment—The authors are indebted to Scientific Publications, Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota).

Approximately 50% of melanomas contain BRAF mutations, which occur in a greater proportion of melanomas found on sites of intermittent sun exposure.¹BRAF-mutated melanomas have been associated with high levels of early-life ambient UV exposure, especially between ages 0 and 20 years.² In addition, studies have shown that BRAF-mutated melanomas commonly are found on the trunk and extremities.^1-3BRAF mutations also have been associated with younger age, superficial spreading subtype and low tumor thickness, absence of dermal melanocyte mitosis, low Ki-67 score, low phospho-histone H3 score, pigmented melanoma, advanced melanoma stage, and conjunctival melanoma.^4-7BRAF mutations are found more frequently in metastatic melanoma lesions than primary melanomas, suggesting that BRAF mutations may be acquired during metastasis.⁸ Studies have shown different conclusions on the effect of BRAF mutation on melanoma-related death.^5,9,10

The aim of this study was to identify trends in BRAF V600E–mutated melanoma according to age, sex, and melanoma-specific survival among Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents with a first diagnosis of melanoma at 18 to 60 years of age.

Methods

In total, 638 patients aged 18 to 60 years who resided in Olmsted County and had a first lifetime diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma between 1970 and 2009 were retrospectively identified as a part of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP). The REP is a health records linkage system that encompasses almost all sources of medical care available to the local population of Olmsted County.¹¹ This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (Rochester, Minnesota).

Of the 638 individuals identified in the REP, 536 had been seen at Mayo Clinic and thus potentially had tissue blocks available for the study of BRAF mutation expression. Of these 536 patients, 156 did not have sufficient residual tissue available. As a result, 380 (60%) of the original 638 patients had available blocks with sufficient tissue for immunohistochemical analysis of BRAF expression. Only primary cutaneous melanomas were included in the present study.

All specimens were reviewed by a board-certified dermatopathologist (J.S.L.) for appropriateness of inclusion, which involved confirmation of the diagnosis of melanoma, histologic type of melanoma, and presence of sufficient residual tissue for immunohistochemical stains.

All specimens were originally diagnosed as malignant melanoma at the time of clinical care by at least 2 board-certified dermatopathologists. For the purposes of this study, all specimens were rereviewed for diagnostic accuracy. We required that specimens exhibit severe cytologic and architectural atypia as well as other features favoring melanoma, such as consumption of rete pegs, pagetosis, confluence of junctional melanocytes, evidence of regression, lack of maturation of melanocytes with descent into the dermis, or mitotic figures among the dermal melanocyte population.

The available tissue blocks were retrieved, sectioned, confirmed as melanoma, and stained with a mouse antihuman BRAF V600E monoclonal antibody (clone VE1; Spring Bioscience) to determine the presence of a BRAF V600E mutation. BRAF staining was evaluated in conjunction with a review of the associated slides stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Cytoplasmic staining of melanocytes for BRAF was graded as negative, focal or partial positive (<50% of tumor), or diffuse positive (>50% of tumor)(Figure 1). When a melanoma arose in association with a nevus, we considered only the melanoma component for BRAF staining. We categorized the histologic type as superficial spreading, nodular, or lentigo maligna, and the location as head and neck, trunk, or extremities.

Results

Clinical and Tumor Characteristics—Of the 380 tissue specimens that underwent BRAF V600E analysis, 247 had negative staining; 106 had diffuse strong staining; and 27 had focal or partial staining. In total, 133 (35%) were positive, either partially or diffusely. The median age for patients who had negative staining was 45 years; for those with positive staining, it was 41 years (P=.07).

The patients who met inclusion criteria (n=380) were compared with those who were excluded (n=258)(eTable 1). The groups were similar on the basis of sex; age; and melanoma location, stage, and histologic subtype. However, some evidence showed that patients included in the study received the diagnosis of melanoma more recently (1970-1989, 13.2%; 1990-1999, 28.7%; 2000-2009, 58.2%) than those who were excluded (1970-1989, 24.7%; 1990-1999, 23.5%; 2000-2009, 51.8%)(P=.02).

BRAF V600E expression was more commonly found in superficial spreading (37.7%) and nodular melanomas (35.0%) than in situ melanomas (17.1%)(P=.01). Other characteristics of BRAF V600E expression are described in eTable 2. Overall, invasive and advanced melanomas were significantly more likely to harbor BRAF V600E expression than noninvasive melanomas (39.6% and 37.9%, respectively, vs 17.9%; P=.003). However, advanced melanomas more commonly expressed BRAF positivity among women, and invasive melanomas more commonly expressed BRAF positivity among men (eTable 2).

Survival—Survival analyses were limited to 297 patients with confirmed invasive or advanced disease. Of these, 180 (61%) had no BRAF V600E staining; 25 (8%) had partial staining; and 92 (31%) had diffuse positive staining. In total, 117 patients (39%) had a BRAF-mutated melanoma.

Among the patients still alive, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of follow-up was 10.2 (7.0-16.8) years. Thirty-nine patients with invasive or advanced disease had died of any cause at a median (IQR) of 3.0 (1.3-10.2) years after diagnosis. In total, 26 patients died of melanoma at a median (IQR) follow-up of 2.5 (1.3-7.4) years after diagnosis. Eight women and 18 men died of malignant melanoma. Five deaths occurred because of malignant melanoma among patients aged 18 to 39 years, and 21 occurred among patients aged 40 to 60 years. In the 18- to 39-year-old group, all 5 deaths were among patients with a BRAF-positive melanoma. Estimated disease-specific survival rate (95% CI; number still at risk) at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after diagnosis was 94% (91%-97%; 243), 91% (87%-95%; 142), 89% (85%-94%; 87), and 88% (83%-93%; 45), respectively.

Comment

We found that melanomas with BRAF mutations were more likely in advanced and invasive melanoma. The frequency of BRAF mutations among melanomas that were considered advanced was higher in women than men. Although the number of deaths was limited, women with a melanoma with BRAF expression were more likely to die of melanoma, young adults with a BRAF-mutated melanoma had an almost 10-fold increased risk of dying from any cause, and middle-aged adults showed no increased risk of death. These findings suggest that young adults who are genetically prone to a BRAF-mutated melanoma could be at a disadvantage for all-cause mortality. Although this finding was significant, the 95% CI was large, and further studies would be warranted before sound conclusions could be made.

Melanoma has been increasing in incidence across all age groups in Olmsted County over the last 4 decades.^12-14 However, our results show that the percentage of BRAF-mutated melanomas in this population has been stable over time, with no statistically significant difference by age or sex. Other confounding factors may have an influence, such as increased rates of early detection and diagnosis of melanoma in contemporary times. Our data suggest that patients included in the BRAF-mutation analysis study had received the diagnosis of melanoma more recently than those who were excluded from the study, which could be due to older melanomas being less likely to have adequate tissue specimens available for immunohistochemical staining/evaluation.

Prior research has shown that BRAF-mutated melanomas typically occur on the trunk and are more likely in individuals with more than 14 nevi on the back.² In the present cohort, BRAF-positive melanomas had a predisposition toward the trunk but also were found on the head, neck, and extremities—areas that are more likely to have long-term sun damage. One suggestion is that 2 distinct pathways for melanoma development exist: one associated with a large number of melanocytic nevi (that is more prone to genetic mutations in melanocytes) and the other associated with long-term sun exposure.^15,16 The combination of these hypotheses suggests that individuals who are prone to the development of large numbers of nevi may require sun exposure for the initial insult, but the development of melanoma may be carried out by other factors after this initial sun exposure insult, whereas individuals without large numbers of nevi who may have less genetic risk may require continued long-term sun exposure for melanoma to develop.¹⁷

Our study had limitations, including the small numbers of deaths overall and cause-specific deaths of metastatic melanoma, which limited our ability to conduct more extensive multivariable modeling. Also, the retrospective nature and time frame of looking back 4 decades did not allow us to have information sufficient to categorize some patients as having dysplastic nevus syndrome or not, which would be a potentially interesting variable to include in the analysis. Because the number of deaths in the 18- to 39-year-old cohort was only 5, further statistical comparison regarding tumor type and other variables pertaining to BRAF positivity were not possible. In addition, our data were collected from patients residing in a single geographic county (Olmsted County, Minnesota), which may limit generalizability. Lastly, BRAF V600E mutations were identified through immunostaining only, not molecular data, so it is possible some patients had false-negative immunohistochemistry findings and thus were not identified.

Conclusion

BRAF-mutated melanomas were found in 35% of our cohort, with no significant change in the percentage of melanomas with BRAF V600E mutations over the last 4 decades in this population. In addition, no differences or significant trends existed according to sex and BRAF-mutated melanoma development. Women with BRAF-mutated melanomas were more likely to die of metastatic melanoma than men, and young adults with BRAF-mutated melanomas had a higher all-cause mortality risk. Further research is needed to decipher what effect BRAF-mutated melanomas have on metastasis and cause-specific death in women as well as all-cause mortality in young adults.

Acknowledgment—The authors are indebted to Scientific Publications, Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota).

Approximately 50% of melanomas contain BRAF mutations, which occur in a greater proportion of melanomas found on sites of intermittent sun exposure.¹BRAF-mutated melanomas have been associated with high levels of early-life ambient UV exposure, especially between ages 0 and 20 years.² In addition, studies have shown that BRAF-mutated melanomas commonly are found on the trunk and extremities.^1-3BRAF mutations also have been associated with younger age, superficial spreading subtype and low tumor thickness, absence of dermal melanocyte mitosis, low Ki-67 score, low phospho-histone H3 score, pigmented melanoma, advanced melanoma stage, and conjunctival melanoma.^4-7BRAF mutations are found more frequently in metastatic melanoma lesions than primary melanomas, suggesting that BRAF mutations may be acquired during metastasis.⁸ Studies have shown different conclusions on the effect of BRAF mutation on melanoma-related death.^5,9,10

The aim of this study was to identify trends in BRAF V600E–mutated melanoma according to age, sex, and melanoma-specific survival among Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents with a first diagnosis of melanoma at 18 to 60 years of age.

Methods

In total, 638 patients aged 18 to 60 years who resided in Olmsted County and had a first lifetime diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma between 1970 and 2009 were retrospectively identified as a part of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP). The REP is a health records linkage system that encompasses almost all sources of medical care available to the local population of Olmsted County.¹¹ This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (Rochester, Minnesota).

Of the 638 individuals identified in the REP, 536 had been seen at Mayo Clinic and thus potentially had tissue blocks available for the study of BRAF mutation expression. Of these 536 patients, 156 did not have sufficient residual tissue available. As a result, 380 (60%) of the original 638 patients had available blocks with sufficient tissue for immunohistochemical analysis of BRAF expression. Only primary cutaneous melanomas were included in the present study.

All specimens were reviewed by a board-certified dermatopathologist (J.S.L.) for appropriateness of inclusion, which involved confirmation of the diagnosis of melanoma, histologic type of melanoma, and presence of sufficient residual tissue for immunohistochemical stains.

All specimens were originally diagnosed as malignant melanoma at the time of clinical care by at least 2 board-certified dermatopathologists. For the purposes of this study, all specimens were rereviewed for diagnostic accuracy. We required that specimens exhibit severe cytologic and architectural atypia as well as other features favoring melanoma, such as consumption of rete pegs, pagetosis, confluence of junctional melanocytes, evidence of regression, lack of maturation of melanocytes with descent into the dermis, or mitotic figures among the dermal melanocyte population.

The available tissue blocks were retrieved, sectioned, confirmed as melanoma, and stained with a mouse antihuman BRAF V600E monoclonal antibody (clone VE1; Spring Bioscience) to determine the presence of a BRAF V600E mutation. BRAF staining was evaluated in conjunction with a review of the associated slides stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Cytoplasmic staining of melanocytes for BRAF was graded as negative, focal or partial positive (<50% of tumor), or diffuse positive (>50% of tumor)(Figure 1). When a melanoma arose in association with a nevus, we considered only the melanoma component for BRAF staining. We categorized the histologic type as superficial spreading, nodular, or lentigo maligna, and the location as head and neck, trunk, or extremities.

Results

Clinical and Tumor Characteristics—Of the 380 tissue specimens that underwent BRAF V600E analysis, 247 had negative staining; 106 had diffuse strong staining; and 27 had focal or partial staining. In total, 133 (35%) were positive, either partially or diffusely. The median age for patients who had negative staining was 45 years; for those with positive staining, it was 41 years (P=.07).

The patients who met inclusion criteria (n=380) were compared with those who were excluded (n=258)(eTable 1). The groups were similar on the basis of sex; age; and melanoma location, stage, and histologic subtype. However, some evidence showed that patients included in the study received the diagnosis of melanoma more recently (1970-1989, 13.2%; 1990-1999, 28.7%; 2000-2009, 58.2%) than those who were excluded (1970-1989, 24.7%; 1990-1999, 23.5%; 2000-2009, 51.8%)(P=.02).

BRAF V600E expression was more commonly found in superficial spreading (37.7%) and nodular melanomas (35.0%) than in situ melanomas (17.1%)(P=.01). Other characteristics of BRAF V600E expression are described in eTable 2. Overall, invasive and advanced melanomas were significantly more likely to harbor BRAF V600E expression than noninvasive melanomas (39.6% and 37.9%, respectively, vs 17.9%; P=.003). However, advanced melanomas more commonly expressed BRAF positivity among women, and invasive melanomas more commonly expressed BRAF positivity among men (eTable 2).

Survival—Survival analyses were limited to 297 patients with confirmed invasive or advanced disease. Of these, 180 (61%) had no BRAF V600E staining; 25 (8%) had partial staining; and 92 (31%) had diffuse positive staining. In total, 117 patients (39%) had a BRAF-mutated melanoma.

Among the patients still alive, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of follow-up was 10.2 (7.0-16.8) years. Thirty-nine patients with invasive or advanced disease had died of any cause at a median (IQR) of 3.0 (1.3-10.2) years after diagnosis. In total, 26 patients died of melanoma at a median (IQR) follow-up of 2.5 (1.3-7.4) years after diagnosis. Eight women and 18 men died of malignant melanoma. Five deaths occurred because of malignant melanoma among patients aged 18 to 39 years, and 21 occurred among patients aged 40 to 60 years. In the 18- to 39-year-old group, all 5 deaths were among patients with a BRAF-positive melanoma. Estimated disease-specific survival rate (95% CI; number still at risk) at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after diagnosis was 94% (91%-97%; 243), 91% (87%-95%; 142), 89% (85%-94%; 87), and 88% (83%-93%; 45), respectively.

Comment

We found that melanomas with BRAF mutations were more likely in advanced and invasive melanoma. The frequency of BRAF mutations among melanomas that were considered advanced was higher in women than men. Although the number of deaths was limited, women with a melanoma with BRAF expression were more likely to die of melanoma, young adults with a BRAF-mutated melanoma had an almost 10-fold increased risk of dying from any cause, and middle-aged adults showed no increased risk of death. These findings suggest that young adults who are genetically prone to a BRAF-mutated melanoma could be at a disadvantage for all-cause mortality. Although this finding was significant, the 95% CI was large, and further studies would be warranted before sound conclusions could be made.

Melanoma has been increasing in incidence across all age groups in Olmsted County over the last 4 decades.^12-14 However, our results show that the percentage of BRAF-mutated melanomas in this population has been stable over time, with no statistically significant difference by age or sex. Other confounding factors may have an influence, such as increased rates of early detection and diagnosis of melanoma in contemporary times. Our data suggest that patients included in the BRAF-mutation analysis study had received the diagnosis of melanoma more recently than those who were excluded from the study, which could be due to older melanomas being less likely to have adequate tissue specimens available for immunohistochemical staining/evaluation.

Prior research has shown that BRAF-mutated melanomas typically occur on the trunk and are more likely in individuals with more than 14 nevi on the back.² In the present cohort, BRAF-positive melanomas had a predisposition toward the trunk but also were found on the head, neck, and extremities—areas that are more likely to have long-term sun damage. One suggestion is that 2 distinct pathways for melanoma development exist: one associated with a large number of melanocytic nevi (that is more prone to genetic mutations in melanocytes) and the other associated with long-term sun exposure.^15,16 The combination of these hypotheses suggests that individuals who are prone to the development of large numbers of nevi may require sun exposure for the initial insult, but the development of melanoma may be carried out by other factors after this initial sun exposure insult, whereas individuals without large numbers of nevi who may have less genetic risk may require continued long-term sun exposure for melanoma to develop.¹⁷

Our study had limitations, including the small numbers of deaths overall and cause-specific deaths of metastatic melanoma, which limited our ability to conduct more extensive multivariable modeling. Also, the retrospective nature and time frame of looking back 4 decades did not allow us to have information sufficient to categorize some patients as having dysplastic nevus syndrome or not, which would be a potentially interesting variable to include in the analysis. Because the number of deaths in the 18- to 39-year-old cohort was only 5, further statistical comparison regarding tumor type and other variables pertaining to BRAF positivity were not possible. In addition, our data were collected from patients residing in a single geographic county (Olmsted County, Minnesota), which may limit generalizability. Lastly, BRAF V600E mutations were identified through immunostaining only, not molecular data, so it is possible some patients had false-negative immunohistochemistry findings and thus were not identified.

Conclusion

BRAF-mutated melanomas were found in 35% of our cohort, with no significant change in the percentage of melanomas with BRAF V600E mutations over the last 4 decades in this population. In addition, no differences or significant trends existed according to sex and BRAF-mutated melanoma development. Women with BRAF-mutated melanomas were more likely to die of metastatic melanoma than men, and young adults with BRAF-mutated melanomas had a higher all-cause mortality risk. Further research is needed to decipher what effect BRAF-mutated melanomas have on metastasis and cause-specific death in women as well as all-cause mortality in young adults.

Acknowledgment—The authors are indebted to Scientific Publications, Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota).

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about unprecedented changes and challenges to medical practice, including new public health measure legislation, local and national medical authority recommendations, nursing home and other ancillary health center protocols, and novel clinical decision-making considerations.^1-3 In July 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) addressed the changing landscape in dermatologic surgery, in part, by publishing recommendations on practice protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴ The guidelines recommended deferred treatment of superficial basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) for 6 months and all other BCC subtypes for 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, the guidelines recommended deferring treatment of all actinic keratoses and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) in situ “for now.” Squamous cell carcinoma treatment was to be guided by prognostic variables, such as location, size, depth, differentiation, perineural or lymphovascular invasion, recurrence, and immunosuppression. The guidelines recommended melanoma in situ (MIS) treatment be deferred for 3 months and invasive melanoma with histologic clearance obtained on excisional biopsy for 3 months. Other general recommendations included triaging clinics, rebooking according to clinical priority, using telehealth where possible, screening patients for COVID-19 signs and symptoms, staggering appointment times, spacing patient chairs, limiting support persons to 1, removing possible sources of infection in the waiting room, ensuring all patients sanitized their hands on arrival, rationing personal protective equipment, considering N95 masks for periorificial surgery, and using dissolving sutures to minimize multiple presentations.⁴

The American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), with guidance from its sister societies and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, also communicated COVID-19–related recommendations to its members via intermittent newsletters during the initial peak of the pandemic in March and June 2020.⁵ General social distancing and office recommendations were similar to those released by the AAD. Recommendations for skin cancer treatment included deferring all BCCs for up to 3 months, with exceptions for highly symptomatic cancers and those with potential for substantial rapid growth. Squamous cell carcinoma in situ and small, well-differentiated SCCs were deferred, with priority placed on SCCs that were rapidly enlarging, poorly differentiated, demonstrated perineural invasion, were ulcerated, or were symptomatic. Patients with major risk factors were prioritized for treatment. Melanoma in situ was deferred for 2 to 3 months.⁵

State-level guidance from the Texas Dermatological Society (TDS) communicated in April 2020 stated that skin cancers with a potential for rapid progression and metastasis, such as melanoma and SCC, may require treatment as determined by the physician.⁶ The potential risk of serious adverse medical outcomes from not treating these cancers should be carefully documented. General practice measures for preventing the spread of COVID-19 were also recommended.⁶

In the setting of emerging novel recommendations, the practice of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) was notably impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one survey study from the United Kingdom conducted in April and May 2020, 49% of MMS services ceased and 36% were reduced during the infancy of the COVID-19 pandemic.⁷ Mohs micrographic surgery was largely suspended because of a lack of personal protective equipment and safety concerns, according to respondents. Additionally, respondents reported 77% of departments experienced redeployment of physicians and nurses to intensive care and medical wards. Thirty-five percent reported a reduction in the proportion of flaps/grafts to primary closures performed, 74% reported a decrease in outside referrals for repair by other specialties, 81% reported increased usage of dissolvable sutures, and 29% reported an increase in prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions.⁷ Another study from Italy reported a 46.5% reduction in dermatologic surgeries performed during the initial lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients canceled 52.9% of procedures, and 12.5% were cancelled because of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection.⁸ Patient perceptions of MMS have also been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a survey study of patients in the United Kingdom undergoing MMS during the pandemic, 47% were worried the hospital would cancel their surgery, 54% were anxious about using public transportation to attend their appointment, 30% were concerned about transmitting COVID-19 to household or family members, and 19% were worried about their ability to socially distance in the hospital.⁹

Evidence is also emerging that suggests the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients with skin cancer. One European study found an increase in Breslow thickness in primary melanomas diagnosed following the initial COVID-19 lockdown (0.88-mm average thickness prelockdown vs 1.96-mm average thickness postlockdown).¹⁰ An Italian study observed similar results—an increase in median Breslow thickness during the initial COVID-19 lockdown period of 0.5 mm from 0.4 mm during the prelockdown time period.¹¹ Also providing evidence for potentially poor patient outcomes, one study modeled the impact of backlog in cutaneous melanoma referrals in the United Kingdom on patient survival and predicted 138 attributable lives lost for a 1-month delay and 1171 lives lost for a 6-month delay. The model further predicted a 3.1% to 12.5% reduction in 10-year net survival incurred from a 3-month delay in melanoma treatment, with the largest reduction seen in the patient population older than 80 years.¹²

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been observed to impact MMS practice, patient perceptions, and clinical outcomes, it is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding rapidly evolving recommendations in dermatologic surgery have impacted the characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS.

Our study sought to determine the characteristics of skin cancers treated by MMS during the peak of government-mandated medical practice restrictions and business shutdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with characteristics of skin cancers treated during a prepandemic control period.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted with approval from our institutional review board at the University of Texas Medical Branch (Galveston, Texas). Included in the chart review were all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our outpatient, office-based surgical center from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020; this period corresponded to the peak of the COVID-19–related government-mandated medical and business shutdowns in our geographic region (southeast Texas). All cases performed were in compliance with national- and state-level guidance. Data were also collected for all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our office from March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, as well as March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018; these periods represented prepandemic control periods.

Data were collected for 516 surgeries performed on 458 patients and included patient age, preoperative clinical size, postoperative defect size, number of Mohs stages to achieve clearance, MMS appropriate use criteria (AUC) location (categorized as high-, medium-, or low-risk tumor location),¹³ and tumor type (categorized as BCC, SCC, or MIS). All variables were examined for unusual or missing values. Five patients with rare tumor types were observed and removed from the data set.

Statistical Analysis—An a priori power analysis for a power set at 0.85 determined sample sizes of 105 per group. Bivariate analyses were performed to compare variables for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods. Continuous outcome variables—Mohs stages, preoperative size, postoperative size, and patient age—were categorized for the analysis. Preoperative tumor size was dichotomized, with less than 2 cm² as the referent category vs 2 cm² or greater, and postoperative defect size was dichotomized with less than 3.6 cm² as the referent category vs 3.6 cm² or greater. Mohs stage was dichotomized as 1 stage (referent) vs more than 1 stage, and patient age was dichotomized as younger than 65 years (referent) vs 65 years or older.

Multivariate analyses were also performed to compare preoperative and postoperative sizes for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, controlling for Mohs AUC location. Bivariate unadjusted and multivariate analyses were performed using a GENMOD logistic regression procedure in SAS (SAS Institute) to account for correlation in clustered data because a patient could be included for more than 1 surgery in the data set. Data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 for Windows. Because outcome variables tended to be skewed and not distributed normally, outcome variables were recorded as medians with interquartile ranges where possible to give a more accurate representation of the data than could be demonstrated with means with standard deviations.

Results

One hundred thirty-eight skin cancers were treated during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020, and 378 skin cancers were treated during the prepandemic control periods of March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, and March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018. Tumor type treated during the pandemic period was more likely to be SCC or MIS (representing generally more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared with the prepandemic periods, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.763 (95% CI, 1.17-2.66). This outcome was statistically significant (P=.01).

Tumors treated during the pandemic period were more likely to have necessitated more than one Mohs stage for clearance compared to the prepandemic periods, though this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 1.461; 95% CI, 0.97-2.19; P=.056). Neither AUC location of treated tumors nor age were significantly different between prepandemic and pandemic periods (P=.58 and P=.84, respectively). Table 1 includes all bivariate analysis results.

Additionally, although mean preoperative and postoperative sizes were larger for each AUC location during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, these differences did not reach statistical significance on multivariate analysis (P=.71 and P=.50, respectively)(Table 2).

 

 

Comment

Our practice has followed best practice guidelines dictated by our governing professional societies during the COVID-19 pandemic in the treatment of skin cancers by MMS, specifically highly symptomatic BCCs (in accordance with ACMS guidance), SCCs with high-risk features (in accordance with AAD, ACMS, and TDS guidance), and tumors with high risk for progression and metastasis such as melanomas (in accordance with TDS guidance). Melanoma in situ was also treated during the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with the latter TDS guidance, particularly in light of the potential for upstaging to melanoma following resection (a phenomenon demonstrated to occur in 5%–29% of biopsied MIS lesions).¹⁴

In following best practice guidelines, our results suggested tumors treated by MMS were more severe, as evidenced by a statistically significant higher proportion of SCC and MIS tumors (representing more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared to the prepandemic period. Supporting this conclusion, we observed larger pretreatment and posttreatment tumor sizes for all AUC locations and more tumors necessitating 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, though these differences did not reach statistical significance. We postulate these findings may be attributed to allocation of finite medical resources to the treatment of larger and more aggressive skin cancers. Additionally, these findings may be explained, in part, by limitations on patient case load imposed by social distancing measures and governing body regulations in effect during the study period, including those put forth by the AAD, ACMS, and TDS. Of note, our practice observed no hospitalizations or 911 calls during the studied period. This suggests no allocation of precious hospital resources away from patients with COVID-19 in our treatment of high-risk skin cancers.

The changing characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS during the pandemic are of clinical relevance. Larger postoperative wound sizes as observed during the pandemic, albeit not statistically significant, presumably affect reconstructive decisions. With larger wounds tending to necessitate repair by techniques higher on the reconstructive ladder, greater patient morbidity and cost are expected.¹⁵ As the cost-effectiveness of dermatology services remains a critical issue, this is an area ripe for future follow-up research. Furthermore, our observation that tumors tended to necessitate 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic more often than prepandemic periods, though not statistically significant, presumably affected operating times. Longer operating times during the pandemic may be of importance when making clinical decisions for patients for whom limiting health care exposure may be of particular concern. With more SCC and MIS tumors being treated relative to BCCs during the pandemic, one might expect greater size and severity of the BCCs we observe in the proceeding months to years.

As the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the landscape of cutaneous oncology, the need for adaptability is imperative. With 3- and 6-month skin cancer treatment deferrals lapsed, uncertainty surrounds ideal management of existing and new skin cancers arising during the pandemic. This study adds to a growing body of literature elucidating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MMS practice; however, further studies and a tincture of time are needed to guide future best practice standards.

Acknowledgment—The authors acknowledge Gwen Baillargeon, MS (Galveston, Texas), who was the statistician for this article.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about unprecedented changes and challenges to medical practice, including new public health measure legislation, local and national medical authority recommendations, nursing home and other ancillary health center protocols, and novel clinical decision-making considerations.^1-3 In July 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) addressed the changing landscape in dermatologic surgery, in part, by publishing recommendations on practice protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴ The guidelines recommended deferred treatment of superficial basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) for 6 months and all other BCC subtypes for 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, the guidelines recommended deferring treatment of all actinic keratoses and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) in situ “for now.” Squamous cell carcinoma treatment was to be guided by prognostic variables, such as location, size, depth, differentiation, perineural or lymphovascular invasion, recurrence, and immunosuppression. The guidelines recommended melanoma in situ (MIS) treatment be deferred for 3 months and invasive melanoma with histologic clearance obtained on excisional biopsy for 3 months. Other general recommendations included triaging clinics, rebooking according to clinical priority, using telehealth where possible, screening patients for COVID-19 signs and symptoms, staggering appointment times, spacing patient chairs, limiting support persons to 1, removing possible sources of infection in the waiting room, ensuring all patients sanitized their hands on arrival, rationing personal protective equipment, considering N95 masks for periorificial surgery, and using dissolving sutures to minimize multiple presentations.⁴

The American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), with guidance from its sister societies and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, also communicated COVID-19–related recommendations to its members via intermittent newsletters during the initial peak of the pandemic in March and June 2020.⁵ General social distancing and office recommendations were similar to those released by the AAD. Recommendations for skin cancer treatment included deferring all BCCs for up to 3 months, with exceptions for highly symptomatic cancers and those with potential for substantial rapid growth. Squamous cell carcinoma in situ and small, well-differentiated SCCs were deferred, with priority placed on SCCs that were rapidly enlarging, poorly differentiated, demonstrated perineural invasion, were ulcerated, or were symptomatic. Patients with major risk factors were prioritized for treatment. Melanoma in situ was deferred for 2 to 3 months.⁵

State-level guidance from the Texas Dermatological Society (TDS) communicated in April 2020 stated that skin cancers with a potential for rapid progression and metastasis, such as melanoma and SCC, may require treatment as determined by the physician.⁶ The potential risk of serious adverse medical outcomes from not treating these cancers should be carefully documented. General practice measures for preventing the spread of COVID-19 were also recommended.⁶

In the setting of emerging novel recommendations, the practice of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) was notably impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one survey study from the United Kingdom conducted in April and May 2020, 49% of MMS services ceased and 36% were reduced during the infancy of the COVID-19 pandemic.⁷ Mohs micrographic surgery was largely suspended because of a lack of personal protective equipment and safety concerns, according to respondents. Additionally, respondents reported 77% of departments experienced redeployment of physicians and nurses to intensive care and medical wards. Thirty-five percent reported a reduction in the proportion of flaps/grafts to primary closures performed, 74% reported a decrease in outside referrals for repair by other specialties, 81% reported increased usage of dissolvable sutures, and 29% reported an increase in prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions.⁷ Another study from Italy reported a 46.5% reduction in dermatologic surgeries performed during the initial lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients canceled 52.9% of procedures, and 12.5% were cancelled because of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection.⁸ Patient perceptions of MMS have also been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a survey study of patients in the United Kingdom undergoing MMS during the pandemic, 47% were worried the hospital would cancel their surgery, 54% were anxious about using public transportation to attend their appointment, 30% were concerned about transmitting COVID-19 to household or family members, and 19% were worried about their ability to socially distance in the hospital.⁹

Evidence is also emerging that suggests the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients with skin cancer. One European study found an increase in Breslow thickness in primary melanomas diagnosed following the initial COVID-19 lockdown (0.88-mm average thickness prelockdown vs 1.96-mm average thickness postlockdown).¹⁰ An Italian study observed similar results—an increase in median Breslow thickness during the initial COVID-19 lockdown period of 0.5 mm from 0.4 mm during the prelockdown time period.¹¹ Also providing evidence for potentially poor patient outcomes, one study modeled the impact of backlog in cutaneous melanoma referrals in the United Kingdom on patient survival and predicted 138 attributable lives lost for a 1-month delay and 1171 lives lost for a 6-month delay. The model further predicted a 3.1% to 12.5% reduction in 10-year net survival incurred from a 3-month delay in melanoma treatment, with the largest reduction seen in the patient population older than 80 years.¹²

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been observed to impact MMS practice, patient perceptions, and clinical outcomes, it is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding rapidly evolving recommendations in dermatologic surgery have impacted the characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS.

Our study sought to determine the characteristics of skin cancers treated by MMS during the peak of government-mandated medical practice restrictions and business shutdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with characteristics of skin cancers treated during a prepandemic control period.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted with approval from our institutional review board at the University of Texas Medical Branch (Galveston, Texas). Included in the chart review were all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our outpatient, office-based surgical center from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020; this period corresponded to the peak of the COVID-19–related government-mandated medical and business shutdowns in our geographic region (southeast Texas). All cases performed were in compliance with national- and state-level guidance. Data were also collected for all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our office from March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, as well as March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018; these periods represented prepandemic control periods.

Data were collected for 516 surgeries performed on 458 patients and included patient age, preoperative clinical size, postoperative defect size, number of Mohs stages to achieve clearance, MMS appropriate use criteria (AUC) location (categorized as high-, medium-, or low-risk tumor location),¹³ and tumor type (categorized as BCC, SCC, or MIS). All variables were examined for unusual or missing values. Five patients with rare tumor types were observed and removed from the data set.

Statistical Analysis—An a priori power analysis for a power set at 0.85 determined sample sizes of 105 per group. Bivariate analyses were performed to compare variables for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods. Continuous outcome variables—Mohs stages, preoperative size, postoperative size, and patient age—were categorized for the analysis. Preoperative tumor size was dichotomized, with less than 2 cm² as the referent category vs 2 cm² or greater, and postoperative defect size was dichotomized with less than 3.6 cm² as the referent category vs 3.6 cm² or greater. Mohs stage was dichotomized as 1 stage (referent) vs more than 1 stage, and patient age was dichotomized as younger than 65 years (referent) vs 65 years or older.

Multivariate analyses were also performed to compare preoperative and postoperative sizes for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, controlling for Mohs AUC location. Bivariate unadjusted and multivariate analyses were performed using a GENMOD logistic regression procedure in SAS (SAS Institute) to account for correlation in clustered data because a patient could be included for more than 1 surgery in the data set. Data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 for Windows. Because outcome variables tended to be skewed and not distributed normally, outcome variables were recorded as medians with interquartile ranges where possible to give a more accurate representation of the data than could be demonstrated with means with standard deviations.

Results

One hundred thirty-eight skin cancers were treated during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020, and 378 skin cancers were treated during the prepandemic control periods of March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, and March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018. Tumor type treated during the pandemic period was more likely to be SCC or MIS (representing generally more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared with the prepandemic periods, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.763 (95% CI, 1.17-2.66). This outcome was statistically significant (P=.01).

Tumors treated during the pandemic period were more likely to have necessitated more than one Mohs stage for clearance compared to the prepandemic periods, though this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 1.461; 95% CI, 0.97-2.19; P=.056). Neither AUC location of treated tumors nor age were significantly different between prepandemic and pandemic periods (P=.58 and P=.84, respectively). Table 1 includes all bivariate analysis results.

Additionally, although mean preoperative and postoperative sizes were larger for each AUC location during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, these differences did not reach statistical significance on multivariate analysis (P=.71 and P=.50, respectively)(Table 2).

 

 

Comment

Our practice has followed best practice guidelines dictated by our governing professional societies during the COVID-19 pandemic in the treatment of skin cancers by MMS, specifically highly symptomatic BCCs (in accordance with ACMS guidance), SCCs with high-risk features (in accordance with AAD, ACMS, and TDS guidance), and tumors with high risk for progression and metastasis such as melanomas (in accordance with TDS guidance). Melanoma in situ was also treated during the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with the latter TDS guidance, particularly in light of the potential for upstaging to melanoma following resection (a phenomenon demonstrated to occur in 5%–29% of biopsied MIS lesions).¹⁴

In following best practice guidelines, our results suggested tumors treated by MMS were more severe, as evidenced by a statistically significant higher proportion of SCC and MIS tumors (representing more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared to the prepandemic period. Supporting this conclusion, we observed larger pretreatment and posttreatment tumor sizes for all AUC locations and more tumors necessitating 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, though these differences did not reach statistical significance. We postulate these findings may be attributed to allocation of finite medical resources to the treatment of larger and more aggressive skin cancers. Additionally, these findings may be explained, in part, by limitations on patient case load imposed by social distancing measures and governing body regulations in effect during the study period, including those put forth by the AAD, ACMS, and TDS. Of note, our practice observed no hospitalizations or 911 calls during the studied period. This suggests no allocation of precious hospital resources away from patients with COVID-19 in our treatment of high-risk skin cancers.

The changing characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS during the pandemic are of clinical relevance. Larger postoperative wound sizes as observed during the pandemic, albeit not statistically significant, presumably affect reconstructive decisions. With larger wounds tending to necessitate repair by techniques higher on the reconstructive ladder, greater patient morbidity and cost are expected.¹⁵ As the cost-effectiveness of dermatology services remains a critical issue, this is an area ripe for future follow-up research. Furthermore, our observation that tumors tended to necessitate 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic more often than prepandemic periods, though not statistically significant, presumably affected operating times. Longer operating times during the pandemic may be of importance when making clinical decisions for patients for whom limiting health care exposure may be of particular concern. With more SCC and MIS tumors being treated relative to BCCs during the pandemic, one might expect greater size and severity of the BCCs we observe in the proceeding months to years.

As the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the landscape of cutaneous oncology, the need for adaptability is imperative. With 3- and 6-month skin cancer treatment deferrals lapsed, uncertainty surrounds ideal management of existing and new skin cancers arising during the pandemic. This study adds to a growing body of literature elucidating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MMS practice; however, further studies and a tincture of time are needed to guide future best practice standards.

Acknowledgment—The authors acknowledge Gwen Baillargeon, MS (Galveston, Texas), who was the statistician for this article.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about unprecedented changes and challenges to medical practice, including new public health measure legislation, local and national medical authority recommendations, nursing home and other ancillary health center protocols, and novel clinical decision-making considerations.^1-3 In July 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) addressed the changing landscape in dermatologic surgery, in part, by publishing recommendations on practice protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴ The guidelines recommended deferred treatment of superficial basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) for 6 months and all other BCC subtypes for 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, the guidelines recommended deferring treatment of all actinic keratoses and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) in situ “for now.” Squamous cell carcinoma treatment was to be guided by prognostic variables, such as location, size, depth, differentiation, perineural or lymphovascular invasion, recurrence, and immunosuppression. The guidelines recommended melanoma in situ (MIS) treatment be deferred for 3 months and invasive melanoma with histologic clearance obtained on excisional biopsy for 3 months. Other general recommendations included triaging clinics, rebooking according to clinical priority, using telehealth where possible, screening patients for COVID-19 signs and symptoms, staggering appointment times, spacing patient chairs, limiting support persons to 1, removing possible sources of infection in the waiting room, ensuring all patients sanitized their hands on arrival, rationing personal protective equipment, considering N95 masks for periorificial surgery, and using dissolving sutures to minimize multiple presentations.⁴

The American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), with guidance from its sister societies and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, also communicated COVID-19–related recommendations to its members via intermittent newsletters during the initial peak of the pandemic in March and June 2020.⁵ General social distancing and office recommendations were similar to those released by the AAD. Recommendations for skin cancer treatment included deferring all BCCs for up to 3 months, with exceptions for highly symptomatic cancers and those with potential for substantial rapid growth. Squamous cell carcinoma in situ and small, well-differentiated SCCs were deferred, with priority placed on SCCs that were rapidly enlarging, poorly differentiated, demonstrated perineural invasion, were ulcerated, or were symptomatic. Patients with major risk factors were prioritized for treatment. Melanoma in situ was deferred for 2 to 3 months.⁵

State-level guidance from the Texas Dermatological Society (TDS) communicated in April 2020 stated that skin cancers with a potential for rapid progression and metastasis, such as melanoma and SCC, may require treatment as determined by the physician.⁶ The potential risk of serious adverse medical outcomes from not treating these cancers should be carefully documented. General practice measures for preventing the spread of COVID-19 were also recommended.⁶

In the setting of emerging novel recommendations, the practice of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) was notably impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one survey study from the United Kingdom conducted in April and May 2020, 49% of MMS services ceased and 36% were reduced during the infancy of the COVID-19 pandemic.⁷ Mohs micrographic surgery was largely suspended because of a lack of personal protective equipment and safety concerns, according to respondents. Additionally, respondents reported 77% of departments experienced redeployment of physicians and nurses to intensive care and medical wards. Thirty-five percent reported a reduction in the proportion of flaps/grafts to primary closures performed, 74% reported a decrease in outside referrals for repair by other specialties, 81% reported increased usage of dissolvable sutures, and 29% reported an increase in prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions.⁷ Another study from Italy reported a 46.5% reduction in dermatologic surgeries performed during the initial lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients canceled 52.9% of procedures, and 12.5% were cancelled because of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection.⁸ Patient perceptions of MMS have also been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a survey study of patients in the United Kingdom undergoing MMS during the pandemic, 47% were worried the hospital would cancel their surgery, 54% were anxious about using public transportation to attend their appointment, 30% were concerned about transmitting COVID-19 to household or family members, and 19% were worried about their ability to socially distance in the hospital.⁹

Evidence is also emerging that suggests the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients with skin cancer. One European study found an increase in Breslow thickness in primary melanomas diagnosed following the initial COVID-19 lockdown (0.88-mm average thickness prelockdown vs 1.96-mm average thickness postlockdown).¹⁰ An Italian study observed similar results—an increase in median Breslow thickness during the initial COVID-19 lockdown period of 0.5 mm from 0.4 mm during the prelockdown time period.¹¹ Also providing evidence for potentially poor patient outcomes, one study modeled the impact of backlog in cutaneous melanoma referrals in the United Kingdom on patient survival and predicted 138 attributable lives lost for a 1-month delay and 1171 lives lost for a 6-month delay. The model further predicted a 3.1% to 12.5% reduction in 10-year net survival incurred from a 3-month delay in melanoma treatment, with the largest reduction seen in the patient population older than 80 years.¹²

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been observed to impact MMS practice, patient perceptions, and clinical outcomes, it is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding rapidly evolving recommendations in dermatologic surgery have impacted the characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS.

Our study sought to determine the characteristics of skin cancers treated by MMS during the peak of government-mandated medical practice restrictions and business shutdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with characteristics of skin cancers treated during a prepandemic control period.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted with approval from our institutional review board at the University of Texas Medical Branch (Galveston, Texas). Included in the chart review were all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our outpatient, office-based surgical center from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020; this period corresponded to the peak of the COVID-19–related government-mandated medical and business shutdowns in our geographic region (southeast Texas). All cases performed were in compliance with national- and state-level guidance. Data were also collected for all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our office from March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, as well as March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018; these periods represented prepandemic control periods.

Data were collected for 516 surgeries performed on 458 patients and included patient age, preoperative clinical size, postoperative defect size, number of Mohs stages to achieve clearance, MMS appropriate use criteria (AUC) location (categorized as high-, medium-, or low-risk tumor location),¹³ and tumor type (categorized as BCC, SCC, or MIS). All variables were examined for unusual or missing values. Five patients with rare tumor types were observed and removed from the data set.

Statistical Analysis—An a priori power analysis for a power set at 0.85 determined sample sizes of 105 per group. Bivariate analyses were performed to compare variables for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods. Continuous outcome variables—Mohs stages, preoperative size, postoperative size, and patient age—were categorized for the analysis. Preoperative tumor size was dichotomized, with less than 2 cm² as the referent category vs 2 cm² or greater, and postoperative defect size was dichotomized with less than 3.6 cm² as the referent category vs 3.6 cm² or greater. Mohs stage was dichotomized as 1 stage (referent) vs more than 1 stage, and patient age was dichotomized as younger than 65 years (referent) vs 65 years or older.

Multivariate analyses were also performed to compare preoperative and postoperative sizes for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, controlling for Mohs AUC location. Bivariate unadjusted and multivariate analyses were performed using a GENMOD logistic regression procedure in SAS (SAS Institute) to account for correlation in clustered data because a patient could be included for more than 1 surgery in the data set. Data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 for Windows. Because outcome variables tended to be skewed and not distributed normally, outcome variables were recorded as medians with interquartile ranges where possible to give a more accurate representation of the data than could be demonstrated with means with standard deviations.

Results

One hundred thirty-eight skin cancers were treated during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020, and 378 skin cancers were treated during the prepandemic control periods of March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, and March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018. Tumor type treated during the pandemic period was more likely to be SCC or MIS (representing generally more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared with the prepandemic periods, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.763 (95% CI, 1.17-2.66). This outcome was statistically significant (P=.01).

Tumors treated during the pandemic period were more likely to have necessitated more than one Mohs stage for clearance compared to the prepandemic periods, though this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 1.461; 95% CI, 0.97-2.19; P=.056). Neither AUC location of treated tumors nor age were significantly different between prepandemic and pandemic periods (P=.58 and P=.84, respectively). Table 1 includes all bivariate analysis results.

Additionally, although mean preoperative and postoperative sizes were larger for each AUC location during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, these differences did not reach statistical significance on multivariate analysis (P=.71 and P=.50, respectively)(Table 2).

 

 

Comment

Our practice has followed best practice guidelines dictated by our governing professional societies during the COVID-19 pandemic in the treatment of skin cancers by MMS, specifically highly symptomatic BCCs (in accordance with ACMS guidance), SCCs with high-risk features (in accordance with AAD, ACMS, and TDS guidance), and tumors with high risk for progression and metastasis such as melanomas (in accordance with TDS guidance). Melanoma in situ was also treated during the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with the latter TDS guidance, particularly in light of the potential for upstaging to melanoma following resection (a phenomenon demonstrated to occur in 5%–29% of biopsied MIS lesions).¹⁴

In following best practice guidelines, our results suggested tumors treated by MMS were more severe, as evidenced by a statistically significant higher proportion of SCC and MIS tumors (representing more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared to the prepandemic period. Supporting this conclusion, we observed larger pretreatment and posttreatment tumor sizes for all AUC locations and more tumors necessitating 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, though these differences did not reach statistical significance. We postulate these findings may be attributed to allocation of finite medical resources to the treatment of larger and more aggressive skin cancers. Additionally, these findings may be explained, in part, by limitations on patient case load imposed by social distancing measures and governing body regulations in effect during the study period, including those put forth by the AAD, ACMS, and TDS. Of note, our practice observed no hospitalizations or 911 calls during the studied period. This suggests no allocation of precious hospital resources away from patients with COVID-19 in our treatment of high-risk skin cancers.

The changing characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS during the pandemic are of clinical relevance. Larger postoperative wound sizes as observed during the pandemic, albeit not statistically significant, presumably affect reconstructive decisions. With larger wounds tending to necessitate repair by techniques higher on the reconstructive ladder, greater patient morbidity and cost are expected.¹⁵ As the cost-effectiveness of dermatology services remains a critical issue, this is an area ripe for future follow-up research. Furthermore, our observation that tumors tended to necessitate 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic more often than prepandemic periods, though not statistically significant, presumably affected operating times. Longer operating times during the pandemic may be of importance when making clinical decisions for patients for whom limiting health care exposure may be of particular concern. With more SCC and MIS tumors being treated relative to BCCs during the pandemic, one might expect greater size and severity of the BCCs we observe in the proceeding months to years.

As the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the landscape of cutaneous oncology, the need for adaptability is imperative. With 3- and 6-month skin cancer treatment deferrals lapsed, uncertainty surrounds ideal management of existing and new skin cancers arising during the pandemic. This study adds to a growing body of literature elucidating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MMS practice; however, further studies and a tincture of time are needed to guide future best practice standards.

Acknowledgment—The authors acknowledge Gwen Baillargeon, MS (Galveston, Texas), who was the statistician for this article.