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

SEER data underscore mortality associated with thin melanomas

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
SEER data underscore mortality associated with thin melanomas

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ. – Thin melanomas account for most melanoma deaths, even though T4 lesions have the worst prognosis, according to an analysis of melanoma data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

In 2015, a study from Queensland, Australia, reported that more patients died from T1 melanomas than did from T4 melanomas (J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Apr;135:1190-3). But a similar analysis in the United States was not available, so Dr. Shoshana Landow, a dermatologist at the Providence (R.I.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center,and her associates extracted SEER 13 data for invasive melanomas between 1992 through 2003. These registries covered Atlanta, Connecticut, Detroit, rural Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Los Angeles, New Mexico, San Francisco-Oakland, San Jose-Monterey, Seattle-Puget Sound, Utah, and the Alaska Native Tumor Registry, according to the SEER website.

©Zerbor/Thinkstock

Among 105,264 recorded melanomas during this period, 37,210 tumors were in situ, the investigators reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology. They excluded those cases, as well as 4,789 cases that involved more than one primary melanoma, 8,637 that extended beyond the skin at diagnosis, 5,308 with no record of thickness, and one that was not known to be primary.

That left 49,319 invasive melanomas, of which 35,509 (72%) were T1 (0.01-1.00mm), 7,879 (16%) were T2 (1.01-2.00 mm), 3,948 (8%) were T3 (2.01-4.00 mm), and 1,983 (4%) were T4 (more than 4.00 mm). A total of 17% of the T1 lesions were 0.01-0.25 mm thick at diagnosis, while 42% were 0.26-0.50 mm thick, 25% were 0.51-0.75 mm thick, and 16% were 0.76-1.00 mm thick.

Ten years after diagnosis, 3,660 (7.4%) patients had died of melanoma, according to the study. These deaths included 1,072 T1 patients, 974 T2 patients, 985 T3 patients, and 629 T4 patients. But while T4 lesions accounted for the fewest number of deaths and made up only 4% of all invasive melanomas, the 10-year mortality rate for T4 lesions was nearly 32%, vs. 25% for T3 lesions, 12% for T2 lesions, and 3% for T1 lesions.

Most (42%) T1 lesions were 0.26-0.50 mm thick, 25% of T1 lesions were 0.51-0.75 mm thick, and the remaining T1 lesions were nearly evenly split between the thinnest (0.01-0.25 mm) and the thickest (0.76-1.00mm) categories, the researchers also reported. When considering only the T1 lesions, 10-year mortality rates were 3% for the 0.01-0.25 mm category, 1.9% for the 0.26-0.5 mm category, 3.7% for the 0.51-0.75 mm category, and 5.8% for the 0.76-1.00 mm category.

Thus, the thinnest invasive melanomas had a higher 10-year death rate than did the next-thinnest category, a finding that “demands explanation” and was not caused by ulceration, the researchers noted.

“The greatest total number of deaths was from T1 melanomas and the smallest number from T4, despite the fact that prognosis worsened as melanoma thickened from T1 to T4,” they concluded in their poster. “Our findings highlight the heavy death toll of thin melanomas.”

The authors did not specify funding sources, and had no disclosures.

References

Meeting/Event
Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
SEER, thin, melanomas, mortality
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ. – Thin melanomas account for most melanoma deaths, even though T4 lesions have the worst prognosis, according to an analysis of melanoma data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

In 2015, a study from Queensland, Australia, reported that more patients died from T1 melanomas than did from T4 melanomas (J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Apr;135:1190-3). But a similar analysis in the United States was not available, so Dr. Shoshana Landow, a dermatologist at the Providence (R.I.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center,and her associates extracted SEER 13 data for invasive melanomas between 1992 through 2003. These registries covered Atlanta, Connecticut, Detroit, rural Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Los Angeles, New Mexico, San Francisco-Oakland, San Jose-Monterey, Seattle-Puget Sound, Utah, and the Alaska Native Tumor Registry, according to the SEER website.

©Zerbor/Thinkstock

Among 105,264 recorded melanomas during this period, 37,210 tumors were in situ, the investigators reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology. They excluded those cases, as well as 4,789 cases that involved more than one primary melanoma, 8,637 that extended beyond the skin at diagnosis, 5,308 with no record of thickness, and one that was not known to be primary.

That left 49,319 invasive melanomas, of which 35,509 (72%) were T1 (0.01-1.00mm), 7,879 (16%) were T2 (1.01-2.00 mm), 3,948 (8%) were T3 (2.01-4.00 mm), and 1,983 (4%) were T4 (more than 4.00 mm). A total of 17% of the T1 lesions were 0.01-0.25 mm thick at diagnosis, while 42% were 0.26-0.50 mm thick, 25% were 0.51-0.75 mm thick, and 16% were 0.76-1.00 mm thick.

Ten years after diagnosis, 3,660 (7.4%) patients had died of melanoma, according to the study. These deaths included 1,072 T1 patients, 974 T2 patients, 985 T3 patients, and 629 T4 patients. But while T4 lesions accounted for the fewest number of deaths and made up only 4% of all invasive melanomas, the 10-year mortality rate for T4 lesions was nearly 32%, vs. 25% for T3 lesions, 12% for T2 lesions, and 3% for T1 lesions.

Most (42%) T1 lesions were 0.26-0.50 mm thick, 25% of T1 lesions were 0.51-0.75 mm thick, and the remaining T1 lesions were nearly evenly split between the thinnest (0.01-0.25 mm) and the thickest (0.76-1.00mm) categories, the researchers also reported. When considering only the T1 lesions, 10-year mortality rates were 3% for the 0.01-0.25 mm category, 1.9% for the 0.26-0.5 mm category, 3.7% for the 0.51-0.75 mm category, and 5.8% for the 0.76-1.00 mm category.

Thus, the thinnest invasive melanomas had a higher 10-year death rate than did the next-thinnest category, a finding that “demands explanation” and was not caused by ulceration, the researchers noted.

“The greatest total number of deaths was from T1 melanomas and the smallest number from T4, despite the fact that prognosis worsened as melanoma thickened from T1 to T4,” they concluded in their poster. “Our findings highlight the heavy death toll of thin melanomas.”

The authors did not specify funding sources, and had no disclosures.

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ. – Thin melanomas account for most melanoma deaths, even though T4 lesions have the worst prognosis, according to an analysis of melanoma data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

In 2015, a study from Queensland, Australia, reported that more patients died from T1 melanomas than did from T4 melanomas (J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Apr;135:1190-3). But a similar analysis in the United States was not available, so Dr. Shoshana Landow, a dermatologist at the Providence (R.I.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center,and her associates extracted SEER 13 data for invasive melanomas between 1992 through 2003. These registries covered Atlanta, Connecticut, Detroit, rural Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Los Angeles, New Mexico, San Francisco-Oakland, San Jose-Monterey, Seattle-Puget Sound, Utah, and the Alaska Native Tumor Registry, according to the SEER website.

©Zerbor/Thinkstock

Among 105,264 recorded melanomas during this period, 37,210 tumors were in situ, the investigators reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology. They excluded those cases, as well as 4,789 cases that involved more than one primary melanoma, 8,637 that extended beyond the skin at diagnosis, 5,308 with no record of thickness, and one that was not known to be primary.

That left 49,319 invasive melanomas, of which 35,509 (72%) were T1 (0.01-1.00mm), 7,879 (16%) were T2 (1.01-2.00 mm), 3,948 (8%) were T3 (2.01-4.00 mm), and 1,983 (4%) were T4 (more than 4.00 mm). A total of 17% of the T1 lesions were 0.01-0.25 mm thick at diagnosis, while 42% were 0.26-0.50 mm thick, 25% were 0.51-0.75 mm thick, and 16% were 0.76-1.00 mm thick.

Ten years after diagnosis, 3,660 (7.4%) patients had died of melanoma, according to the study. These deaths included 1,072 T1 patients, 974 T2 patients, 985 T3 patients, and 629 T4 patients. But while T4 lesions accounted for the fewest number of deaths and made up only 4% of all invasive melanomas, the 10-year mortality rate for T4 lesions was nearly 32%, vs. 25% for T3 lesions, 12% for T2 lesions, and 3% for T1 lesions.

Most (42%) T1 lesions were 0.26-0.50 mm thick, 25% of T1 lesions were 0.51-0.75 mm thick, and the remaining T1 lesions were nearly evenly split between the thinnest (0.01-0.25 mm) and the thickest (0.76-1.00mm) categories, the researchers also reported. When considering only the T1 lesions, 10-year mortality rates were 3% for the 0.01-0.25 mm category, 1.9% for the 0.26-0.5 mm category, 3.7% for the 0.51-0.75 mm category, and 5.8% for the 0.76-1.00 mm category.

Thus, the thinnest invasive melanomas had a higher 10-year death rate than did the next-thinnest category, a finding that “demands explanation” and was not caused by ulceration, the researchers noted.

“The greatest total number of deaths was from T1 melanomas and the smallest number from T4, despite the fact that prognosis worsened as melanoma thickened from T1 to T4,” they concluded in their poster. “Our findings highlight the heavy death toll of thin melanomas.”

The authors did not specify funding sources, and had no disclosures.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
SEER data underscore mortality associated with thin melanomas
Display Headline
SEER data underscore mortality associated with thin melanomas
Legacy Keywords
SEER, thin, melanomas, mortality
Legacy Keywords
SEER, thin, melanomas, mortality
Sections
Article Source

AT THE 2016 SID ANNUAL MEETING

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Key clinical point: Thin (T1) melanomas accounted for the greatest number of deaths from melanoma in a large study.

Major finding: Among 3,660 deaths from invasive melanoma, most (1,072) were in people with T1 lesions. While T4 lesions made up only 4% of invasive melanomas, their 10-year mortality rate was nearly 32%.

Data source: A study of 49,139 invasive melanomas recorded in the NCI’s SEER database.

Disclosures: The investigators did not specify funding sources and had no disclosures.

Red Alert: Can Topical Skin Care Products Promote Melanoma Metastasis?

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Red Alert: Can Topical Skin Care Products Promote Melanoma Metastasis?

Le Gal et al (Sci Transl Med. 2015;7:308re8) discovered that antioxidant administration in mice not only increased lymph node metastases but also increased the migration and invasive properties of human melanoma cells. However, the antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC) had no impact on the number and size of the primary tumors (in mice), and neither NAC nor Trolox (6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid), a structurally unrelated antioxidant and soluble vitamin E analogue, affected the proliferation of human melanoma cells. Hence, the progression of malignant melanoma (MM), a cancer that is sensitive to changes in reduction-oxidation status, may be influenced by exposure to antioxidants and vitamin E.

What’s the issue?

Healthy individuals and oncology patients commonly use supplements containing antioxidants to prevent cancer and fight malignancy, respectively. However, animal studies and human clinical trials have shown that antioxidants increase cancer risk and accelerate the progression of primary lung tumors. Le Gal et al’s study regarding progression of melanoma metastases following exposure to antioxidants extends the observations demonstrated for lung neoplasms. N-acetylcysteine was added to the drinking water of mice, whereas NAC and Trolox were added to a panel of human MM cell lines. N-acetylcysteine increased lymph node metastases in the endogenous mouse model of MM, and both NAC and Trolox markedly increased the migrations and invasive properties of human MM cells.

Cancers may be caused or exacerbated by free radicals. It has been assumed that antioxidants may protect against malignancy by destroying free radicals. Although prior studies have concluded that antioxidants prevent healthy cells from transforming into cancer after exposure to free radicals, Le Gal et al’s research suggests that antioxidants may not only protect but also enhance tumor progression once a cancer has developed.

If one extends the results of animal and tissue culture studies to humans, exposure to antioxidants may potentially influence the course of metastatic disease in patients who have already developed melanoma. In addition to systemic exposure after receiving oral antioxidants, melanoma patients also can be topically exposed to antioxidants. For example, nonprescription skin care products such as cutaneous rejuvenation treatments, emollients, and sunscreens can contain β-carotene, vitamin E, and other antioxidants. It remains to be determined whether topical exposure to antioxidants can cause the same observations that have occurred following systemic absorption in mice or tissue culture studies in human cell lines. Should we caution our melanoma patients with regards to what they apply to their skin?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Cohen is from the Department of Dermatology, University of California San Diego.

Dr. Cohen reports no conflicts of interest in relation to this post.

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
antioxidants, cancer, lung, melanoma, metastasis, N-acetylcysteine, tumor, NAC
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Cohen is from the Department of Dermatology, University of California San Diego.

Dr. Cohen reports no conflicts of interest in relation to this post.

Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Cohen is from the Department of Dermatology, University of California San Diego.

Dr. Cohen reports no conflicts of interest in relation to this post.

Le Gal et al (Sci Transl Med. 2015;7:308re8) discovered that antioxidant administration in mice not only increased lymph node metastases but also increased the migration and invasive properties of human melanoma cells. However, the antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC) had no impact on the number and size of the primary tumors (in mice), and neither NAC nor Trolox (6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid), a structurally unrelated antioxidant and soluble vitamin E analogue, affected the proliferation of human melanoma cells. Hence, the progression of malignant melanoma (MM), a cancer that is sensitive to changes in reduction-oxidation status, may be influenced by exposure to antioxidants and vitamin E.

What’s the issue?

Healthy individuals and oncology patients commonly use supplements containing antioxidants to prevent cancer and fight malignancy, respectively. However, animal studies and human clinical trials have shown that antioxidants increase cancer risk and accelerate the progression of primary lung tumors. Le Gal et al’s study regarding progression of melanoma metastases following exposure to antioxidants extends the observations demonstrated for lung neoplasms. N-acetylcysteine was added to the drinking water of mice, whereas NAC and Trolox were added to a panel of human MM cell lines. N-acetylcysteine increased lymph node metastases in the endogenous mouse model of MM, and both NAC and Trolox markedly increased the migrations and invasive properties of human MM cells.

Cancers may be caused or exacerbated by free radicals. It has been assumed that antioxidants may protect against malignancy by destroying free radicals. Although prior studies have concluded that antioxidants prevent healthy cells from transforming into cancer after exposure to free radicals, Le Gal et al’s research suggests that antioxidants may not only protect but also enhance tumor progression once a cancer has developed.

If one extends the results of animal and tissue culture studies to humans, exposure to antioxidants may potentially influence the course of metastatic disease in patients who have already developed melanoma. In addition to systemic exposure after receiving oral antioxidants, melanoma patients also can be topically exposed to antioxidants. For example, nonprescription skin care products such as cutaneous rejuvenation treatments, emollients, and sunscreens can contain β-carotene, vitamin E, and other antioxidants. It remains to be determined whether topical exposure to antioxidants can cause the same observations that have occurred following systemic absorption in mice or tissue culture studies in human cell lines. Should we caution our melanoma patients with regards to what they apply to their skin?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

Le Gal et al (Sci Transl Med. 2015;7:308re8) discovered that antioxidant administration in mice not only increased lymph node metastases but also increased the migration and invasive properties of human melanoma cells. However, the antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC) had no impact on the number and size of the primary tumors (in mice), and neither NAC nor Trolox (6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid), a structurally unrelated antioxidant and soluble vitamin E analogue, affected the proliferation of human melanoma cells. Hence, the progression of malignant melanoma (MM), a cancer that is sensitive to changes in reduction-oxidation status, may be influenced by exposure to antioxidants and vitamin E.

What’s the issue?

Healthy individuals and oncology patients commonly use supplements containing antioxidants to prevent cancer and fight malignancy, respectively. However, animal studies and human clinical trials have shown that antioxidants increase cancer risk and accelerate the progression of primary lung tumors. Le Gal et al’s study regarding progression of melanoma metastases following exposure to antioxidants extends the observations demonstrated for lung neoplasms. N-acetylcysteine was added to the drinking water of mice, whereas NAC and Trolox were added to a panel of human MM cell lines. N-acetylcysteine increased lymph node metastases in the endogenous mouse model of MM, and both NAC and Trolox markedly increased the migrations and invasive properties of human MM cells.

Cancers may be caused or exacerbated by free radicals. It has been assumed that antioxidants may protect against malignancy by destroying free radicals. Although prior studies have concluded that antioxidants prevent healthy cells from transforming into cancer after exposure to free radicals, Le Gal et al’s research suggests that antioxidants may not only protect but also enhance tumor progression once a cancer has developed.

If one extends the results of animal and tissue culture studies to humans, exposure to antioxidants may potentially influence the course of metastatic disease in patients who have already developed melanoma. In addition to systemic exposure after receiving oral antioxidants, melanoma patients also can be topically exposed to antioxidants. For example, nonprescription skin care products such as cutaneous rejuvenation treatments, emollients, and sunscreens can contain β-carotene, vitamin E, and other antioxidants. It remains to be determined whether topical exposure to antioxidants can cause the same observations that have occurred following systemic absorption in mice or tissue culture studies in human cell lines. Should we caution our melanoma patients with regards to what they apply to their skin?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Red Alert: Can Topical Skin Care Products Promote Melanoma Metastasis?
Display Headline
Red Alert: Can Topical Skin Care Products Promote Melanoma Metastasis?
Legacy Keywords
antioxidants, cancer, lung, melanoma, metastasis, N-acetylcysteine, tumor, NAC
Legacy Keywords
antioxidants, cancer, lung, melanoma, metastasis, N-acetylcysteine, tumor, NAC
Sections
Disallow All Ads

Immune agonist, checkpoint inhibitor combo shows good tolerability

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Immune agonist, checkpoint inhibitor combo shows good tolerability

CHICAGO – Combining two immunotherapies, one inhibiting immune suppression and the other stimulating immune activation, is well tolerated and shows activity for a variety of solid tumor types, according to a phase I trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Oncology.

Investigators enrolled 51 patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors of any type after progression on standard therapy to a phase Ib dose-escalation study using atezolizumab, a monoclonal antibody checkpoint inhibitor that targets PD-L1, in combination with MOXR0916 (MOXR), an agonist IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting OX40, a costimulatory receptor. Atezolizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in May 2016 for use in certain patients with urothelial carcinoma. There were 28 patients in a dose-escalation cohort of the study and 23 in a serial biopsy cohort. The dose of the drug combination was started at 12 mg and escalated to understand pharmacodynamic changes in the tumors.

 

Dr. Jeffrey Infante

“The pharmacokinetics of both MOXR0916 and atezolizumab were similar to their single-agent data, suggesting no interaction,” reported Dr. Jeffrey Infante of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

The drug combination was well tolerated through the entire escalation range of MOXR. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, and no maximal tolerated dose was reached. There were also no drug-related deaths or grade 4 toxicities or drug-related treatment discontinuations. One case of grade 3 pneumonitis, successfully managed with methylprednisolone and antibiotics, occurred at the MOXR 40-mg dose on cycle 4 of treatment in a patient with non–small-cell lung cancer, he said.

About half the patients (53%) experienced any form of adverse event on the drug combination, and only 8% were grade 2 or 3. There were very few adverse events of any one type, and they did not appear to cluster among patients on the higher MOXR doses. The most prevalent adverse events were nausea, fever, fatigue, and rash, and each was in the 8%-14% range and almost always grade 1.

Many patients showed efficacy of the regimens out to 6-7 cycles regardless of tumor type, and 8 of the 51 patients were still receiving the therapy past cycle 7 with partial responses.

The stimulatory molecule OX40 is not normally expressed on T cells, but it is expressed when antigen interacts with the T-cell receptor, and it can then interact with its ligand, OX40L. The result is production of inflammatory cytokines such as gamma-interferon, activation and survival of effector T cells, and production of memory T cells. At the same time, OX40 activity blocks the suppressive function of regulatory T cells.

“So a molecule that can be a cancer therapeutic such as an OX40 agonist has dual mechanisms of action,” Dr. Infante said. “It can costimulate effector T cells and at the same time inhibit regulatory T cells. Furthermore, there is a reduced risk of toxicity, potentially, as its activity is linked to antigen recognition.”

There is good rationale for using an OX40 agonist such as MOXR, either for its immune stimulatory function or to deactivate immune suppression by regulatory T cells, or both, said discussant Dr. Jedd Wolchok, chief, melanoma and immunotherapeutics service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Dr. Infante’s dose-escalation study was “very nicely designed and showed quite good safety,” Dr. Wolchok said, though one thing he would have liked to have seen was a quantification of regulatory T cells in tumor biopsies.

“This [study] is very important considering that this is an agonist antibody, and the agonist agents need to be dosed very deliberatively, as was done here, to ensure safety of patients,” Dr. Wolchok said, adding that further research needs to target “optimal combinatorial partners” and explore other mechanistic biomarkers.

MOXR was given in this trial at escalating doses on a 3+3 design (0.8-1,200 mg) on the same day as atezolizumab 1,200 mg IV once every 3 weeks with a 21-day window for assessment of MOXR dose-limiting toxicities. MOXR doses of 300 mg maintained trough concentrations sufficient to saturate OX40 receptors. An expansion regimen using 300 mg MOXR with atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks is underway and will assess efficacy in the treatment of melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and triple-negative breast cancer.

The study was sponsored by Roche. Dr. Infante reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Wolchok owns stock in Potenza Therapeutics and Vesuvius Pharmaceuticals, has received travel expenses and/or has an advisory role with several other companies, and is a coinventor on an issued patent for DNA vaccines for the treatment of cancer in companion animals.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

CHICAGO – Combining two immunotherapies, one inhibiting immune suppression and the other stimulating immune activation, is well tolerated and shows activity for a variety of solid tumor types, according to a phase I trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Oncology.

Investigators enrolled 51 patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors of any type after progression on standard therapy to a phase Ib dose-escalation study using atezolizumab, a monoclonal antibody checkpoint inhibitor that targets PD-L1, in combination with MOXR0916 (MOXR), an agonist IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting OX40, a costimulatory receptor. Atezolizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in May 2016 for use in certain patients with urothelial carcinoma. There were 28 patients in a dose-escalation cohort of the study and 23 in a serial biopsy cohort. The dose of the drug combination was started at 12 mg and escalated to understand pharmacodynamic changes in the tumors.

 

Dr. Jeffrey Infante

“The pharmacokinetics of both MOXR0916 and atezolizumab were similar to their single-agent data, suggesting no interaction,” reported Dr. Jeffrey Infante of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

The drug combination was well tolerated through the entire escalation range of MOXR. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, and no maximal tolerated dose was reached. There were also no drug-related deaths or grade 4 toxicities or drug-related treatment discontinuations. One case of grade 3 pneumonitis, successfully managed with methylprednisolone and antibiotics, occurred at the MOXR 40-mg dose on cycle 4 of treatment in a patient with non–small-cell lung cancer, he said.

About half the patients (53%) experienced any form of adverse event on the drug combination, and only 8% were grade 2 or 3. There were very few adverse events of any one type, and they did not appear to cluster among patients on the higher MOXR doses. The most prevalent adverse events were nausea, fever, fatigue, and rash, and each was in the 8%-14% range and almost always grade 1.

Many patients showed efficacy of the regimens out to 6-7 cycles regardless of tumor type, and 8 of the 51 patients were still receiving the therapy past cycle 7 with partial responses.

The stimulatory molecule OX40 is not normally expressed on T cells, but it is expressed when antigen interacts with the T-cell receptor, and it can then interact with its ligand, OX40L. The result is production of inflammatory cytokines such as gamma-interferon, activation and survival of effector T cells, and production of memory T cells. At the same time, OX40 activity blocks the suppressive function of regulatory T cells.

“So a molecule that can be a cancer therapeutic such as an OX40 agonist has dual mechanisms of action,” Dr. Infante said. “It can costimulate effector T cells and at the same time inhibit regulatory T cells. Furthermore, there is a reduced risk of toxicity, potentially, as its activity is linked to antigen recognition.”

There is good rationale for using an OX40 agonist such as MOXR, either for its immune stimulatory function or to deactivate immune suppression by regulatory T cells, or both, said discussant Dr. Jedd Wolchok, chief, melanoma and immunotherapeutics service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Dr. Infante’s dose-escalation study was “very nicely designed and showed quite good safety,” Dr. Wolchok said, though one thing he would have liked to have seen was a quantification of regulatory T cells in tumor biopsies.

“This [study] is very important considering that this is an agonist antibody, and the agonist agents need to be dosed very deliberatively, as was done here, to ensure safety of patients,” Dr. Wolchok said, adding that further research needs to target “optimal combinatorial partners” and explore other mechanistic biomarkers.

MOXR was given in this trial at escalating doses on a 3+3 design (0.8-1,200 mg) on the same day as atezolizumab 1,200 mg IV once every 3 weeks with a 21-day window for assessment of MOXR dose-limiting toxicities. MOXR doses of 300 mg maintained trough concentrations sufficient to saturate OX40 receptors. An expansion regimen using 300 mg MOXR with atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks is underway and will assess efficacy in the treatment of melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and triple-negative breast cancer.

The study was sponsored by Roche. Dr. Infante reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Wolchok owns stock in Potenza Therapeutics and Vesuvius Pharmaceuticals, has received travel expenses and/or has an advisory role with several other companies, and is a coinventor on an issued patent for DNA vaccines for the treatment of cancer in companion animals.

CHICAGO – Combining two immunotherapies, one inhibiting immune suppression and the other stimulating immune activation, is well tolerated and shows activity for a variety of solid tumor types, according to a phase I trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Oncology.

Investigators enrolled 51 patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors of any type after progression on standard therapy to a phase Ib dose-escalation study using atezolizumab, a monoclonal antibody checkpoint inhibitor that targets PD-L1, in combination with MOXR0916 (MOXR), an agonist IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting OX40, a costimulatory receptor. Atezolizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in May 2016 for use in certain patients with urothelial carcinoma. There were 28 patients in a dose-escalation cohort of the study and 23 in a serial biopsy cohort. The dose of the drug combination was started at 12 mg and escalated to understand pharmacodynamic changes in the tumors.

 

Dr. Jeffrey Infante

“The pharmacokinetics of both MOXR0916 and atezolizumab were similar to their single-agent data, suggesting no interaction,” reported Dr. Jeffrey Infante of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

The drug combination was well tolerated through the entire escalation range of MOXR. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, and no maximal tolerated dose was reached. There were also no drug-related deaths or grade 4 toxicities or drug-related treatment discontinuations. One case of grade 3 pneumonitis, successfully managed with methylprednisolone and antibiotics, occurred at the MOXR 40-mg dose on cycle 4 of treatment in a patient with non–small-cell lung cancer, he said.

About half the patients (53%) experienced any form of adverse event on the drug combination, and only 8% were grade 2 or 3. There were very few adverse events of any one type, and they did not appear to cluster among patients on the higher MOXR doses. The most prevalent adverse events were nausea, fever, fatigue, and rash, and each was in the 8%-14% range and almost always grade 1.

Many patients showed efficacy of the regimens out to 6-7 cycles regardless of tumor type, and 8 of the 51 patients were still receiving the therapy past cycle 7 with partial responses.

The stimulatory molecule OX40 is not normally expressed on T cells, but it is expressed when antigen interacts with the T-cell receptor, and it can then interact with its ligand, OX40L. The result is production of inflammatory cytokines such as gamma-interferon, activation and survival of effector T cells, and production of memory T cells. At the same time, OX40 activity blocks the suppressive function of regulatory T cells.

“So a molecule that can be a cancer therapeutic such as an OX40 agonist has dual mechanisms of action,” Dr. Infante said. “It can costimulate effector T cells and at the same time inhibit regulatory T cells. Furthermore, there is a reduced risk of toxicity, potentially, as its activity is linked to antigen recognition.”

There is good rationale for using an OX40 agonist such as MOXR, either for its immune stimulatory function or to deactivate immune suppression by regulatory T cells, or both, said discussant Dr. Jedd Wolchok, chief, melanoma and immunotherapeutics service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Dr. Infante’s dose-escalation study was “very nicely designed and showed quite good safety,” Dr. Wolchok said, though one thing he would have liked to have seen was a quantification of regulatory T cells in tumor biopsies.

“This [study] is very important considering that this is an agonist antibody, and the agonist agents need to be dosed very deliberatively, as was done here, to ensure safety of patients,” Dr. Wolchok said, adding that further research needs to target “optimal combinatorial partners” and explore other mechanistic biomarkers.

MOXR was given in this trial at escalating doses on a 3+3 design (0.8-1,200 mg) on the same day as atezolizumab 1,200 mg IV once every 3 weeks with a 21-day window for assessment of MOXR dose-limiting toxicities. MOXR doses of 300 mg maintained trough concentrations sufficient to saturate OX40 receptors. An expansion regimen using 300 mg MOXR with atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks is underway and will assess efficacy in the treatment of melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and triple-negative breast cancer.

The study was sponsored by Roche. Dr. Infante reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Wolchok owns stock in Potenza Therapeutics and Vesuvius Pharmaceuticals, has received travel expenses and/or has an advisory role with several other companies, and is a coinventor on an issued patent for DNA vaccines for the treatment of cancer in companion animals.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Immune agonist, checkpoint inhibitor combo shows good tolerability
Display Headline
Immune agonist, checkpoint inhibitor combo shows good tolerability
Article Source

AT THE 2016 ASCO ANNUAL MEETING

Disallow All Ads
Vitals

Key clinical point: Combining an immune agonist and a checkpoint inhibitor shows good tolerability.

Major finding: Eighty-five percent of adverse effects were grade 1; the rest were grade 2/3.

Data source: A phase Ib, open-label multicenter study of 51 patients.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Roche. Dr. Infante reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Wolchok owns stock in Potenza Therapeutics and Vesuvius Pharmaceuticals, has received travel expenses and/or has an advisory role with several other companies, and is a coinventor on an issued patent for DNA vaccines for the treatment of cancer in companion animals.

MyPathway: Targeted therapies show promise in nonindicated tumors

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
MyPathway: Targeted therapies show promise in nonindicated tumors

CHICAGO – Agents that target the HER2, BRAF, Hedgehog, or EGFR pathways show promise in nonindicated tumor types that harbor these molecular alterations, according to early findings from the MyPathway study.

Of 129 patients enrolled in the multicenter, open-label, phase IIa study, 29 had a major response, defined as tumor shrinkage of at least 30%, to such treatment. One of those patients had a complete response, and 28 had a partial response. An additional 40 patients had stable disease on treatment. Fourteen of the 29 patients progressed after a median of 6 months’ follow-up, and 15 responses were ongoing at up to 11 months, Dr. John D. Hainsworth reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

©Gio_tto/Thinkstock.com

No new safety signals were observed, said Dr. Hainsworth of Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

Treatments evaluated in MyPathway included:

• Trastuzumab + pertuzumab, which targets the HER2 pathway and is currently indicated for breast cancer.

• Vemurafenib, which targets the BRAF pathway and is currently indicated for melanoma.

• Vismodegib, which targets the Hedgehog pathway and is currently indicated for basal cell carcinoma of the skin.

• Erlotinib, which targets the EGFR pathway and is indicated for non–small-cell lung cancer.

Responses have been seen with all four of the treatments, but the best responses were seen among patients with HER2 and BRAF abnormalities.

Among 61 cancers with HER2 amplification/overexpression, trastuzumab + pertuzumab provided a benefit for colorectal, bladder, biliary, non–small-cell lung, pancreas, and head/neck cancers.

Of 20 colorectal tumors, 7 (35%) showed complete or partial response, and 3 (15%) remained stable for at least 120 days (clinical benefit rate, 50%). Complete/partial responses and stable disease, respectively, were also seen in three and two of eight bladder tumors (clinical benefit rate, 63%), in three and three of six biliary tumors (clinical benefit rate, 100%), in two and zero of seven non–small-cell lung tumors (clinical benefit rate, 29%), one and zero of six pancreas tumors (clinical benefit rate, 17%), and one and zero of three head and neck tumors (34%). One of 11 other types of tumors showed disease stability at 120 days (clinical benefit rate, 9%). The overall clinical benefit rate in the study was 43%, Dr. Hainsworth said.

Among 33 cancers with the BRAF mutation, vemurafenib showed activity for non–small-cell lung, ovary, unknown primary, colorectal, pancreas, and head/neck tumors. Of 15 non–small-cell lung tumors, 3 (20%) showed complete or partial responses and 2 (13%) remained stable for at least 120 days (clinical benefit rate, 33%). Complete/partial responses and stable disease, respectively, were also seen in one and two of four ovary tumors (clinical benefit rate, 75%), and complete or partial responses were seen in one each of three unknown primary tumors, two colorectal tumors, two pancreas tumors, and one head/neck tumor (clinical benefit rates of 33%, 50%, 50%, and 100%, respectively). No benefit was seen with tumors at other sites (total clinical benefit rate, 36%), Dr. Hainsworth said.

“Of interest in this group [of patients with BRAF mutations], seven of the eight responses were in V600E mutations, and as you know, that’s the mutation that’s been specifically correlated with high response to BRAF inhibition in melanoma where this treatment is now approved,” he said, adding that the response rate in those patients was 38%.

Based on these early results, enrollment of patients with HER2 abnormalities and colorectal, bladder, or biliary cancer, and of patients with BRAF mutations and lung cancer, will be expanded, he said.

Subjects enrolled in MyPathway have advanced cancer showing abnormalities in any of the pathways of interest. The first 129 received a mean of three prior therapies, and in the 29 who responded, 12 different types of cancer responded to the targeted treatment.

“An increasing number of targeted agents for advanced cancer are in use now based on the presence of molecular abnormalities in the cancer. … We’ve known that the same mutations that are in those cancers are found in a wide variety of other cancers, although at a lower incidence, and it’s been difficult to test how effective these same treatments are for the other cancers due to the difficulty in identifying the patient population,” he said, explaining that an increase in comprehensive genomic profiling in recent years has allowed for identification of more and more of these mutations in other cancers.

“I think we’ve shown now that this trial design is feasible, where patients are selected on the basis of molecular abnormalities in their cancers rather than on their primary tumor type or primary site, and certainly offers opportunities for patients with these molecular abnormalities,” Dr. Hainsworth concluded.

 

 

Thus far, MyPathway has enrolled more than 200 patients, and is designed to accrue up to 500, with adjustment of treatment groups based on response rates. Emerging new regimens that target these pathways, such as the MEK inhibitor cobemetinib, will also be added, as will new agents targeting additional molecular abnormalities.

The study design, using this “tumor-agnostic approach,” mirrors that of the ASCO-led TAPUR trial, according to ASCO spokesperson Dr. Sumanta Kumar Pal.

The findings of these and other precision medicine trials may ultimately shift the longstanding cancer treatment paradigm, Dr. Pal said.

MyPathway received funding from Genentech. Dr. Hainsworth reported that his institution has received research funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, and Novartis.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

References

Meeting/Event
Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

CHICAGO – Agents that target the HER2, BRAF, Hedgehog, or EGFR pathways show promise in nonindicated tumor types that harbor these molecular alterations, according to early findings from the MyPathway study.

Of 129 patients enrolled in the multicenter, open-label, phase IIa study, 29 had a major response, defined as tumor shrinkage of at least 30%, to such treatment. One of those patients had a complete response, and 28 had a partial response. An additional 40 patients had stable disease on treatment. Fourteen of the 29 patients progressed after a median of 6 months’ follow-up, and 15 responses were ongoing at up to 11 months, Dr. John D. Hainsworth reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

©Gio_tto/Thinkstock.com

No new safety signals were observed, said Dr. Hainsworth of Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

Treatments evaluated in MyPathway included:

• Trastuzumab + pertuzumab, which targets the HER2 pathway and is currently indicated for breast cancer.

• Vemurafenib, which targets the BRAF pathway and is currently indicated for melanoma.

• Vismodegib, which targets the Hedgehog pathway and is currently indicated for basal cell carcinoma of the skin.

• Erlotinib, which targets the EGFR pathway and is indicated for non–small-cell lung cancer.

Responses have been seen with all four of the treatments, but the best responses were seen among patients with HER2 and BRAF abnormalities.

Among 61 cancers with HER2 amplification/overexpression, trastuzumab + pertuzumab provided a benefit for colorectal, bladder, biliary, non–small-cell lung, pancreas, and head/neck cancers.

Of 20 colorectal tumors, 7 (35%) showed complete or partial response, and 3 (15%) remained stable for at least 120 days (clinical benefit rate, 50%). Complete/partial responses and stable disease, respectively, were also seen in three and two of eight bladder tumors (clinical benefit rate, 63%), in three and three of six biliary tumors (clinical benefit rate, 100%), in two and zero of seven non–small-cell lung tumors (clinical benefit rate, 29%), one and zero of six pancreas tumors (clinical benefit rate, 17%), and one and zero of three head and neck tumors (34%). One of 11 other types of tumors showed disease stability at 120 days (clinical benefit rate, 9%). The overall clinical benefit rate in the study was 43%, Dr. Hainsworth said.

Among 33 cancers with the BRAF mutation, vemurafenib showed activity for non–small-cell lung, ovary, unknown primary, colorectal, pancreas, and head/neck tumors. Of 15 non–small-cell lung tumors, 3 (20%) showed complete or partial responses and 2 (13%) remained stable for at least 120 days (clinical benefit rate, 33%). Complete/partial responses and stable disease, respectively, were also seen in one and two of four ovary tumors (clinical benefit rate, 75%), and complete or partial responses were seen in one each of three unknown primary tumors, two colorectal tumors, two pancreas tumors, and one head/neck tumor (clinical benefit rates of 33%, 50%, 50%, and 100%, respectively). No benefit was seen with tumors at other sites (total clinical benefit rate, 36%), Dr. Hainsworth said.

“Of interest in this group [of patients with BRAF mutations], seven of the eight responses were in V600E mutations, and as you know, that’s the mutation that’s been specifically correlated with high response to BRAF inhibition in melanoma where this treatment is now approved,” he said, adding that the response rate in those patients was 38%.

Based on these early results, enrollment of patients with HER2 abnormalities and colorectal, bladder, or biliary cancer, and of patients with BRAF mutations and lung cancer, will be expanded, he said.

Subjects enrolled in MyPathway have advanced cancer showing abnormalities in any of the pathways of interest. The first 129 received a mean of three prior therapies, and in the 29 who responded, 12 different types of cancer responded to the targeted treatment.

“An increasing number of targeted agents for advanced cancer are in use now based on the presence of molecular abnormalities in the cancer. … We’ve known that the same mutations that are in those cancers are found in a wide variety of other cancers, although at a lower incidence, and it’s been difficult to test how effective these same treatments are for the other cancers due to the difficulty in identifying the patient population,” he said, explaining that an increase in comprehensive genomic profiling in recent years has allowed for identification of more and more of these mutations in other cancers.

“I think we’ve shown now that this trial design is feasible, where patients are selected on the basis of molecular abnormalities in their cancers rather than on their primary tumor type or primary site, and certainly offers opportunities for patients with these molecular abnormalities,” Dr. Hainsworth concluded.

 

 

Thus far, MyPathway has enrolled more than 200 patients, and is designed to accrue up to 500, with adjustment of treatment groups based on response rates. Emerging new regimens that target these pathways, such as the MEK inhibitor cobemetinib, will also be added, as will new agents targeting additional molecular abnormalities.

The study design, using this “tumor-agnostic approach,” mirrors that of the ASCO-led TAPUR trial, according to ASCO spokesperson Dr. Sumanta Kumar Pal.

The findings of these and other precision medicine trials may ultimately shift the longstanding cancer treatment paradigm, Dr. Pal said.

MyPathway received funding from Genentech. Dr. Hainsworth reported that his institution has received research funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, and Novartis.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

CHICAGO – Agents that target the HER2, BRAF, Hedgehog, or EGFR pathways show promise in nonindicated tumor types that harbor these molecular alterations, according to early findings from the MyPathway study.

Of 129 patients enrolled in the multicenter, open-label, phase IIa study, 29 had a major response, defined as tumor shrinkage of at least 30%, to such treatment. One of those patients had a complete response, and 28 had a partial response. An additional 40 patients had stable disease on treatment. Fourteen of the 29 patients progressed after a median of 6 months’ follow-up, and 15 responses were ongoing at up to 11 months, Dr. John D. Hainsworth reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

©Gio_tto/Thinkstock.com

No new safety signals were observed, said Dr. Hainsworth of Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

Treatments evaluated in MyPathway included:

• Trastuzumab + pertuzumab, which targets the HER2 pathway and is currently indicated for breast cancer.

• Vemurafenib, which targets the BRAF pathway and is currently indicated for melanoma.

• Vismodegib, which targets the Hedgehog pathway and is currently indicated for basal cell carcinoma of the skin.

• Erlotinib, which targets the EGFR pathway and is indicated for non–small-cell lung cancer.

Responses have been seen with all four of the treatments, but the best responses were seen among patients with HER2 and BRAF abnormalities.

Among 61 cancers with HER2 amplification/overexpression, trastuzumab + pertuzumab provided a benefit for colorectal, bladder, biliary, non–small-cell lung, pancreas, and head/neck cancers.

Of 20 colorectal tumors, 7 (35%) showed complete or partial response, and 3 (15%) remained stable for at least 120 days (clinical benefit rate, 50%). Complete/partial responses and stable disease, respectively, were also seen in three and two of eight bladder tumors (clinical benefit rate, 63%), in three and three of six biliary tumors (clinical benefit rate, 100%), in two and zero of seven non–small-cell lung tumors (clinical benefit rate, 29%), one and zero of six pancreas tumors (clinical benefit rate, 17%), and one and zero of three head and neck tumors (34%). One of 11 other types of tumors showed disease stability at 120 days (clinical benefit rate, 9%). The overall clinical benefit rate in the study was 43%, Dr. Hainsworth said.

Among 33 cancers with the BRAF mutation, vemurafenib showed activity for non–small-cell lung, ovary, unknown primary, colorectal, pancreas, and head/neck tumors. Of 15 non–small-cell lung tumors, 3 (20%) showed complete or partial responses and 2 (13%) remained stable for at least 120 days (clinical benefit rate, 33%). Complete/partial responses and stable disease, respectively, were also seen in one and two of four ovary tumors (clinical benefit rate, 75%), and complete or partial responses were seen in one each of three unknown primary tumors, two colorectal tumors, two pancreas tumors, and one head/neck tumor (clinical benefit rates of 33%, 50%, 50%, and 100%, respectively). No benefit was seen with tumors at other sites (total clinical benefit rate, 36%), Dr. Hainsworth said.

“Of interest in this group [of patients with BRAF mutations], seven of the eight responses were in V600E mutations, and as you know, that’s the mutation that’s been specifically correlated with high response to BRAF inhibition in melanoma where this treatment is now approved,” he said, adding that the response rate in those patients was 38%.

Based on these early results, enrollment of patients with HER2 abnormalities and colorectal, bladder, or biliary cancer, and of patients with BRAF mutations and lung cancer, will be expanded, he said.

Subjects enrolled in MyPathway have advanced cancer showing abnormalities in any of the pathways of interest. The first 129 received a mean of three prior therapies, and in the 29 who responded, 12 different types of cancer responded to the targeted treatment.

“An increasing number of targeted agents for advanced cancer are in use now based on the presence of molecular abnormalities in the cancer. … We’ve known that the same mutations that are in those cancers are found in a wide variety of other cancers, although at a lower incidence, and it’s been difficult to test how effective these same treatments are for the other cancers due to the difficulty in identifying the patient population,” he said, explaining that an increase in comprehensive genomic profiling in recent years has allowed for identification of more and more of these mutations in other cancers.

“I think we’ve shown now that this trial design is feasible, where patients are selected on the basis of molecular abnormalities in their cancers rather than on their primary tumor type or primary site, and certainly offers opportunities for patients with these molecular abnormalities,” Dr. Hainsworth concluded.

 

 

Thus far, MyPathway has enrolled more than 200 patients, and is designed to accrue up to 500, with adjustment of treatment groups based on response rates. Emerging new regimens that target these pathways, such as the MEK inhibitor cobemetinib, will also be added, as will new agents targeting additional molecular abnormalities.

The study design, using this “tumor-agnostic approach,” mirrors that of the ASCO-led TAPUR trial, according to ASCO spokesperson Dr. Sumanta Kumar Pal.

The findings of these and other precision medicine trials may ultimately shift the longstanding cancer treatment paradigm, Dr. Pal said.

MyPathway received funding from Genentech. Dr. Hainsworth reported that his institution has received research funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, and Novartis.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
MyPathway: Targeted therapies show promise in nonindicated tumors
Display Headline
MyPathway: Targeted therapies show promise in nonindicated tumors
Article Source

AT THE 2016 ASCO ANNUAL MEETING

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Key clinical point: Agents that target the HER2, BRAF, Hedgehog, or EGFR pathways show promise in nonindicated tumor types that harbor these molecular alterations, according to early findings from the MyPathway study.

Major finding: Twenty-nine patients had a major response, and an additional 40 remained stable on treatment.

Data source: The ongoing open-label, phase IIa MyPathway study, including results from the first 129 patients.

Disclosures: MyPathway received funding from Genentech. Dr. Hainsworth reported that his institution has received research funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, and Novartis.

Tips and Tools for Melanoma Diagnosis

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Tips and Tools for Melanoma Diagnosis

What does your patient need to know at the first visit? Does it apply to all patients?

All patients should have a total-body skin examination at least once per year; however, the frequency may change based on a prior history of melanoma or skin cancer, number of nevi or dysplastic nevi, and a family history of melanoma.

Patients should be completely undressed, and all nail polish or artificial nails should be removed prior to the examination. A complete cutaneous examination involves inspecting all skin surfaces, scalp, ocular and oral mucosa, fingernails/toenails, and genitalia if the patient agrees. Melanoma can occur in non–UV-exposed areas and the patient should be educated. Explain the ABCDEs of melanoma diagnosis to all patients and discuss concerns of any new or changing lesions, pigmented or not.

The patient should be made aware that a series of digital images will be taken for any suspicious lesions for possible short-term monitoring. The patient also may be offered full-body photography or 3D body imaging if the number of nevi warrants it.

Different patient populations have different risks for melanoma. Although melanoma predominately afflicts patients with a light skin type, there are certain types of melanoma, such as acral melanoma, that can be more common in darker skin types.

If a patient has a history of cutaneous melanoma, then the site should be checked for any local recurrence as well as palpation of the draining lymph nodes and regional lymph nodes.

I also let patients know that I will be using tools such as dermoscopy and/or reflectance confocal microscopy to better diagnose equivocal lesions before pursuing a biopsy. A biopsy may be done if there is a level of suspicion for atypia.

The use of dermoscopy, digital imaging, and reflectance confocal microscopy has changed the way we can detect, monitor, and evaluate atypical nevi. These tools can augment practice and possibly cut down on the rate of biopsies. They also are great for equivocal lesions or lesions that are in cosmetically sensitive areas. I use these tools in my everyday practice.

How do you keep patients compliant?

Empowering patients to perform self-examinations as well as examinations with his/her partner may help to reinforce monitoring by a dermatologist.

Provide patients with reading materials on self-examination while they wait in the office for your examination.

What do you do if they refuse treatment?

If patients defer a full-body skin examination, then I try to educate them about risks for UV exposure and the risk factors for both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer. I also provide information on self-examinations so they can check at home for any irregularly shaped or changing moles.

What resources do you recommend to patients for more information?

It is important for patients to understand the risk factors for melanoma and the long-term prognosis of melanoma. I direct them to the American Academy of Dermatology’s website (http://www.AAD.org) for education and background about melanoma. Also, the Skin Cancer Foundation has inspiring patient stories (http://www.SkinCancer.org).

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Rossi is Assistant Attending, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, and Assistant Professor, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Anthony M. Rossi, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Dermatology Service, 16 E 60th St, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022 (rossia@mskcc.org).

Issue
Cutis - 97(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
394
Legacy Keywords
melanoma, melanoma diagnosis, melanoma treatment, skin cancer, physician skin examination, total body screening, self-examination, UV exposure
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Rossi is Assistant Attending, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, and Assistant Professor, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Anthony M. Rossi, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Dermatology Service, 16 E 60th St, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022 (rossia@mskcc.org).

Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Rossi is Assistant Attending, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, and Assistant Professor, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Anthony M. Rossi, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Dermatology Service, 16 E 60th St, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022 (rossia@mskcc.org).

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

What does your patient need to know at the first visit? Does it apply to all patients?

All patients should have a total-body skin examination at least once per year; however, the frequency may change based on a prior history of melanoma or skin cancer, number of nevi or dysplastic nevi, and a family history of melanoma.

Patients should be completely undressed, and all nail polish or artificial nails should be removed prior to the examination. A complete cutaneous examination involves inspecting all skin surfaces, scalp, ocular and oral mucosa, fingernails/toenails, and genitalia if the patient agrees. Melanoma can occur in non–UV-exposed areas and the patient should be educated. Explain the ABCDEs of melanoma diagnosis to all patients and discuss concerns of any new or changing lesions, pigmented or not.

The patient should be made aware that a series of digital images will be taken for any suspicious lesions for possible short-term monitoring. The patient also may be offered full-body photography or 3D body imaging if the number of nevi warrants it.

Different patient populations have different risks for melanoma. Although melanoma predominately afflicts patients with a light skin type, there are certain types of melanoma, such as acral melanoma, that can be more common in darker skin types.

If a patient has a history of cutaneous melanoma, then the site should be checked for any local recurrence as well as palpation of the draining lymph nodes and regional lymph nodes.

I also let patients know that I will be using tools such as dermoscopy and/or reflectance confocal microscopy to better diagnose equivocal lesions before pursuing a biopsy. A biopsy may be done if there is a level of suspicion for atypia.

The use of dermoscopy, digital imaging, and reflectance confocal microscopy has changed the way we can detect, monitor, and evaluate atypical nevi. These tools can augment practice and possibly cut down on the rate of biopsies. They also are great for equivocal lesions or lesions that are in cosmetically sensitive areas. I use these tools in my everyday practice.

How do you keep patients compliant?

Empowering patients to perform self-examinations as well as examinations with his/her partner may help to reinforce monitoring by a dermatologist.

Provide patients with reading materials on self-examination while they wait in the office for your examination.

What do you do if they refuse treatment?

If patients defer a full-body skin examination, then I try to educate them about risks for UV exposure and the risk factors for both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer. I also provide information on self-examinations so they can check at home for any irregularly shaped or changing moles.

What resources do you recommend to patients for more information?

It is important for patients to understand the risk factors for melanoma and the long-term prognosis of melanoma. I direct them to the American Academy of Dermatology’s website (http://www.AAD.org) for education and background about melanoma. Also, the Skin Cancer Foundation has inspiring patient stories (http://www.SkinCancer.org).

What does your patient need to know at the first visit? Does it apply to all patients?

All patients should have a total-body skin examination at least once per year; however, the frequency may change based on a prior history of melanoma or skin cancer, number of nevi or dysplastic nevi, and a family history of melanoma.

Patients should be completely undressed, and all nail polish or artificial nails should be removed prior to the examination. A complete cutaneous examination involves inspecting all skin surfaces, scalp, ocular and oral mucosa, fingernails/toenails, and genitalia if the patient agrees. Melanoma can occur in non–UV-exposed areas and the patient should be educated. Explain the ABCDEs of melanoma diagnosis to all patients and discuss concerns of any new or changing lesions, pigmented or not.

The patient should be made aware that a series of digital images will be taken for any suspicious lesions for possible short-term monitoring. The patient also may be offered full-body photography or 3D body imaging if the number of nevi warrants it.

Different patient populations have different risks for melanoma. Although melanoma predominately afflicts patients with a light skin type, there are certain types of melanoma, such as acral melanoma, that can be more common in darker skin types.

If a patient has a history of cutaneous melanoma, then the site should be checked for any local recurrence as well as palpation of the draining lymph nodes and regional lymph nodes.

I also let patients know that I will be using tools such as dermoscopy and/or reflectance confocal microscopy to better diagnose equivocal lesions before pursuing a biopsy. A biopsy may be done if there is a level of suspicion for atypia.

The use of dermoscopy, digital imaging, and reflectance confocal microscopy has changed the way we can detect, monitor, and evaluate atypical nevi. These tools can augment practice and possibly cut down on the rate of biopsies. They also are great for equivocal lesions or lesions that are in cosmetically sensitive areas. I use these tools in my everyday practice.

How do you keep patients compliant?

Empowering patients to perform self-examinations as well as examinations with his/her partner may help to reinforce monitoring by a dermatologist.

Provide patients with reading materials on self-examination while they wait in the office for your examination.

What do you do if they refuse treatment?

If patients defer a full-body skin examination, then I try to educate them about risks for UV exposure and the risk factors for both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer. I also provide information on self-examinations so they can check at home for any irregularly shaped or changing moles.

What resources do you recommend to patients for more information?

It is important for patients to understand the risk factors for melanoma and the long-term prognosis of melanoma. I direct them to the American Academy of Dermatology’s website (http://www.AAD.org) for education and background about melanoma. Also, the Skin Cancer Foundation has inspiring patient stories (http://www.SkinCancer.org).

Issue
Cutis - 97(6)
Issue
Cutis - 97(6)
Page Number
394
Page Number
394
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Tips and Tools for Melanoma Diagnosis
Display Headline
Tips and Tools for Melanoma Diagnosis
Legacy Keywords
melanoma, melanoma diagnosis, melanoma treatment, skin cancer, physician skin examination, total body screening, self-examination, UV exposure
Legacy Keywords
melanoma, melanoma diagnosis, melanoma treatment, skin cancer, physician skin examination, total body screening, self-examination, UV exposure
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Optical Imaging to Detect Lentigo Maligna

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Optical Imaging to Detect Lentigo Maligna

In an article published online on January 26 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, my colleagues and I (Menge et al) reported on the use of reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) for challenging facial lesions. We studied the diagnosis of lentigo maligna (LM) based on RCM versus the histopathologic diagnosis after biopsy.

In this study 17 patients were seen for evaluation of known or suspected LM at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, New York). Among these patients, a total of 63 sites on the skin were evaluated using RCM and a presumptive diagnosis was made. These sites were then biopsied to compare the diagnosis using RCM with that made by histopathology. When LM was present as determined by biopsy, RCM also was able to detect it 100% of the time (sensitivity). When LM was absent as determined by biopsy, RCM also indicated it was absent 71% of the time (specificity).

What’s the issue?

Lentigo maligna is a form of melanoma in situ occurring on sun-damaged skin. It can be quite subtle to detect clinically and therefore may go undiagnosed for a while. Lentigo maligna also has been shown to have notable subclinical extension with which traditional surgical margins for truncal melanoma may be too narrow to clear LM on the head and neck. Therefore, presurgical consultation may be difficult due to the amorphous borders. Random blind biopsies also are discouraged because of sampling error.

Additionally, repetitive biopsies over time, which may be frequently needed in individuals with heavy sun exposure, can be costly and cause adverse effects.

This study showed the usefulness and reliability of using RCM for challenging facial lesions that are suspicious for LM. The sensitivity and specificity of RCM in this study indicated that this technology performs well in detecting LM when present; however, false-positives were noted in this study. False-positives included pigmented actinic keratosis and melanocytosis. Dermatologists who are advanced in RCM technology and interpretation also were utilized in this study. More research is needed to understand how to best utilize this technology, but overall the ability of RCM to accurately identify LM without biopsy represents an exciting new development in how dermatologists can better diagnose, manage, and treat melanoma.

How will you adopt advances in cutaneous noninvasive imaging?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Rossi is an Assistant Attending at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, and an Assistant Professor in the Department of Dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.

Dr. Rossi is a consultant for Mavig.

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
Lentigo Maligna, melanoma, reflectance confocal imaging, noninvasive imaging, confocal laser scanning microscopy, melanoma diagnosis, melanoma, pigmented lesions, reflectance confocal microscopy
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Rossi is an Assistant Attending at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, and an Assistant Professor in the Department of Dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.

Dr. Rossi is a consultant for Mavig.

Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Rossi is an Assistant Attending at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, and an Assistant Professor in the Department of Dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.

Dr. Rossi is a consultant for Mavig.

Related Articles

In an article published online on January 26 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, my colleagues and I (Menge et al) reported on the use of reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) for challenging facial lesions. We studied the diagnosis of lentigo maligna (LM) based on RCM versus the histopathologic diagnosis after biopsy.

In this study 17 patients were seen for evaluation of known or suspected LM at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, New York). Among these patients, a total of 63 sites on the skin were evaluated using RCM and a presumptive diagnosis was made. These sites were then biopsied to compare the diagnosis using RCM with that made by histopathology. When LM was present as determined by biopsy, RCM also was able to detect it 100% of the time (sensitivity). When LM was absent as determined by biopsy, RCM also indicated it was absent 71% of the time (specificity).

What’s the issue?

Lentigo maligna is a form of melanoma in situ occurring on sun-damaged skin. It can be quite subtle to detect clinically and therefore may go undiagnosed for a while. Lentigo maligna also has been shown to have notable subclinical extension with which traditional surgical margins for truncal melanoma may be too narrow to clear LM on the head and neck. Therefore, presurgical consultation may be difficult due to the amorphous borders. Random blind biopsies also are discouraged because of sampling error.

Additionally, repetitive biopsies over time, which may be frequently needed in individuals with heavy sun exposure, can be costly and cause adverse effects.

This study showed the usefulness and reliability of using RCM for challenging facial lesions that are suspicious for LM. The sensitivity and specificity of RCM in this study indicated that this technology performs well in detecting LM when present; however, false-positives were noted in this study. False-positives included pigmented actinic keratosis and melanocytosis. Dermatologists who are advanced in RCM technology and interpretation also were utilized in this study. More research is needed to understand how to best utilize this technology, but overall the ability of RCM to accurately identify LM without biopsy represents an exciting new development in how dermatologists can better diagnose, manage, and treat melanoma.

How will you adopt advances in cutaneous noninvasive imaging?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

In an article published online on January 26 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, my colleagues and I (Menge et al) reported on the use of reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) for challenging facial lesions. We studied the diagnosis of lentigo maligna (LM) based on RCM versus the histopathologic diagnosis after biopsy.

In this study 17 patients were seen for evaluation of known or suspected LM at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, New York). Among these patients, a total of 63 sites on the skin were evaluated using RCM and a presumptive diagnosis was made. These sites were then biopsied to compare the diagnosis using RCM with that made by histopathology. When LM was present as determined by biopsy, RCM also was able to detect it 100% of the time (sensitivity). When LM was absent as determined by biopsy, RCM also indicated it was absent 71% of the time (specificity).

What’s the issue?

Lentigo maligna is a form of melanoma in situ occurring on sun-damaged skin. It can be quite subtle to detect clinically and therefore may go undiagnosed for a while. Lentigo maligna also has been shown to have notable subclinical extension with which traditional surgical margins for truncal melanoma may be too narrow to clear LM on the head and neck. Therefore, presurgical consultation may be difficult due to the amorphous borders. Random blind biopsies also are discouraged because of sampling error.

Additionally, repetitive biopsies over time, which may be frequently needed in individuals with heavy sun exposure, can be costly and cause adverse effects.

This study showed the usefulness and reliability of using RCM for challenging facial lesions that are suspicious for LM. The sensitivity and specificity of RCM in this study indicated that this technology performs well in detecting LM when present; however, false-positives were noted in this study. False-positives included pigmented actinic keratosis and melanocytosis. Dermatologists who are advanced in RCM technology and interpretation also were utilized in this study. More research is needed to understand how to best utilize this technology, but overall the ability of RCM to accurately identify LM without biopsy represents an exciting new development in how dermatologists can better diagnose, manage, and treat melanoma.

How will you adopt advances in cutaneous noninvasive imaging?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Optical Imaging to Detect Lentigo Maligna
Display Headline
Optical Imaging to Detect Lentigo Maligna
Legacy Keywords
Lentigo Maligna, melanoma, reflectance confocal imaging, noninvasive imaging, confocal laser scanning microscopy, melanoma diagnosis, melanoma, pigmented lesions, reflectance confocal microscopy
Legacy Keywords
Lentigo Maligna, melanoma, reflectance confocal imaging, noninvasive imaging, confocal laser scanning microscopy, melanoma diagnosis, melanoma, pigmented lesions, reflectance confocal microscopy
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME

A Pragmatic Approach to Melanoma Screening in Collaboration With Primary Care Providers

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
A Pragmatic Approach to Melanoma Screening in Collaboration With Primary Care Providers

In 2009, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued an I statement for routine skin cancer screening, noting a lack of evidence to support the balance of benefits and harms from screening,1 a recommendation that is likely to be upheld this year. As dermatologists and melanoma specialists, we have abundant anecdotal evidence of the value of screening; however, population-based screening performed exclusively by dermatologists is not practical. There are approximately 170,000,000 adults 35 years and older and only 9600 practicing dermatologists in the United States, requiring each dermatologist to screen nearly 18,000 individuals per year to meet the needs of the population.

Only 8% to 15% of people in the United States report having received a recent skin examination by a physician.2,3 Partnering with our primary care provider (PCP) colleagues has the potential to reach more patients and to improve skin cancer screening rates more rapidly. The workforce in primary care is substantially larger than dermatology by approximately 30-fold, and PCPs are more likely than dermatologists to practice in rural areas, thus reaching patients with limited access to dermatologists. Skin cancer screening can be included in the routine PCP visit, reducing the need for an additional physician visit for the patient. Patients visit their PCP more frequently as they age, which parallels the risk for developing and dying from melanoma and also provides an opportunity to introduce skin cancer education and screening to a population at higher risk who may not otherwise seek it on their own.4 Providing PCPs with the training and tools to perform melanoma screening shifts the responsibility of initiating screening from the patient alone to a shared responsibility of patient and provider. Dermatologists, in turn, need to be available to examine those patients found to have a suspicious lesion, treat newly diagnosed skin cancer, and follow those patients at highest risk of developing skin cancer, including those who are immunosuppressed, have multiple atypical moles, or have a personal or family history of melanoma.

 

 

Evidence from the SCREEN (Skin Cancer Research to provide Evidence for Effectiveness of Screening in Northern Germany) project supports PCP-based screening. In the 5 years following a 1-year pilot screening program, there was nearly a 50% reduction in melanoma mortality.5 Unfortunately, these encouraging results were not confirmed once the pilot project was translated into a national skin cancer screening program.6 However, there are lessons to be learned from the German project and we propose that PCP-led screening is feasible and practical in the United States and we currently have a pilot program in our institution, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania).

In the SCREEN project and in routine practice across the United States, screening is primarily driven by patients. Generally, higher-risk patients such as men and the elderly are the least likely group to seek skin cancer screening. In our program, PCPs are offered training in skin cancer screening using a validated web-based program and alerted through the electronic health record to offer skin cancer screening annually to patients 35 years and older who present for routine primary care visits.7 This approach reduces self-referral bias by promoting physician initiation rather than patient initiation of screening, which can occur while the patient is already in the PCP’s office.

Melanoma thickness can be measured among screened patients, unscreened patients, and historic controls and compared to determine if this approach is effective. Health care utilization data can help to inform us if this approach leads to more skin biopsies and procedures or to an increased rate of dermatology referrals. As health care payment and delivery models evolve, there is greater emphasis on outcomes and team-based care. We believe that this approach will allow us to form effective teams of PCPs, dermatologists, and other experts in melanoma, public health, and informatics to reduce melanoma mortality in a cost-effective manner.

References
  1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for skin cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:188-193.
  2. Saraiya M, Hall HI, Thompson T, et al. Skin cancer screening among U.S. adults from 1992, 1998, and 2000 National Health Interview Surveys. Prev Med. 2004;39:308-314.
  3. Coups EJ, Geller AC, Weinstock MA, et al. Prevalence and correlates of skin cancer screening among middle-aged and older white adults in the United States. Am J Med. 2010;123:439-445.
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ambulatory care use and physician office visits. CDC website. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/physician-visits.htm. Updated April 27, 2016. Accessed May 4, 2016.
  5. Katalinic A, Waldmann A, Weinstock MA, et al. Does skin cancer screening save lives? an observational study comparing trends in melanoma mortality in regions with and without screening. Cancer. 2012;118:5395-5402.
  6. Katalinic A, Eisemann N, Waldmann A. Skin cancer screening in Germany. documenting melanoma incidence and mortality from 2008 to 2013. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112:629-634.
  7. Weinstock M. INFORMED: melanoma and skin cancer early detection. Skinsight website. http://www.skinsight.com/info/for_professionals/skin-cancer-detection-informed/skin-cancer-education. Accessed May 12, 2016.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

From the School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dr. Kirkwood is from the Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology. Dr. Ferris is from the Department of Dermatology.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Laura K. Ferris, MD, PhD, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Dermatology, 3601 Fifth Ave, 5th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (ferrislk@upmc.edu).

Issue
Cutis - 97(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
382-383
Legacy Keywords
melanoma, skin cancer screening, routine screening, skin cancer, nonmelanoma skin cancer, PCP, primary care
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

From the School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dr. Kirkwood is from the Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology. Dr. Ferris is from the Department of Dermatology.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Laura K. Ferris, MD, PhD, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Dermatology, 3601 Fifth Ave, 5th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (ferrislk@upmc.edu).

Author and Disclosure Information

From the School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dr. Kirkwood is from the Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology. Dr. Ferris is from the Department of Dermatology.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Laura K. Ferris, MD, PhD, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Dermatology, 3601 Fifth Ave, 5th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (ferrislk@upmc.edu).

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

In 2009, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued an I statement for routine skin cancer screening, noting a lack of evidence to support the balance of benefits and harms from screening,1 a recommendation that is likely to be upheld this year. As dermatologists and melanoma specialists, we have abundant anecdotal evidence of the value of screening; however, population-based screening performed exclusively by dermatologists is not practical. There are approximately 170,000,000 adults 35 years and older and only 9600 practicing dermatologists in the United States, requiring each dermatologist to screen nearly 18,000 individuals per year to meet the needs of the population.

Only 8% to 15% of people in the United States report having received a recent skin examination by a physician.2,3 Partnering with our primary care provider (PCP) colleagues has the potential to reach more patients and to improve skin cancer screening rates more rapidly. The workforce in primary care is substantially larger than dermatology by approximately 30-fold, and PCPs are more likely than dermatologists to practice in rural areas, thus reaching patients with limited access to dermatologists. Skin cancer screening can be included in the routine PCP visit, reducing the need for an additional physician visit for the patient. Patients visit their PCP more frequently as they age, which parallels the risk for developing and dying from melanoma and also provides an opportunity to introduce skin cancer education and screening to a population at higher risk who may not otherwise seek it on their own.4 Providing PCPs with the training and tools to perform melanoma screening shifts the responsibility of initiating screening from the patient alone to a shared responsibility of patient and provider. Dermatologists, in turn, need to be available to examine those patients found to have a suspicious lesion, treat newly diagnosed skin cancer, and follow those patients at highest risk of developing skin cancer, including those who are immunosuppressed, have multiple atypical moles, or have a personal or family history of melanoma.

 

 

Evidence from the SCREEN (Skin Cancer Research to provide Evidence for Effectiveness of Screening in Northern Germany) project supports PCP-based screening. In the 5 years following a 1-year pilot screening program, there was nearly a 50% reduction in melanoma mortality.5 Unfortunately, these encouraging results were not confirmed once the pilot project was translated into a national skin cancer screening program.6 However, there are lessons to be learned from the German project and we propose that PCP-led screening is feasible and practical in the United States and we currently have a pilot program in our institution, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania).

In the SCREEN project and in routine practice across the United States, screening is primarily driven by patients. Generally, higher-risk patients such as men and the elderly are the least likely group to seek skin cancer screening. In our program, PCPs are offered training in skin cancer screening using a validated web-based program and alerted through the electronic health record to offer skin cancer screening annually to patients 35 years and older who present for routine primary care visits.7 This approach reduces self-referral bias by promoting physician initiation rather than patient initiation of screening, which can occur while the patient is already in the PCP’s office.

Melanoma thickness can be measured among screened patients, unscreened patients, and historic controls and compared to determine if this approach is effective. Health care utilization data can help to inform us if this approach leads to more skin biopsies and procedures or to an increased rate of dermatology referrals. As health care payment and delivery models evolve, there is greater emphasis on outcomes and team-based care. We believe that this approach will allow us to form effective teams of PCPs, dermatologists, and other experts in melanoma, public health, and informatics to reduce melanoma mortality in a cost-effective manner.

In 2009, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued an I statement for routine skin cancer screening, noting a lack of evidence to support the balance of benefits and harms from screening,1 a recommendation that is likely to be upheld this year. As dermatologists and melanoma specialists, we have abundant anecdotal evidence of the value of screening; however, population-based screening performed exclusively by dermatologists is not practical. There are approximately 170,000,000 adults 35 years and older and only 9600 practicing dermatologists in the United States, requiring each dermatologist to screen nearly 18,000 individuals per year to meet the needs of the population.

Only 8% to 15% of people in the United States report having received a recent skin examination by a physician.2,3 Partnering with our primary care provider (PCP) colleagues has the potential to reach more patients and to improve skin cancer screening rates more rapidly. The workforce in primary care is substantially larger than dermatology by approximately 30-fold, and PCPs are more likely than dermatologists to practice in rural areas, thus reaching patients with limited access to dermatologists. Skin cancer screening can be included in the routine PCP visit, reducing the need for an additional physician visit for the patient. Patients visit their PCP more frequently as they age, which parallels the risk for developing and dying from melanoma and also provides an opportunity to introduce skin cancer education and screening to a population at higher risk who may not otherwise seek it on their own.4 Providing PCPs with the training and tools to perform melanoma screening shifts the responsibility of initiating screening from the patient alone to a shared responsibility of patient and provider. Dermatologists, in turn, need to be available to examine those patients found to have a suspicious lesion, treat newly diagnosed skin cancer, and follow those patients at highest risk of developing skin cancer, including those who are immunosuppressed, have multiple atypical moles, or have a personal or family history of melanoma.

 

 

Evidence from the SCREEN (Skin Cancer Research to provide Evidence for Effectiveness of Screening in Northern Germany) project supports PCP-based screening. In the 5 years following a 1-year pilot screening program, there was nearly a 50% reduction in melanoma mortality.5 Unfortunately, these encouraging results were not confirmed once the pilot project was translated into a national skin cancer screening program.6 However, there are lessons to be learned from the German project and we propose that PCP-led screening is feasible and practical in the United States and we currently have a pilot program in our institution, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania).

In the SCREEN project and in routine practice across the United States, screening is primarily driven by patients. Generally, higher-risk patients such as men and the elderly are the least likely group to seek skin cancer screening. In our program, PCPs are offered training in skin cancer screening using a validated web-based program and alerted through the electronic health record to offer skin cancer screening annually to patients 35 years and older who present for routine primary care visits.7 This approach reduces self-referral bias by promoting physician initiation rather than patient initiation of screening, which can occur while the patient is already in the PCP’s office.

Melanoma thickness can be measured among screened patients, unscreened patients, and historic controls and compared to determine if this approach is effective. Health care utilization data can help to inform us if this approach leads to more skin biopsies and procedures or to an increased rate of dermatology referrals. As health care payment and delivery models evolve, there is greater emphasis on outcomes and team-based care. We believe that this approach will allow us to form effective teams of PCPs, dermatologists, and other experts in melanoma, public health, and informatics to reduce melanoma mortality in a cost-effective manner.

References
  1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for skin cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:188-193.
  2. Saraiya M, Hall HI, Thompson T, et al. Skin cancer screening among U.S. adults from 1992, 1998, and 2000 National Health Interview Surveys. Prev Med. 2004;39:308-314.
  3. Coups EJ, Geller AC, Weinstock MA, et al. Prevalence and correlates of skin cancer screening among middle-aged and older white adults in the United States. Am J Med. 2010;123:439-445.
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ambulatory care use and physician office visits. CDC website. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/physician-visits.htm. Updated April 27, 2016. Accessed May 4, 2016.
  5. Katalinic A, Waldmann A, Weinstock MA, et al. Does skin cancer screening save lives? an observational study comparing trends in melanoma mortality in regions with and without screening. Cancer. 2012;118:5395-5402.
  6. Katalinic A, Eisemann N, Waldmann A. Skin cancer screening in Germany. documenting melanoma incidence and mortality from 2008 to 2013. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112:629-634.
  7. Weinstock M. INFORMED: melanoma and skin cancer early detection. Skinsight website. http://www.skinsight.com/info/for_professionals/skin-cancer-detection-informed/skin-cancer-education. Accessed May 12, 2016.
References
  1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for skin cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:188-193.
  2. Saraiya M, Hall HI, Thompson T, et al. Skin cancer screening among U.S. adults from 1992, 1998, and 2000 National Health Interview Surveys. Prev Med. 2004;39:308-314.
  3. Coups EJ, Geller AC, Weinstock MA, et al. Prevalence and correlates of skin cancer screening among middle-aged and older white adults in the United States. Am J Med. 2010;123:439-445.
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ambulatory care use and physician office visits. CDC website. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/physician-visits.htm. Updated April 27, 2016. Accessed May 4, 2016.
  5. Katalinic A, Waldmann A, Weinstock MA, et al. Does skin cancer screening save lives? an observational study comparing trends in melanoma mortality in regions with and without screening. Cancer. 2012;118:5395-5402.
  6. Katalinic A, Eisemann N, Waldmann A. Skin cancer screening in Germany. documenting melanoma incidence and mortality from 2008 to 2013. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112:629-634.
  7. Weinstock M. INFORMED: melanoma and skin cancer early detection. Skinsight website. http://www.skinsight.com/info/for_professionals/skin-cancer-detection-informed/skin-cancer-education. Accessed May 12, 2016.
Issue
Cutis - 97(6)
Issue
Cutis - 97(6)
Page Number
382-383
Page Number
382-383
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
A Pragmatic Approach to Melanoma Screening in Collaboration With Primary Care Providers
Display Headline
A Pragmatic Approach to Melanoma Screening in Collaboration With Primary Care Providers
Legacy Keywords
melanoma, skin cancer screening, routine screening, skin cancer, nonmelanoma skin cancer, PCP, primary care
Legacy Keywords
melanoma, skin cancer screening, routine screening, skin cancer, nonmelanoma skin cancer, PCP, primary care
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Article PDF Media

Novel Melanoma Therapies and Their Side Effects

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Novel Melanoma Therapies and Their Side Effects

In the last few years, melanoma treatment has been revolutionized by the development of immune checkpoint–blocking antibodies or immune checkpoint inhibitors. These drugs act through receptor or ligand blockades at certain points along the immunologic cascade to enhance the immune system’s ability to fight malignancies.1 In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration approved ipilimumab, an inhibitor of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), for treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Other immune-modulating agents followed thereafter. Vemurafenib and dabrafenib, 2 selective BRAF inhibitors, were approved in 2011 and 2013, respectively, and trametinib, a mitogen-activated extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 (MEK1) and MEK2 blocker, was approved in 2013. These agents are being used to treat patients with activating BRAF or NRAS mutations.2,3 Nivolumab and pembrolizumab, which target programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), respectively, were approved in 2014. Furthermore, phase 2 and 3 trials are ongoing for patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanomas harboring activating c-KIT mutations, which are rare and usually are found in acral or mucosal melanomas. The multikinase inhibitors imatinib, sunitinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib are being used in clinical trials for this purpose and are not yet approved.4

Although immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown promising results, they lack direct activity against malignant cells. The nonspecific enhanced immune system response promoted by these drugs has been shown to cause multiple adverse events (AEs). A subset of these side effects has been termed immune-related AEs (irAEs), which occur secondary to reduced tolerance to antigens previously recognized as self-antigens, leading to immune-related side effects.5 The majority of these AEs involve the skin and are mild to moderate in severity; however, other organ systems (eg, gastrointestinal, hepatic, endocrine, and neurologic systems) also may be affected. Most of the toxicities have been successfully treated with immunosuppressive agents such as corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor α antagonists, and mycophenolate mofetil.6

Dermatologic Side Effects

The most common AEs associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors are cutaneous reactions, which commonly present after 2 to 3 weeks of treatment.7 Approximately 50% of patients receiving ipilimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) will experience cutaneous reactions, including erythematous, reticulated, or maculopapular rashes.8 Vitiligo and Sweet syndrome also have been observed.9,10

Antibodies against PD-1 and PD-L1 have been associated with oral mucositis and dry mouth.11 Most patients treated with BRAF, MEK, and KIT inhibitors also experience dermatologic AEs. Rashes caused by BRAF inhibitors commonly are maculopapular to verrucous and hyperkeratotic. Keratoacanthomas, squamous cell carcinomas, and other hyperkeratotic lesions such as verruca vulgaris, actinic keratoses, and milia have been reported, usually in sun-exposed areas.4,12,13 Other types of keratotic lesions have been observed, such as areolar hyperkeratosis with vemurafenib (BRAF inhibitor).14 Photosensitivity, panniculitis (eg, erythema nodosum), and mild alopecia also have been reported.15 Radiosensitization and radiation recall also have been reported in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors.16-19 Cutaneous reactions observed with MEK inhibitors are acneiform to papulopustular and appear in seborrheic areas such as the face and chest.4 In contrast to BRAF inhibitors, increased rates of squamous cell carcinomas and keratoacanthomas have not been reported with MEK inhibitors. Severe cutaneous effects such as toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome may occur, and although rare, treatment should be discontinued in these cases.

Gastrointestinal Tract Side Effects

Gastrointestinal (GI) tract side effects commonly result from treatment with immunomodulators, usually occurring after 6 to 7 weeks.7 Most patients will experience mild to moderate GI adverse effects (eg, diarrhea), but a few patients have had episodes of colitis, some of which have been fatal.20 Diarrhea and other GI effects are more common in patients treated with ipilimumab, occurring in approximately 30% of patients,20 in comparison to 1% to 2% of those treated with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors.11,21

Liver abnormalities and asymptomatic elevations in liver enzymes can occur with KIT, BRAF, CTLA-4, and PD-L1 inhibitors.11,20-23 More serious abnormalities such as symptomatic hepatitis and fever are mostly seen with CTLA-4 inhibitors.

Endocrinologic Side Effects

Immune-related AEs also can affect the pituitary, adrenal, and thyroid glands. These events occur after an average of 9 weeks and usually consist of nausea, headache, and/or fatigue.7 Hypophysitis and hypothyroidism are the most common endocrinopathies reported based on characteristic laboratory or radiographic findings and are observed most often with CTLA-4 inhibitors, though they also have been reported with PD-1/PD-L1 blockers.24,25 Ipilimumab-induced thyrotoxicosis also has been reported, though it is far less common than hypothyroidism.26

Other Side Effects

Other irAEs that are less common include neurologic side effects ranging from Bell palsy27 and Guillain-Barré syndrome20 to paresthesia, as well as pancreatitis,28 ophthalmologic reactions,29-33 nephritis,34,35 and hematologic side effects.36-38 One distinctive AE is lung toxicity, which has been reported with PD-1 inhibitors and presents as cough, dyspnea, or pneumonitis early in treatment.21

 

 

It is unclear whether immunomodulating agents exacerbate autoimmune diseases. Patients with autoimmune diseases were not included in the clinical trials but reportedly have been treated with ipilimumab without exacerbations. Nevertheless, there has been a report of worsening multiple sclerosis in a melanoma patient treated with ipilimumab.39

Conclusion

Immunomodulators have dramatically improved the survival and care of patients with unresectable melanomas. Because of their mechanism of action, they have the capability to produce substantial toxicity. Although most AEs are mild, lethal side effects can ensue. Therefore, all specialists treating patients with melanoma should be familiar with these side effects and their treatment options, as survival rates and survival times will be increasing over the next few years. Rapid AE identification and treatment can improve patient outcomes and optimize the therapeutic potential of these medications. Because immune checkpoint inhibitors are fairly new, further studies are needed to assess irAEs and the long-term impact in patients treated with immunomodulators.

References
  1. Ito A, Kondo S, Tada K, et al. Clinical development of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:605478.
  2. Flaherty KT, Infante JR, Daud A, et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1694-1703.
  3. Ascierto PA, Schadendorf D, Berking C, et al. MEK162 for patients with advanced melanoma harbouring NRAS or Val600 BRAF mutations: a non-randomised, open-label phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:249-256.
  4. Livingstone E, Zimmer L, Vaubel J, et al. BRAF, MEK and KIT inhibitors for melanoma: adverse events and their management. Chin Clin Oncol. 2014;3:29.
  5. Schmerling RA. Toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors. Chin Clin Oncol. 2014;3:31.
  6. Yervoy [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; 2011.
  7. Weber JS, Kähler KC, Hauschild A. Management of immune-related adverse events and kinetics of response with ipilimumab. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2691-2697.
  8. Lacouture ME, Wolchok JD, Yosipovitch G, et al. Ipilimumab in patients with cancer and the management of dermatologic adverse events. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:161-169.
  9. Wolchok JD, Neyns B, Linette G, et al. Ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2, dose-ranging study [published online December 8, 2009]. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:155-164.
  10. Pintova S, Sidhu H, Friedlander PA, et al. Sweet’s syndrome in a patient with metastatic melanoma after ipilimumab therapy. Melanoma Res. 2013;23:498-501.
  11. Topalian SL, Sznol M, McDermott DF, et al. Survival, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in patients with advanced melanoma receiving nivolumab. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1020-1030.
  12. Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2507-2516.
  13. Lacouture ME, Duvic M, Hauschild A, et al. Analysis of dermatologic events in vemurafenib-treated patients with melanoma. Oncologist. 2013;18:314-322.
  14. Martinez-Garcia E, Taibjee S, Koch D, et al. Vemurafenib-induced hyperkeratosis of the areola treated with topical adapalene [published online February 22, 2015]. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2016;41:148-151.
  15. Sanlorenzo M, Choudhry A, Vujic I, et al. Comparative profile of cutaneous adverse events: BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination therapy versus BRAF monotherapy in melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:1102-1109.
  16. Boussemart L, Boivin C, Claveau J, et al. Vemurafenib and radiosensitization. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149:855-857.
  17. Ducassou A, David I, Delannes M, et al. Radiosensitization induced by vemurafenib. Cancer Radiother. 2013;17:304-307.
  18. Peuvrel L, Ruellan AL, Thillays F, et al. Severe radiotherapy-induced extracutaneous toxicity under vemurafenib. Eur J Dermatol. 2013;23:879-881.
  19. Satzger I, Degen A, Asper H, et al. Serious skin toxicity with the combination of BRAF inhibitors and radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:e220-e222.
  20. Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:711-723.
  21. Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, et al. Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:134-144.
  22. Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR, et al. Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2443-2454.
  23. Ribas A, Kefford R, Marshall MA, et al. Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:616-622.
  24. Corsello SM, Barnabei A, Marchetti P, et al. Endocrine side effects induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98:1361-1375.
  25. Ryder M, Callahan M, Postow MA, et al. Endocrine-related adverse events following ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma: a comprehensive retrospective review from a single institution. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2014;21:371-381.
  26. Yu C, Chopra IJ, Ha E. A novel melanoma therapy stirs up a storm: ipilimumab-induced thyrotoxicosis. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2015;2015:140092.
  27. Klein O, Ribas A, Chmielowski B, et al. Facial palsy as a side effect of vemurafenib treatment in patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:e215-e217.
  28. Muluneh B, Buie LW, Collichio F. Vemurafenib-associated pancreatitis: case report. Pharmacotherapy. 2013;33:e43-e44.
  29. Flaherty L, Hamid O, Linette G, et al. A single-arm, open-label, expanded access study of vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma in the United States. Cancer J. 2014;20:18-24.
  30. Wolf SE, Meenken C, Moll AC, et al. Severe pan-uveitis in a patient treated with vemurafenib for metastatic melanoma. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:561.
  31. Sandhu SS, Ling C, Lim L, et al. Vemurafenib (B-RAF inhibitor) associated uveitis in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;40:118.
  32. Joshi L, Karydis A, Gemenetzi M, et al. Uveitis as a result of MAP kinase pathway inhibition. Case Rep Ophthalmol. 2013;4:279-282.
  33. Robinson MR, Chan CC, Yang JC, et al. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma: a new cause of uveitis. J Immunother. 2004;27:478-479.
  34. Regnier-Rosencher E, Lazareth H, Gressier L, et al. Acute kidney injury in patients with severe rash on vemurafenib treatment for metastatic melanomas. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169:934-938.
  35. Izzedine H, Gueutin V, Gharbi C, et al. Kidney injuries related to ipilimumab [published online April 1, 2014]. Invest New Drugs. 2014;32:769-773.
  36. Akhtari M, Waller EK, Jaye DL, et al. Neutropenia in a patient treated with ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 antibody). J Immunother. 2009;32:322-324.
  37. Gordon IO, Wade T, Chin K, et al. Immune mediated red cell aplasia after anti-CTLA-4 immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2009;58:1351-1353.
  38. Kopecký J, Trojanová P, Kubeček O, et al. Treatment possibilities of ipilimumab-induced thrombocytopenia—case study and literature review. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45:381-384.
  39. Gettings EJ, Hackett CT, Scott TF. Severe relapse in a multiple sclerosis patient associated with ipilimumab treatment of melanoma. Mult Scler. 2015;21:670.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Both from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. Dr. Ratner also is from Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Désirée Ratner, MD, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, 325 W 15th St, New York, NY 10011 (dratner@chpnet.org).

Issue
Cutis - 97(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
426-428
Legacy Keywords
melanoma
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Both from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. Dr. Ratner also is from Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Désirée Ratner, MD, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, 325 W 15th St, New York, NY 10011 (dratner@chpnet.org).

Author and Disclosure Information

Both from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. Dr. Ratner also is from Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Désirée Ratner, MD, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, 325 W 15th St, New York, NY 10011 (dratner@chpnet.org).

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

In the last few years, melanoma treatment has been revolutionized by the development of immune checkpoint–blocking antibodies or immune checkpoint inhibitors. These drugs act through receptor or ligand blockades at certain points along the immunologic cascade to enhance the immune system’s ability to fight malignancies.1 In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration approved ipilimumab, an inhibitor of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), for treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Other immune-modulating agents followed thereafter. Vemurafenib and dabrafenib, 2 selective BRAF inhibitors, were approved in 2011 and 2013, respectively, and trametinib, a mitogen-activated extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 (MEK1) and MEK2 blocker, was approved in 2013. These agents are being used to treat patients with activating BRAF or NRAS mutations.2,3 Nivolumab and pembrolizumab, which target programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), respectively, were approved in 2014. Furthermore, phase 2 and 3 trials are ongoing for patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanomas harboring activating c-KIT mutations, which are rare and usually are found in acral or mucosal melanomas. The multikinase inhibitors imatinib, sunitinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib are being used in clinical trials for this purpose and are not yet approved.4

Although immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown promising results, they lack direct activity against malignant cells. The nonspecific enhanced immune system response promoted by these drugs has been shown to cause multiple adverse events (AEs). A subset of these side effects has been termed immune-related AEs (irAEs), which occur secondary to reduced tolerance to antigens previously recognized as self-antigens, leading to immune-related side effects.5 The majority of these AEs involve the skin and are mild to moderate in severity; however, other organ systems (eg, gastrointestinal, hepatic, endocrine, and neurologic systems) also may be affected. Most of the toxicities have been successfully treated with immunosuppressive agents such as corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor α antagonists, and mycophenolate mofetil.6

Dermatologic Side Effects

The most common AEs associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors are cutaneous reactions, which commonly present after 2 to 3 weeks of treatment.7 Approximately 50% of patients receiving ipilimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) will experience cutaneous reactions, including erythematous, reticulated, or maculopapular rashes.8 Vitiligo and Sweet syndrome also have been observed.9,10

Antibodies against PD-1 and PD-L1 have been associated with oral mucositis and dry mouth.11 Most patients treated with BRAF, MEK, and KIT inhibitors also experience dermatologic AEs. Rashes caused by BRAF inhibitors commonly are maculopapular to verrucous and hyperkeratotic. Keratoacanthomas, squamous cell carcinomas, and other hyperkeratotic lesions such as verruca vulgaris, actinic keratoses, and milia have been reported, usually in sun-exposed areas.4,12,13 Other types of keratotic lesions have been observed, such as areolar hyperkeratosis with vemurafenib (BRAF inhibitor).14 Photosensitivity, panniculitis (eg, erythema nodosum), and mild alopecia also have been reported.15 Radiosensitization and radiation recall also have been reported in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors.16-19 Cutaneous reactions observed with MEK inhibitors are acneiform to papulopustular and appear in seborrheic areas such as the face and chest.4 In contrast to BRAF inhibitors, increased rates of squamous cell carcinomas and keratoacanthomas have not been reported with MEK inhibitors. Severe cutaneous effects such as toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome may occur, and although rare, treatment should be discontinued in these cases.

Gastrointestinal Tract Side Effects

Gastrointestinal (GI) tract side effects commonly result from treatment with immunomodulators, usually occurring after 6 to 7 weeks.7 Most patients will experience mild to moderate GI adverse effects (eg, diarrhea), but a few patients have had episodes of colitis, some of which have been fatal.20 Diarrhea and other GI effects are more common in patients treated with ipilimumab, occurring in approximately 30% of patients,20 in comparison to 1% to 2% of those treated with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors.11,21

Liver abnormalities and asymptomatic elevations in liver enzymes can occur with KIT, BRAF, CTLA-4, and PD-L1 inhibitors.11,20-23 More serious abnormalities such as symptomatic hepatitis and fever are mostly seen with CTLA-4 inhibitors.

Endocrinologic Side Effects

Immune-related AEs also can affect the pituitary, adrenal, and thyroid glands. These events occur after an average of 9 weeks and usually consist of nausea, headache, and/or fatigue.7 Hypophysitis and hypothyroidism are the most common endocrinopathies reported based on characteristic laboratory or radiographic findings and are observed most often with CTLA-4 inhibitors, though they also have been reported with PD-1/PD-L1 blockers.24,25 Ipilimumab-induced thyrotoxicosis also has been reported, though it is far less common than hypothyroidism.26

Other Side Effects

Other irAEs that are less common include neurologic side effects ranging from Bell palsy27 and Guillain-Barré syndrome20 to paresthesia, as well as pancreatitis,28 ophthalmologic reactions,29-33 nephritis,34,35 and hematologic side effects.36-38 One distinctive AE is lung toxicity, which has been reported with PD-1 inhibitors and presents as cough, dyspnea, or pneumonitis early in treatment.21

 

 

It is unclear whether immunomodulating agents exacerbate autoimmune diseases. Patients with autoimmune diseases were not included in the clinical trials but reportedly have been treated with ipilimumab without exacerbations. Nevertheless, there has been a report of worsening multiple sclerosis in a melanoma patient treated with ipilimumab.39

Conclusion

Immunomodulators have dramatically improved the survival and care of patients with unresectable melanomas. Because of their mechanism of action, they have the capability to produce substantial toxicity. Although most AEs are mild, lethal side effects can ensue. Therefore, all specialists treating patients with melanoma should be familiar with these side effects and their treatment options, as survival rates and survival times will be increasing over the next few years. Rapid AE identification and treatment can improve patient outcomes and optimize the therapeutic potential of these medications. Because immune checkpoint inhibitors are fairly new, further studies are needed to assess irAEs and the long-term impact in patients treated with immunomodulators.

In the last few years, melanoma treatment has been revolutionized by the development of immune checkpoint–blocking antibodies or immune checkpoint inhibitors. These drugs act through receptor or ligand blockades at certain points along the immunologic cascade to enhance the immune system’s ability to fight malignancies.1 In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration approved ipilimumab, an inhibitor of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), for treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Other immune-modulating agents followed thereafter. Vemurafenib and dabrafenib, 2 selective BRAF inhibitors, were approved in 2011 and 2013, respectively, and trametinib, a mitogen-activated extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 (MEK1) and MEK2 blocker, was approved in 2013. These agents are being used to treat patients with activating BRAF or NRAS mutations.2,3 Nivolumab and pembrolizumab, which target programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), respectively, were approved in 2014. Furthermore, phase 2 and 3 trials are ongoing for patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanomas harboring activating c-KIT mutations, which are rare and usually are found in acral or mucosal melanomas. The multikinase inhibitors imatinib, sunitinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib are being used in clinical trials for this purpose and are not yet approved.4

Although immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown promising results, they lack direct activity against malignant cells. The nonspecific enhanced immune system response promoted by these drugs has been shown to cause multiple adverse events (AEs). A subset of these side effects has been termed immune-related AEs (irAEs), which occur secondary to reduced tolerance to antigens previously recognized as self-antigens, leading to immune-related side effects.5 The majority of these AEs involve the skin and are mild to moderate in severity; however, other organ systems (eg, gastrointestinal, hepatic, endocrine, and neurologic systems) also may be affected. Most of the toxicities have been successfully treated with immunosuppressive agents such as corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor α antagonists, and mycophenolate mofetil.6

Dermatologic Side Effects

The most common AEs associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors are cutaneous reactions, which commonly present after 2 to 3 weeks of treatment.7 Approximately 50% of patients receiving ipilimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) will experience cutaneous reactions, including erythematous, reticulated, or maculopapular rashes.8 Vitiligo and Sweet syndrome also have been observed.9,10

Antibodies against PD-1 and PD-L1 have been associated with oral mucositis and dry mouth.11 Most patients treated with BRAF, MEK, and KIT inhibitors also experience dermatologic AEs. Rashes caused by BRAF inhibitors commonly are maculopapular to verrucous and hyperkeratotic. Keratoacanthomas, squamous cell carcinomas, and other hyperkeratotic lesions such as verruca vulgaris, actinic keratoses, and milia have been reported, usually in sun-exposed areas.4,12,13 Other types of keratotic lesions have been observed, such as areolar hyperkeratosis with vemurafenib (BRAF inhibitor).14 Photosensitivity, panniculitis (eg, erythema nodosum), and mild alopecia also have been reported.15 Radiosensitization and radiation recall also have been reported in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors.16-19 Cutaneous reactions observed with MEK inhibitors are acneiform to papulopustular and appear in seborrheic areas such as the face and chest.4 In contrast to BRAF inhibitors, increased rates of squamous cell carcinomas and keratoacanthomas have not been reported with MEK inhibitors. Severe cutaneous effects such as toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome may occur, and although rare, treatment should be discontinued in these cases.

Gastrointestinal Tract Side Effects

Gastrointestinal (GI) tract side effects commonly result from treatment with immunomodulators, usually occurring after 6 to 7 weeks.7 Most patients will experience mild to moderate GI adverse effects (eg, diarrhea), but a few patients have had episodes of colitis, some of which have been fatal.20 Diarrhea and other GI effects are more common in patients treated with ipilimumab, occurring in approximately 30% of patients,20 in comparison to 1% to 2% of those treated with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors.11,21

Liver abnormalities and asymptomatic elevations in liver enzymes can occur with KIT, BRAF, CTLA-4, and PD-L1 inhibitors.11,20-23 More serious abnormalities such as symptomatic hepatitis and fever are mostly seen with CTLA-4 inhibitors.

Endocrinologic Side Effects

Immune-related AEs also can affect the pituitary, adrenal, and thyroid glands. These events occur after an average of 9 weeks and usually consist of nausea, headache, and/or fatigue.7 Hypophysitis and hypothyroidism are the most common endocrinopathies reported based on characteristic laboratory or radiographic findings and are observed most often with CTLA-4 inhibitors, though they also have been reported with PD-1/PD-L1 blockers.24,25 Ipilimumab-induced thyrotoxicosis also has been reported, though it is far less common than hypothyroidism.26

Other Side Effects

Other irAEs that are less common include neurologic side effects ranging from Bell palsy27 and Guillain-Barré syndrome20 to paresthesia, as well as pancreatitis,28 ophthalmologic reactions,29-33 nephritis,34,35 and hematologic side effects.36-38 One distinctive AE is lung toxicity, which has been reported with PD-1 inhibitors and presents as cough, dyspnea, or pneumonitis early in treatment.21

 

 

It is unclear whether immunomodulating agents exacerbate autoimmune diseases. Patients with autoimmune diseases were not included in the clinical trials but reportedly have been treated with ipilimumab without exacerbations. Nevertheless, there has been a report of worsening multiple sclerosis in a melanoma patient treated with ipilimumab.39

Conclusion

Immunomodulators have dramatically improved the survival and care of patients with unresectable melanomas. Because of their mechanism of action, they have the capability to produce substantial toxicity. Although most AEs are mild, lethal side effects can ensue. Therefore, all specialists treating patients with melanoma should be familiar with these side effects and their treatment options, as survival rates and survival times will be increasing over the next few years. Rapid AE identification and treatment can improve patient outcomes and optimize the therapeutic potential of these medications. Because immune checkpoint inhibitors are fairly new, further studies are needed to assess irAEs and the long-term impact in patients treated with immunomodulators.

References
  1. Ito A, Kondo S, Tada K, et al. Clinical development of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:605478.
  2. Flaherty KT, Infante JR, Daud A, et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1694-1703.
  3. Ascierto PA, Schadendorf D, Berking C, et al. MEK162 for patients with advanced melanoma harbouring NRAS or Val600 BRAF mutations: a non-randomised, open-label phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:249-256.
  4. Livingstone E, Zimmer L, Vaubel J, et al. BRAF, MEK and KIT inhibitors for melanoma: adverse events and their management. Chin Clin Oncol. 2014;3:29.
  5. Schmerling RA. Toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors. Chin Clin Oncol. 2014;3:31.
  6. Yervoy [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; 2011.
  7. Weber JS, Kähler KC, Hauschild A. Management of immune-related adverse events and kinetics of response with ipilimumab. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2691-2697.
  8. Lacouture ME, Wolchok JD, Yosipovitch G, et al. Ipilimumab in patients with cancer and the management of dermatologic adverse events. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:161-169.
  9. Wolchok JD, Neyns B, Linette G, et al. Ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2, dose-ranging study [published online December 8, 2009]. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:155-164.
  10. Pintova S, Sidhu H, Friedlander PA, et al. Sweet’s syndrome in a patient with metastatic melanoma after ipilimumab therapy. Melanoma Res. 2013;23:498-501.
  11. Topalian SL, Sznol M, McDermott DF, et al. Survival, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in patients with advanced melanoma receiving nivolumab. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1020-1030.
  12. Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2507-2516.
  13. Lacouture ME, Duvic M, Hauschild A, et al. Analysis of dermatologic events in vemurafenib-treated patients with melanoma. Oncologist. 2013;18:314-322.
  14. Martinez-Garcia E, Taibjee S, Koch D, et al. Vemurafenib-induced hyperkeratosis of the areola treated with topical adapalene [published online February 22, 2015]. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2016;41:148-151.
  15. Sanlorenzo M, Choudhry A, Vujic I, et al. Comparative profile of cutaneous adverse events: BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination therapy versus BRAF monotherapy in melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:1102-1109.
  16. Boussemart L, Boivin C, Claveau J, et al. Vemurafenib and radiosensitization. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149:855-857.
  17. Ducassou A, David I, Delannes M, et al. Radiosensitization induced by vemurafenib. Cancer Radiother. 2013;17:304-307.
  18. Peuvrel L, Ruellan AL, Thillays F, et al. Severe radiotherapy-induced extracutaneous toxicity under vemurafenib. Eur J Dermatol. 2013;23:879-881.
  19. Satzger I, Degen A, Asper H, et al. Serious skin toxicity with the combination of BRAF inhibitors and radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:e220-e222.
  20. Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:711-723.
  21. Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, et al. Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:134-144.
  22. Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR, et al. Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2443-2454.
  23. Ribas A, Kefford R, Marshall MA, et al. Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:616-622.
  24. Corsello SM, Barnabei A, Marchetti P, et al. Endocrine side effects induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98:1361-1375.
  25. Ryder M, Callahan M, Postow MA, et al. Endocrine-related adverse events following ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma: a comprehensive retrospective review from a single institution. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2014;21:371-381.
  26. Yu C, Chopra IJ, Ha E. A novel melanoma therapy stirs up a storm: ipilimumab-induced thyrotoxicosis. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2015;2015:140092.
  27. Klein O, Ribas A, Chmielowski B, et al. Facial palsy as a side effect of vemurafenib treatment in patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:e215-e217.
  28. Muluneh B, Buie LW, Collichio F. Vemurafenib-associated pancreatitis: case report. Pharmacotherapy. 2013;33:e43-e44.
  29. Flaherty L, Hamid O, Linette G, et al. A single-arm, open-label, expanded access study of vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma in the United States. Cancer J. 2014;20:18-24.
  30. Wolf SE, Meenken C, Moll AC, et al. Severe pan-uveitis in a patient treated with vemurafenib for metastatic melanoma. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:561.
  31. Sandhu SS, Ling C, Lim L, et al. Vemurafenib (B-RAF inhibitor) associated uveitis in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;40:118.
  32. Joshi L, Karydis A, Gemenetzi M, et al. Uveitis as a result of MAP kinase pathway inhibition. Case Rep Ophthalmol. 2013;4:279-282.
  33. Robinson MR, Chan CC, Yang JC, et al. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma: a new cause of uveitis. J Immunother. 2004;27:478-479.
  34. Regnier-Rosencher E, Lazareth H, Gressier L, et al. Acute kidney injury in patients with severe rash on vemurafenib treatment for metastatic melanomas. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169:934-938.
  35. Izzedine H, Gueutin V, Gharbi C, et al. Kidney injuries related to ipilimumab [published online April 1, 2014]. Invest New Drugs. 2014;32:769-773.
  36. Akhtari M, Waller EK, Jaye DL, et al. Neutropenia in a patient treated with ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 antibody). J Immunother. 2009;32:322-324.
  37. Gordon IO, Wade T, Chin K, et al. Immune mediated red cell aplasia after anti-CTLA-4 immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2009;58:1351-1353.
  38. Kopecký J, Trojanová P, Kubeček O, et al. Treatment possibilities of ipilimumab-induced thrombocytopenia—case study and literature review. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45:381-384.
  39. Gettings EJ, Hackett CT, Scott TF. Severe relapse in a multiple sclerosis patient associated with ipilimumab treatment of melanoma. Mult Scler. 2015;21:670.
References
  1. Ito A, Kondo S, Tada K, et al. Clinical development of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:605478.
  2. Flaherty KT, Infante JR, Daud A, et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1694-1703.
  3. Ascierto PA, Schadendorf D, Berking C, et al. MEK162 for patients with advanced melanoma harbouring NRAS or Val600 BRAF mutations: a non-randomised, open-label phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:249-256.
  4. Livingstone E, Zimmer L, Vaubel J, et al. BRAF, MEK and KIT inhibitors for melanoma: adverse events and their management. Chin Clin Oncol. 2014;3:29.
  5. Schmerling RA. Toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors. Chin Clin Oncol. 2014;3:31.
  6. Yervoy [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; 2011.
  7. Weber JS, Kähler KC, Hauschild A. Management of immune-related adverse events and kinetics of response with ipilimumab. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2691-2697.
  8. Lacouture ME, Wolchok JD, Yosipovitch G, et al. Ipilimumab in patients with cancer and the management of dermatologic adverse events. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:161-169.
  9. Wolchok JD, Neyns B, Linette G, et al. Ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2, dose-ranging study [published online December 8, 2009]. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:155-164.
  10. Pintova S, Sidhu H, Friedlander PA, et al. Sweet’s syndrome in a patient with metastatic melanoma after ipilimumab therapy. Melanoma Res. 2013;23:498-501.
  11. Topalian SL, Sznol M, McDermott DF, et al. Survival, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in patients with advanced melanoma receiving nivolumab. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1020-1030.
  12. Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2507-2516.
  13. Lacouture ME, Duvic M, Hauschild A, et al. Analysis of dermatologic events in vemurafenib-treated patients with melanoma. Oncologist. 2013;18:314-322.
  14. Martinez-Garcia E, Taibjee S, Koch D, et al. Vemurafenib-induced hyperkeratosis of the areola treated with topical adapalene [published online February 22, 2015]. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2016;41:148-151.
  15. Sanlorenzo M, Choudhry A, Vujic I, et al. Comparative profile of cutaneous adverse events: BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination therapy versus BRAF monotherapy in melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:1102-1109.
  16. Boussemart L, Boivin C, Claveau J, et al. Vemurafenib and radiosensitization. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149:855-857.
  17. Ducassou A, David I, Delannes M, et al. Radiosensitization induced by vemurafenib. Cancer Radiother. 2013;17:304-307.
  18. Peuvrel L, Ruellan AL, Thillays F, et al. Severe radiotherapy-induced extracutaneous toxicity under vemurafenib. Eur J Dermatol. 2013;23:879-881.
  19. Satzger I, Degen A, Asper H, et al. Serious skin toxicity with the combination of BRAF inhibitors and radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:e220-e222.
  20. Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:711-723.
  21. Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, et al. Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:134-144.
  22. Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR, et al. Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2443-2454.
  23. Ribas A, Kefford R, Marshall MA, et al. Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:616-622.
  24. Corsello SM, Barnabei A, Marchetti P, et al. Endocrine side effects induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98:1361-1375.
  25. Ryder M, Callahan M, Postow MA, et al. Endocrine-related adverse events following ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma: a comprehensive retrospective review from a single institution. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2014;21:371-381.
  26. Yu C, Chopra IJ, Ha E. A novel melanoma therapy stirs up a storm: ipilimumab-induced thyrotoxicosis. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2015;2015:140092.
  27. Klein O, Ribas A, Chmielowski B, et al. Facial palsy as a side effect of vemurafenib treatment in patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:e215-e217.
  28. Muluneh B, Buie LW, Collichio F. Vemurafenib-associated pancreatitis: case report. Pharmacotherapy. 2013;33:e43-e44.
  29. Flaherty L, Hamid O, Linette G, et al. A single-arm, open-label, expanded access study of vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma in the United States. Cancer J. 2014;20:18-24.
  30. Wolf SE, Meenken C, Moll AC, et al. Severe pan-uveitis in a patient treated with vemurafenib for metastatic melanoma. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:561.
  31. Sandhu SS, Ling C, Lim L, et al. Vemurafenib (B-RAF inhibitor) associated uveitis in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;40:118.
  32. Joshi L, Karydis A, Gemenetzi M, et al. Uveitis as a result of MAP kinase pathway inhibition. Case Rep Ophthalmol. 2013;4:279-282.
  33. Robinson MR, Chan CC, Yang JC, et al. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma: a new cause of uveitis. J Immunother. 2004;27:478-479.
  34. Regnier-Rosencher E, Lazareth H, Gressier L, et al. Acute kidney injury in patients with severe rash on vemurafenib treatment for metastatic melanomas. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169:934-938.
  35. Izzedine H, Gueutin V, Gharbi C, et al. Kidney injuries related to ipilimumab [published online April 1, 2014]. Invest New Drugs. 2014;32:769-773.
  36. Akhtari M, Waller EK, Jaye DL, et al. Neutropenia in a patient treated with ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 antibody). J Immunother. 2009;32:322-324.
  37. Gordon IO, Wade T, Chin K, et al. Immune mediated red cell aplasia after anti-CTLA-4 immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2009;58:1351-1353.
  38. Kopecký J, Trojanová P, Kubeček O, et al. Treatment possibilities of ipilimumab-induced thrombocytopenia—case study and literature review. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45:381-384.
  39. Gettings EJ, Hackett CT, Scott TF. Severe relapse in a multiple sclerosis patient associated with ipilimumab treatment of melanoma. Mult Scler. 2015;21:670.
Issue
Cutis - 97(6)
Issue
Cutis - 97(6)
Page Number
426-428
Page Number
426-428
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Novel Melanoma Therapies and Their Side Effects
Display Headline
Novel Melanoma Therapies and Their Side Effects
Legacy Keywords
melanoma
Legacy Keywords
melanoma
Sections
Inside the Article

Practice Points

  • Immune checkpoint inhibitors can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which most commonly involve the skin but also involve the gastrointestinal, hepatic, endocrine, and neurologic systems.
  • These irAEs can be treated with corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor α antagonists, and mycopheno-late mofetil.
Disallow All Ads
Article PDF Media

Could a Specific Dietary Intake Be a Risk Factor for Cutaneous Melanoma?

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Could a Specific Dietary Intake Be a Risk Factor for Cutaneous Melanoma?

The incidence of cutaneous melanoma (CM) has increased, warranting further study of new risk factors.1,2 Hereditary risk factors for CM include light-colored eyes; fair skin; light brown, blonde, or red hair; tendency to burn; high density of freckles; history of other types of skin cancer; high number of common, atypical, and/or congenital nevi; and family history of skin cancer, as well as risks related to the presence of CDKN2A, BRAF, and MC1R gene mutations. Environmental risk factors include UV exposure from sunlight or tanning beds, among others.3-5

Nutritional factors also have been suggested as possible modifiable risk factors for CM.6 Evidence from epidemiological studies show that diets rich in fruits and vegetables are associated with lower risks for several types of cancer.7,8 A growing number of studies have assessed the effects of diet and the intake of nutrients on the prevention of cancer, specifically the use of dietary supplements to protect the skin from the adverse effects of UV light.6

Preformed vitamin A (ie, retinol) is necessary for the regulation of cell differentiation and also can reduce the incidence of skin tumors in animals exposed to UV light. Certain carotenoids such as α-carotene and β-carotene are metabolized to retinol. These retinol precursors, along with antioxidant nutrients, are important components of fruits and vegetables and may account for the observed anticancer effects of these foods.8

The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between dietary intake and the risk for CM.

Methods

Participants

A case-control study was carried out between 2012 and 2013 at 3 reference centers in Porto Alegre, Brazil—Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, and Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre—for the treatment of patients with CM. Enrolled patients were 18 years and older with a diagnosis of primary CM confirmed by histology. Controls were selected from patients at the same centers, and they were enrolled and matched by institution. Controls were frequency matched to cases by sex and age (+/– 5 years). Exclusion criteria for controls were those presenting with suspicious lesions and those needing radiation therapy or chemotherapy due to other diseases. The study was approved by the ethics committees of the participating centers and informed consent was obtained from all participants. A total of 191 participants (95 cases; 96 controls) were enrolled in the study.

Data Collection

After informed consent was obtained, participants were interviewed and were clinically examined by an experienced dermatologist (C.B.H. and M.M.S.). The questionnaire included sociodemographic variables, medical history, phenotypic characteristics (ie, Fitzpatrick skin type, skin/hair/eye color), family history of skin cancer, history of sunlight exposure, history of sunburns, use of artificial tanning, sunscreen use, and detailed dietary intake. Physical examination included the assessment of several melanocytic lesions (nevi, freckles/ephelides, lentigines, and café au lait spots), actinic keratoses, solar elastosis, and nonmelanocytic tumors following the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) protocol.9

Using a food frequency questionnaire, participants were asked to report their usual frequency of consumption of each food from a list of 36 foods. The frequency of intake of all groups of food and beverages was defined according to the following scale: never, rarely (less than once monthly), once or twice weekly, 3 to 4 times weekly, 5 to 7 times weekly, and more than 7 times weekly. Combination of categories was based on the overall distribution among controls. Therefore, for some items such as mussels and fresh herbs, only 2 categories were used.

Statistical Analysis

A descriptive statistical analysis of the results was performed using SPSS version 20.0 with absolute and relative frequencies for the categorical variables, and mean, SD, and median for the continuous variables. The symmetry of distributions was investigated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.

A t test for independent groups was applied for the continuous variables, while the Pearson χ2 test was used for the categorical variables. The Fisher exact test was used in situations in which at least 25% of the values of the cells presented an expected frequency of less than 5. Monte Carlo simulation was used when at least 1 variable had a polytomic characteristic. Odds ratio (OR) was used to estimate the strength of the association between exposures and outcome. An unconditional binary logistic regression was used to study the association between dietary variables and the risk for CM. To obtain unbiased estimates, multivariate analyses were performed controlling for 1 or more confounding variables. Using low exposure as a base category, the risks and 95% CIs were calculated for the high-exposure categories. Based on the results of bivariate analyses, variables with P≤.25 or lower were included in the models. The likelihood ratio test was used to decide which covariates should be maintained in the model. To test the goodness of fit of the models, the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic was used.

 

 

Potential confounding factors considered in the logistic regression model were sex; age; education level; skin, hair, and eye color; Fitzpatrick skin type; presence of freckles, solar lentigines, and actinic keratosis; history of nonmelanoma skin cancer; number of melanocytic nevi; family history of skin cancer; sunburns in adulthood (≥6 episodes a year); occupational sun exposure; and history of sunscreen use in adulthood.

Results

A total of 191 participants were enrolled in the study (95 [49.7%] cases; 96 [50.3%] controls). Most participants were female (60.0% of cases; 59.4% of controls). The mean age (SD) of cases and controls was 56.8 (13.9) years and 56.5 (13.2) years, respectively. Mean body mass index (SD) did not differ between cases (27.2 [4.6]) and controls (28.2 [6.5]). Education levels of 8 years or less predominated in both groups (64.2% of cases; 57.3% of controls). No statistical difference was found for sex, age, education, or body mass index. The most frequent anatomic sites of CM were the trunk (54.7%) and arms (20.0%), and the most frequent histological type was superficial spreading (62.8%). The median Breslow thickness was 0.90 mm. Ulceration was observed in 20.9% of the cases, and 67% of participants with CM had a high mitotic rate (≥1 mitosis per square millimeter).

Phenotypic characteristics associated with an increased risk for melanoma were light brown hair (OR, 6.73; 95% CI, 3.30-14.2), blonde/red hair (OR, 21.7; 95% CI, 7.51-63.1), light-colored eyes (eg, blue, gray, green)(OR, 13.2; 95% CI, 6.13-28.7), light brown eyes (OR, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.24-11.5), and Fitzpatrick skin types I and II (OR, 7.37; 95% CI, 2.90-26.1). Family history of skin cancer was associated with an increased risk for CM (OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 1.86-10.7) as well as sunburns in adulthood (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.17-1.99). Regular sunscreen use in adulthood had a 5-fold increased risk for CM compared to not using sunscreen regularly (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.85-10.7). Regarding pigmented lesions, the presence of solar lentigines (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.2-11.2), 60 or more nevi (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.4-12.7), and freckles (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.82-7.64) were all associated with an increased risk for CM. Solar elastosis (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.08-5.85), actinic keratosis (OR, 9.1, 95% CI, 3.97-20.84), and occupational exposure to sun (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.23-5.38) also were associated with an increased risk for melanoma.

The intake of most of the foods and beverages included in the study showed no association with CM. High frequency of butter intake (more than daily) was a protective factor for CM (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.16-0.70) compared to low-frequency consumption (daily and less than daily). Consumption of mussels (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97) and oregano (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.66) also were shown to be protective against CM (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97). Regarding beverages, those in the highest categories of consumption—liquor (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.09-4.12) and spirits (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.16-4.68)—were associated with an increased risk for CM.

To identify the relationship between CM and the consumption of some foods that were relevant on bivariate analysis, we performed a multivariate model. When adjustments were made, the association remained for butter (OR, 0.141; 95% CI, 0.032-0.613) and oregano (OR, 0.176; 95% CI, 0.042-0.735), while the risk associated with the consumption of both liquor (OR, 1.511; 95% CI, 0.39-5.90) and spirits (OR, 0.755; 95% CI, 0.130-4.393) disappeared (Table).

Comment

Observational studies show that diets rich in fruits and vegetables are associated with a lower risk for different types of cancers.7,8 According to some studies, more than 30% of cancers in adulthood could be prevented or delayed by appropriate dietary intake and physical activity.10 However, there are still limited data on some specific cancers such as CM.

Substantial differences in the incidence of CM among different populations have suggested that environmental factors may play an etiological role in the development of CM and diet could be one of the modifiable risk factors.11-13

Initially, we assessed the already known risk factors for CM, and results showed a significantly increased risk for participants with light brown, blonde, or red hair (P<.0001); light-colored and light brown eyes (P<.0001); Fitzpatrick skin types I and II (P<.0001); positive family history of skin cancer (P=.001); the presence of solar lentigines (P<.001), freckles (P<.001), and actinic keratosis (P<.0001); and high number of nevi (P<.0001). Sunburns in adulthood (P<.001) were associated with an increased risk for CM, and our findings are in agreement with the literature.12

Besides confirming the well-known risk factors for CM, our study also showed that some foods (eg, butter, oregano) may act as important protective factors in CM. It could be argued that the increased risks associated with the well-known risk factors (eg, Fitzpatrick skin type, number of sunburns) might not be as strong and/or could be modulated by dietary factors. To further elucidate this critical issue, we analyzed our data by examining the joint relationship between dietary consumption, individual characteristics, sun exposure, and melanoma. We conducted a multivariable analysis controlling for the well-known risk factors and our findings suggest that both butter and oregano, foods that are rich in vitamins A and D, are independent and protective risk factors for melanoma.

 

 

Vitamin A (retinol) is a fat-soluble, organic compound that cannot be synthesized by humans but is necessary for normal physiological function and therefore is classified as an essential nutrient. The main source of vitamin A in the human diet is from retinyl esters, mostly from animal products such as dairy products (eg, butter) as well as from plant-based, provitamin A carotenoids (α-carotene, β-carotene) that can be converted to retinol in the intestines.14

Some case-control studies have investigated the association of vitamin A intake and CM risk, reporting mixed findings. Naldi et al15 found a notable inverse association between vitamin A intake and CM risk. Le Marchand et al16 found no inverse association for carotenoids or retinol. Kirkpatrick et al17 found no evidence of a protective effect for vitamin A or carotenoids on CM. However, the Nurses’ Health Study and the Nurses’ Health Study II reported inverse associations between CM and retinol from foods and dietary supplements.8

Dairy products such as butter contain several components considered to be potentially anticarcinogenic, such as calcium, vitamin D, butyric acid, conjugated linoleic acid, sphingolipids, and probiotic bacteria. Some studies found an inverted association between melanoma and high intake of dairy products or other dietary sources of vitamin D, while some investigators showed no association.6,18

Fortes et al18 assessed the role of diet on CM and found no protective effects of butter intake against the development of melanoma; however, a protective effect was found for carrots, which are rich in provitamin A (β-carotene) and for the regular intake of herbs rich in polyphenols (eg, rosemary). In our study, we found a protective effect against CM for butter but not for other dairy products. These findings could be explained by the high content of vitamin A in butter in comparison to other dairy products. Habitual intake of oregano also was associated with a protective effect for CM. Oregano is rich in polyphenols such as carvacrol, thymol, and rosmarinic acid, which are known for their antioxidant capacities and the inhibition of cyclooxygenase.19-21 At experimental levels, both carvacrol and thymol have been shown to inhibit the growth of melanoma cells.19,20 Rosmarinic acid, contained by both rosemary and oregano, have been shown at experimental levels to have photoprotective effects against melanoma.21

The relationship between dietary and nutritional intake and CM has a great potential that should be further explored. Tong and Young22 showed that proanthocyanidins found in grape seeds, epigallocatechin-3-gallate, resveratrol, rosmarinic acid, lycopene, and fig latex have demonstrated clear anticancer effects toward melanoma.

The strength of this study is the high response rate of both cases and controls and the use of incidence melanoma cases that decrease recall bias. A limitation of our study is that food portions were based on average portion size for each food item and therefore it can capture habitual consumption but not calculate actual nutrient intake. Misclassification of dietary exposure also could be a problem. Part of this misclassification is a result of a food frequency questionnaire being an imperfect measure of dietary history; however, we evaluated the reproducibility of the food frequency questionnaire used in this case-control study. Overall, there was a fair to good reproducibility between answers in 2 different periods (12 months apart). For example, agreement for frequency of intake of fresh herbs, tomatoes, and butter were 90.8%, 83.1%, and 83.3%, respectively.

Our sample size had sufficient statistical power to detect the effects of diet on CM.

Conclusion

Our study indicates that butter and oregano intake seem to have a protective role against the development of CM. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

References
  1. Gilchrest B, Eller MS, Geller AC, et al. The pathogenesis of melanoma induced by ultraviolet radiation. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1341-1347.
  2. Lotti T, Bruscino N, Hercogova J, et al. Controversial issues on melanoma. Dermatol Ther. 2012;25:458-462.
  3. Ródenas JM, Delgado-Rodríguez M, Herranz MT, et al. Sun exposure, pigmentary traits, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma: a case-control study in a Mediterranean population. Cancer Causes Control. 1996;7:275-283.
  4. Autier P, Doré JF. Influence of sun exposures during childhood and during adulthood on melanoma risk. EEPIMEL and EORTC. Melanoma Cooperative Group. European Organization for research and treatment of cancer. Int J Cancer. 1998;77:533-537.
  5. Fortes C, Mastroeni S, Melchi F, et al. The association between residential pesticide use and cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1066-1075.
  6. Jensen JD, Wing GJ, Dellavalle RP. Nutrition and melanoma prevention. Clin Dermatol. 2010;28:644-649.
  7. Millen AE, Tucker MA, Hartge P, et al. Diet and melanoma in a case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:1042-1051.
  8. Feskanich D, Willett WC, Hunter DJ, et al. Dietary intakes of vitamins A, C, and E and risk of melanoma in two cohorts of women. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:1381-1387.
  9. English DR, Mac Lennan R, Rivers J, et al. Epidemiological studies of melanocytic naevi: protocol for identifying and recording naevi. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) internal report. No. 90/002. Lyon, France: IARC; 1990.
  10. Cancer preventability statistics. World Cancer Research Fund website. http://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/preventing-cancer/cancer-preventability-statistics. Accessed May 24, 2016.
  11. Gandini S, Raimondi S, Gnagnarella P, et al. Vitamin D and skin cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:634-641.
  12. Gandini S, Sera F, Cattaruzza MS, et al. Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: II. sun exposure. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:45-60.
  13. Volkovova K, Bilanicova D, Bartonova A, et al. Associations between environmental factors and incidence of cutaneous melanoma. review. Environ Health. 2012;11(11, suppl 1):S12.
  14. Asgari MM, Brasky TM, White E. Association of vitamin A and carotenoid intake with melanoma risk in a large prospective cohort. J Invest Dermatol. 2012;132:1573-1582.
  15. Naldi L, Gallus S, Tavani A, et al. Risk of melanoma and vitamin A, coffee and alcohol: a case-control study from Italy. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2004;13:503-508.
  16. Le Marchand L, Saltzman BS, Hankin JH, et al. Sun exposure, diet, and melanoma in Hawaii Caucasians. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164:232-245.
  17. Kirkpatrick CS, White E, Lee JA. Case-control study of malignant melanoma in Washington State. II. diet, alcohol, and obesity. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;139:869-880.
  18. Fortes C, Mastroeni S, Melchi F, et al. A protective effect of the Mediterranean diet for cutaneous melanoma. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37:1018-1029.
  19. Landa P, Kokoska L, Pribylova M, et al. In vitro anti-inflammatory activity of carvacrol: inhibitory effect on COX-2 catalyzed prostaglandin E(2) biosynthesis. Arch Pharm Res. 2009;32:75-78.
  20. He L, Mo H, Hadisusilo S, et al. Isoprenoids suppress the growth of murine B16 melanomas in vitro and in vivo. J Nutr. 1997;127:668-674.
  21. Sánchez-Campillo M, Gabaldon JA, Castillo J, et al. Rosmarinic acid, a photo-protective agent against UV and other ionizing radiations. Food Chem Toxicol. 2009;47:386-392.
  22. Tong LX, Young LC. Nutrition: the future of melanoma prevention? J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:151-160.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Drs. Hohmann, Bonamigo, Segatto, and Costa are from Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Brazil. Drs. Hohmann, Bonamigo, and Segatto are from the Post-Graduate Program of Pathology. Dr. Bonamigo also is from the Dermatology Service. Drs. Mastroeni and Fortes are from the Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata, Rome, Italy.

This study was carried out with the financial support of CAPES (Comissão de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal do Nível Superior) Scientific Initiation Scholarship. This work was conducted within a collaborative study “Italian Ministry of Health, RC:5.1.” The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Clarissa Barlem Hohmann, MSc, Travessa Jaguarão, 45/1007, 90520070 Porto Alegre/RS–Brazil, 55 51 98069814 (clabarlem@hotmail.com).

Issue
Cutis - 97(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
421-425
Legacy Keywords
diet, melanoma, risk factors for melanoma, vitamins, nutrition, dietary risk factors, diet and melanoma
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Drs. Hohmann, Bonamigo, Segatto, and Costa are from Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Brazil. Drs. Hohmann, Bonamigo, and Segatto are from the Post-Graduate Program of Pathology. Dr. Bonamigo also is from the Dermatology Service. Drs. Mastroeni and Fortes are from the Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata, Rome, Italy.

This study was carried out with the financial support of CAPES (Comissão de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal do Nível Superior) Scientific Initiation Scholarship. This work was conducted within a collaborative study “Italian Ministry of Health, RC:5.1.” The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Clarissa Barlem Hohmann, MSc, Travessa Jaguarão, 45/1007, 90520070 Porto Alegre/RS–Brazil, 55 51 98069814 (clabarlem@hotmail.com).

Author and Disclosure Information

Drs. Hohmann, Bonamigo, Segatto, and Costa are from Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Brazil. Drs. Hohmann, Bonamigo, and Segatto are from the Post-Graduate Program of Pathology. Dr. Bonamigo also is from the Dermatology Service. Drs. Mastroeni and Fortes are from the Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata, Rome, Italy.

This study was carried out with the financial support of CAPES (Comissão de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal do Nível Superior) Scientific Initiation Scholarship. This work was conducted within a collaborative study “Italian Ministry of Health, RC:5.1.” The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Clarissa Barlem Hohmann, MSc, Travessa Jaguarão, 45/1007, 90520070 Porto Alegre/RS–Brazil, 55 51 98069814 (clabarlem@hotmail.com).

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

The incidence of cutaneous melanoma (CM) has increased, warranting further study of new risk factors.1,2 Hereditary risk factors for CM include light-colored eyes; fair skin; light brown, blonde, or red hair; tendency to burn; high density of freckles; history of other types of skin cancer; high number of common, atypical, and/or congenital nevi; and family history of skin cancer, as well as risks related to the presence of CDKN2A, BRAF, and MC1R gene mutations. Environmental risk factors include UV exposure from sunlight or tanning beds, among others.3-5

Nutritional factors also have been suggested as possible modifiable risk factors for CM.6 Evidence from epidemiological studies show that diets rich in fruits and vegetables are associated with lower risks for several types of cancer.7,8 A growing number of studies have assessed the effects of diet and the intake of nutrients on the prevention of cancer, specifically the use of dietary supplements to protect the skin from the adverse effects of UV light.6

Preformed vitamin A (ie, retinol) is necessary for the regulation of cell differentiation and also can reduce the incidence of skin tumors in animals exposed to UV light. Certain carotenoids such as α-carotene and β-carotene are metabolized to retinol. These retinol precursors, along with antioxidant nutrients, are important components of fruits and vegetables and may account for the observed anticancer effects of these foods.8

The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between dietary intake and the risk for CM.

Methods

Participants

A case-control study was carried out between 2012 and 2013 at 3 reference centers in Porto Alegre, Brazil—Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, and Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre—for the treatment of patients with CM. Enrolled patients were 18 years and older with a diagnosis of primary CM confirmed by histology. Controls were selected from patients at the same centers, and they were enrolled and matched by institution. Controls were frequency matched to cases by sex and age (+/– 5 years). Exclusion criteria for controls were those presenting with suspicious lesions and those needing radiation therapy or chemotherapy due to other diseases. The study was approved by the ethics committees of the participating centers and informed consent was obtained from all participants. A total of 191 participants (95 cases; 96 controls) were enrolled in the study.

Data Collection

After informed consent was obtained, participants were interviewed and were clinically examined by an experienced dermatologist (C.B.H. and M.M.S.). The questionnaire included sociodemographic variables, medical history, phenotypic characteristics (ie, Fitzpatrick skin type, skin/hair/eye color), family history of skin cancer, history of sunlight exposure, history of sunburns, use of artificial tanning, sunscreen use, and detailed dietary intake. Physical examination included the assessment of several melanocytic lesions (nevi, freckles/ephelides, lentigines, and café au lait spots), actinic keratoses, solar elastosis, and nonmelanocytic tumors following the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) protocol.9

Using a food frequency questionnaire, participants were asked to report their usual frequency of consumption of each food from a list of 36 foods. The frequency of intake of all groups of food and beverages was defined according to the following scale: never, rarely (less than once monthly), once or twice weekly, 3 to 4 times weekly, 5 to 7 times weekly, and more than 7 times weekly. Combination of categories was based on the overall distribution among controls. Therefore, for some items such as mussels and fresh herbs, only 2 categories were used.

Statistical Analysis

A descriptive statistical analysis of the results was performed using SPSS version 20.0 with absolute and relative frequencies for the categorical variables, and mean, SD, and median for the continuous variables. The symmetry of distributions was investigated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.

A t test for independent groups was applied for the continuous variables, while the Pearson χ2 test was used for the categorical variables. The Fisher exact test was used in situations in which at least 25% of the values of the cells presented an expected frequency of less than 5. Monte Carlo simulation was used when at least 1 variable had a polytomic characteristic. Odds ratio (OR) was used to estimate the strength of the association between exposures and outcome. An unconditional binary logistic regression was used to study the association between dietary variables and the risk for CM. To obtain unbiased estimates, multivariate analyses were performed controlling for 1 or more confounding variables. Using low exposure as a base category, the risks and 95% CIs were calculated for the high-exposure categories. Based on the results of bivariate analyses, variables with P≤.25 or lower were included in the models. The likelihood ratio test was used to decide which covariates should be maintained in the model. To test the goodness of fit of the models, the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic was used.

 

 

Potential confounding factors considered in the logistic regression model were sex; age; education level; skin, hair, and eye color; Fitzpatrick skin type; presence of freckles, solar lentigines, and actinic keratosis; history of nonmelanoma skin cancer; number of melanocytic nevi; family history of skin cancer; sunburns in adulthood (≥6 episodes a year); occupational sun exposure; and history of sunscreen use in adulthood.

Results

A total of 191 participants were enrolled in the study (95 [49.7%] cases; 96 [50.3%] controls). Most participants were female (60.0% of cases; 59.4% of controls). The mean age (SD) of cases and controls was 56.8 (13.9) years and 56.5 (13.2) years, respectively. Mean body mass index (SD) did not differ between cases (27.2 [4.6]) and controls (28.2 [6.5]). Education levels of 8 years or less predominated in both groups (64.2% of cases; 57.3% of controls). No statistical difference was found for sex, age, education, or body mass index. The most frequent anatomic sites of CM were the trunk (54.7%) and arms (20.0%), and the most frequent histological type was superficial spreading (62.8%). The median Breslow thickness was 0.90 mm. Ulceration was observed in 20.9% of the cases, and 67% of participants with CM had a high mitotic rate (≥1 mitosis per square millimeter).

Phenotypic characteristics associated with an increased risk for melanoma were light brown hair (OR, 6.73; 95% CI, 3.30-14.2), blonde/red hair (OR, 21.7; 95% CI, 7.51-63.1), light-colored eyes (eg, blue, gray, green)(OR, 13.2; 95% CI, 6.13-28.7), light brown eyes (OR, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.24-11.5), and Fitzpatrick skin types I and II (OR, 7.37; 95% CI, 2.90-26.1). Family history of skin cancer was associated with an increased risk for CM (OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 1.86-10.7) as well as sunburns in adulthood (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.17-1.99). Regular sunscreen use in adulthood had a 5-fold increased risk for CM compared to not using sunscreen regularly (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.85-10.7). Regarding pigmented lesions, the presence of solar lentigines (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.2-11.2), 60 or more nevi (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.4-12.7), and freckles (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.82-7.64) were all associated with an increased risk for CM. Solar elastosis (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.08-5.85), actinic keratosis (OR, 9.1, 95% CI, 3.97-20.84), and occupational exposure to sun (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.23-5.38) also were associated with an increased risk for melanoma.

The intake of most of the foods and beverages included in the study showed no association with CM. High frequency of butter intake (more than daily) was a protective factor for CM (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.16-0.70) compared to low-frequency consumption (daily and less than daily). Consumption of mussels (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97) and oregano (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.66) also were shown to be protective against CM (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97). Regarding beverages, those in the highest categories of consumption—liquor (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.09-4.12) and spirits (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.16-4.68)—were associated with an increased risk for CM.

To identify the relationship between CM and the consumption of some foods that were relevant on bivariate analysis, we performed a multivariate model. When adjustments were made, the association remained for butter (OR, 0.141; 95% CI, 0.032-0.613) and oregano (OR, 0.176; 95% CI, 0.042-0.735), while the risk associated with the consumption of both liquor (OR, 1.511; 95% CI, 0.39-5.90) and spirits (OR, 0.755; 95% CI, 0.130-4.393) disappeared (Table).

Comment

Observational studies show that diets rich in fruits and vegetables are associated with a lower risk for different types of cancers.7,8 According to some studies, more than 30% of cancers in adulthood could be prevented or delayed by appropriate dietary intake and physical activity.10 However, there are still limited data on some specific cancers such as CM.

Substantial differences in the incidence of CM among different populations have suggested that environmental factors may play an etiological role in the development of CM and diet could be one of the modifiable risk factors.11-13

Initially, we assessed the already known risk factors for CM, and results showed a significantly increased risk for participants with light brown, blonde, or red hair (P<.0001); light-colored and light brown eyes (P<.0001); Fitzpatrick skin types I and II (P<.0001); positive family history of skin cancer (P=.001); the presence of solar lentigines (P<.001), freckles (P<.001), and actinic keratosis (P<.0001); and high number of nevi (P<.0001). Sunburns in adulthood (P<.001) were associated with an increased risk for CM, and our findings are in agreement with the literature.12

Besides confirming the well-known risk factors for CM, our study also showed that some foods (eg, butter, oregano) may act as important protective factors in CM. It could be argued that the increased risks associated with the well-known risk factors (eg, Fitzpatrick skin type, number of sunburns) might not be as strong and/or could be modulated by dietary factors. To further elucidate this critical issue, we analyzed our data by examining the joint relationship between dietary consumption, individual characteristics, sun exposure, and melanoma. We conducted a multivariable analysis controlling for the well-known risk factors and our findings suggest that both butter and oregano, foods that are rich in vitamins A and D, are independent and protective risk factors for melanoma.

 

 

Vitamin A (retinol) is a fat-soluble, organic compound that cannot be synthesized by humans but is necessary for normal physiological function and therefore is classified as an essential nutrient. The main source of vitamin A in the human diet is from retinyl esters, mostly from animal products such as dairy products (eg, butter) as well as from plant-based, provitamin A carotenoids (α-carotene, β-carotene) that can be converted to retinol in the intestines.14

Some case-control studies have investigated the association of vitamin A intake and CM risk, reporting mixed findings. Naldi et al15 found a notable inverse association between vitamin A intake and CM risk. Le Marchand et al16 found no inverse association for carotenoids or retinol. Kirkpatrick et al17 found no evidence of a protective effect for vitamin A or carotenoids on CM. However, the Nurses’ Health Study and the Nurses’ Health Study II reported inverse associations between CM and retinol from foods and dietary supplements.8

Dairy products such as butter contain several components considered to be potentially anticarcinogenic, such as calcium, vitamin D, butyric acid, conjugated linoleic acid, sphingolipids, and probiotic bacteria. Some studies found an inverted association between melanoma and high intake of dairy products or other dietary sources of vitamin D, while some investigators showed no association.6,18

Fortes et al18 assessed the role of diet on CM and found no protective effects of butter intake against the development of melanoma; however, a protective effect was found for carrots, which are rich in provitamin A (β-carotene) and for the regular intake of herbs rich in polyphenols (eg, rosemary). In our study, we found a protective effect against CM for butter but not for other dairy products. These findings could be explained by the high content of vitamin A in butter in comparison to other dairy products. Habitual intake of oregano also was associated with a protective effect for CM. Oregano is rich in polyphenols such as carvacrol, thymol, and rosmarinic acid, which are known for their antioxidant capacities and the inhibition of cyclooxygenase.19-21 At experimental levels, both carvacrol and thymol have been shown to inhibit the growth of melanoma cells.19,20 Rosmarinic acid, contained by both rosemary and oregano, have been shown at experimental levels to have photoprotective effects against melanoma.21

The relationship between dietary and nutritional intake and CM has a great potential that should be further explored. Tong and Young22 showed that proanthocyanidins found in grape seeds, epigallocatechin-3-gallate, resveratrol, rosmarinic acid, lycopene, and fig latex have demonstrated clear anticancer effects toward melanoma.

The strength of this study is the high response rate of both cases and controls and the use of incidence melanoma cases that decrease recall bias. A limitation of our study is that food portions were based on average portion size for each food item and therefore it can capture habitual consumption but not calculate actual nutrient intake. Misclassification of dietary exposure also could be a problem. Part of this misclassification is a result of a food frequency questionnaire being an imperfect measure of dietary history; however, we evaluated the reproducibility of the food frequency questionnaire used in this case-control study. Overall, there was a fair to good reproducibility between answers in 2 different periods (12 months apart). For example, agreement for frequency of intake of fresh herbs, tomatoes, and butter were 90.8%, 83.1%, and 83.3%, respectively.

Our sample size had sufficient statistical power to detect the effects of diet on CM.

Conclusion

Our study indicates that butter and oregano intake seem to have a protective role against the development of CM. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The incidence of cutaneous melanoma (CM) has increased, warranting further study of new risk factors.1,2 Hereditary risk factors for CM include light-colored eyes; fair skin; light brown, blonde, or red hair; tendency to burn; high density of freckles; history of other types of skin cancer; high number of common, atypical, and/or congenital nevi; and family history of skin cancer, as well as risks related to the presence of CDKN2A, BRAF, and MC1R gene mutations. Environmental risk factors include UV exposure from sunlight or tanning beds, among others.3-5

Nutritional factors also have been suggested as possible modifiable risk factors for CM.6 Evidence from epidemiological studies show that diets rich in fruits and vegetables are associated with lower risks for several types of cancer.7,8 A growing number of studies have assessed the effects of diet and the intake of nutrients on the prevention of cancer, specifically the use of dietary supplements to protect the skin from the adverse effects of UV light.6

Preformed vitamin A (ie, retinol) is necessary for the regulation of cell differentiation and also can reduce the incidence of skin tumors in animals exposed to UV light. Certain carotenoids such as α-carotene and β-carotene are metabolized to retinol. These retinol precursors, along with antioxidant nutrients, are important components of fruits and vegetables and may account for the observed anticancer effects of these foods.8

The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between dietary intake and the risk for CM.

Methods

Participants

A case-control study was carried out between 2012 and 2013 at 3 reference centers in Porto Alegre, Brazil—Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, and Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre—for the treatment of patients with CM. Enrolled patients were 18 years and older with a diagnosis of primary CM confirmed by histology. Controls were selected from patients at the same centers, and they were enrolled and matched by institution. Controls were frequency matched to cases by sex and age (+/– 5 years). Exclusion criteria for controls were those presenting with suspicious lesions and those needing radiation therapy or chemotherapy due to other diseases. The study was approved by the ethics committees of the participating centers and informed consent was obtained from all participants. A total of 191 participants (95 cases; 96 controls) were enrolled in the study.

Data Collection

After informed consent was obtained, participants were interviewed and were clinically examined by an experienced dermatologist (C.B.H. and M.M.S.). The questionnaire included sociodemographic variables, medical history, phenotypic characteristics (ie, Fitzpatrick skin type, skin/hair/eye color), family history of skin cancer, history of sunlight exposure, history of sunburns, use of artificial tanning, sunscreen use, and detailed dietary intake. Physical examination included the assessment of several melanocytic lesions (nevi, freckles/ephelides, lentigines, and café au lait spots), actinic keratoses, solar elastosis, and nonmelanocytic tumors following the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) protocol.9

Using a food frequency questionnaire, participants were asked to report their usual frequency of consumption of each food from a list of 36 foods. The frequency of intake of all groups of food and beverages was defined according to the following scale: never, rarely (less than once monthly), once or twice weekly, 3 to 4 times weekly, 5 to 7 times weekly, and more than 7 times weekly. Combination of categories was based on the overall distribution among controls. Therefore, for some items such as mussels and fresh herbs, only 2 categories were used.

Statistical Analysis

A descriptive statistical analysis of the results was performed using SPSS version 20.0 with absolute and relative frequencies for the categorical variables, and mean, SD, and median for the continuous variables. The symmetry of distributions was investigated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.

A t test for independent groups was applied for the continuous variables, while the Pearson χ2 test was used for the categorical variables. The Fisher exact test was used in situations in which at least 25% of the values of the cells presented an expected frequency of less than 5. Monte Carlo simulation was used when at least 1 variable had a polytomic characteristic. Odds ratio (OR) was used to estimate the strength of the association between exposures and outcome. An unconditional binary logistic regression was used to study the association between dietary variables and the risk for CM. To obtain unbiased estimates, multivariate analyses were performed controlling for 1 or more confounding variables. Using low exposure as a base category, the risks and 95% CIs were calculated for the high-exposure categories. Based on the results of bivariate analyses, variables with P≤.25 or lower were included in the models. The likelihood ratio test was used to decide which covariates should be maintained in the model. To test the goodness of fit of the models, the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic was used.

 

 

Potential confounding factors considered in the logistic regression model were sex; age; education level; skin, hair, and eye color; Fitzpatrick skin type; presence of freckles, solar lentigines, and actinic keratosis; history of nonmelanoma skin cancer; number of melanocytic nevi; family history of skin cancer; sunburns in adulthood (≥6 episodes a year); occupational sun exposure; and history of sunscreen use in adulthood.

Results

A total of 191 participants were enrolled in the study (95 [49.7%] cases; 96 [50.3%] controls). Most participants were female (60.0% of cases; 59.4% of controls). The mean age (SD) of cases and controls was 56.8 (13.9) years and 56.5 (13.2) years, respectively. Mean body mass index (SD) did not differ between cases (27.2 [4.6]) and controls (28.2 [6.5]). Education levels of 8 years or less predominated in both groups (64.2% of cases; 57.3% of controls). No statistical difference was found for sex, age, education, or body mass index. The most frequent anatomic sites of CM were the trunk (54.7%) and arms (20.0%), and the most frequent histological type was superficial spreading (62.8%). The median Breslow thickness was 0.90 mm. Ulceration was observed in 20.9% of the cases, and 67% of participants with CM had a high mitotic rate (≥1 mitosis per square millimeter).

Phenotypic characteristics associated with an increased risk for melanoma were light brown hair (OR, 6.73; 95% CI, 3.30-14.2), blonde/red hair (OR, 21.7; 95% CI, 7.51-63.1), light-colored eyes (eg, blue, gray, green)(OR, 13.2; 95% CI, 6.13-28.7), light brown eyes (OR, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.24-11.5), and Fitzpatrick skin types I and II (OR, 7.37; 95% CI, 2.90-26.1). Family history of skin cancer was associated with an increased risk for CM (OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 1.86-10.7) as well as sunburns in adulthood (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.17-1.99). Regular sunscreen use in adulthood had a 5-fold increased risk for CM compared to not using sunscreen regularly (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.85-10.7). Regarding pigmented lesions, the presence of solar lentigines (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.2-11.2), 60 or more nevi (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.4-12.7), and freckles (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.82-7.64) were all associated with an increased risk for CM. Solar elastosis (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.08-5.85), actinic keratosis (OR, 9.1, 95% CI, 3.97-20.84), and occupational exposure to sun (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.23-5.38) also were associated with an increased risk for melanoma.

The intake of most of the foods and beverages included in the study showed no association with CM. High frequency of butter intake (more than daily) was a protective factor for CM (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.16-0.70) compared to low-frequency consumption (daily and less than daily). Consumption of mussels (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97) and oregano (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.66) also were shown to be protective against CM (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97). Regarding beverages, those in the highest categories of consumption—liquor (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.09-4.12) and spirits (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.16-4.68)—were associated with an increased risk for CM.

To identify the relationship between CM and the consumption of some foods that were relevant on bivariate analysis, we performed a multivariate model. When adjustments were made, the association remained for butter (OR, 0.141; 95% CI, 0.032-0.613) and oregano (OR, 0.176; 95% CI, 0.042-0.735), while the risk associated with the consumption of both liquor (OR, 1.511; 95% CI, 0.39-5.90) and spirits (OR, 0.755; 95% CI, 0.130-4.393) disappeared (Table).

Comment

Observational studies show that diets rich in fruits and vegetables are associated with a lower risk for different types of cancers.7,8 According to some studies, more than 30% of cancers in adulthood could be prevented or delayed by appropriate dietary intake and physical activity.10 However, there are still limited data on some specific cancers such as CM.

Substantial differences in the incidence of CM among different populations have suggested that environmental factors may play an etiological role in the development of CM and diet could be one of the modifiable risk factors.11-13

Initially, we assessed the already known risk factors for CM, and results showed a significantly increased risk for participants with light brown, blonde, or red hair (P<.0001); light-colored and light brown eyes (P<.0001); Fitzpatrick skin types I and II (P<.0001); positive family history of skin cancer (P=.001); the presence of solar lentigines (P<.001), freckles (P<.001), and actinic keratosis (P<.0001); and high number of nevi (P<.0001). Sunburns in adulthood (P<.001) were associated with an increased risk for CM, and our findings are in agreement with the literature.12

Besides confirming the well-known risk factors for CM, our study also showed that some foods (eg, butter, oregano) may act as important protective factors in CM. It could be argued that the increased risks associated with the well-known risk factors (eg, Fitzpatrick skin type, number of sunburns) might not be as strong and/or could be modulated by dietary factors. To further elucidate this critical issue, we analyzed our data by examining the joint relationship between dietary consumption, individual characteristics, sun exposure, and melanoma. We conducted a multivariable analysis controlling for the well-known risk factors and our findings suggest that both butter and oregano, foods that are rich in vitamins A and D, are independent and protective risk factors for melanoma.

 

 

Vitamin A (retinol) is a fat-soluble, organic compound that cannot be synthesized by humans but is necessary for normal physiological function and therefore is classified as an essential nutrient. The main source of vitamin A in the human diet is from retinyl esters, mostly from animal products such as dairy products (eg, butter) as well as from plant-based, provitamin A carotenoids (α-carotene, β-carotene) that can be converted to retinol in the intestines.14

Some case-control studies have investigated the association of vitamin A intake and CM risk, reporting mixed findings. Naldi et al15 found a notable inverse association between vitamin A intake and CM risk. Le Marchand et al16 found no inverse association for carotenoids or retinol. Kirkpatrick et al17 found no evidence of a protective effect for vitamin A or carotenoids on CM. However, the Nurses’ Health Study and the Nurses’ Health Study II reported inverse associations between CM and retinol from foods and dietary supplements.8

Dairy products such as butter contain several components considered to be potentially anticarcinogenic, such as calcium, vitamin D, butyric acid, conjugated linoleic acid, sphingolipids, and probiotic bacteria. Some studies found an inverted association between melanoma and high intake of dairy products or other dietary sources of vitamin D, while some investigators showed no association.6,18

Fortes et al18 assessed the role of diet on CM and found no protective effects of butter intake against the development of melanoma; however, a protective effect was found for carrots, which are rich in provitamin A (β-carotene) and for the regular intake of herbs rich in polyphenols (eg, rosemary). In our study, we found a protective effect against CM for butter but not for other dairy products. These findings could be explained by the high content of vitamin A in butter in comparison to other dairy products. Habitual intake of oregano also was associated with a protective effect for CM. Oregano is rich in polyphenols such as carvacrol, thymol, and rosmarinic acid, which are known for their antioxidant capacities and the inhibition of cyclooxygenase.19-21 At experimental levels, both carvacrol and thymol have been shown to inhibit the growth of melanoma cells.19,20 Rosmarinic acid, contained by both rosemary and oregano, have been shown at experimental levels to have photoprotective effects against melanoma.21

The relationship between dietary and nutritional intake and CM has a great potential that should be further explored. Tong and Young22 showed that proanthocyanidins found in grape seeds, epigallocatechin-3-gallate, resveratrol, rosmarinic acid, lycopene, and fig latex have demonstrated clear anticancer effects toward melanoma.

The strength of this study is the high response rate of both cases and controls and the use of incidence melanoma cases that decrease recall bias. A limitation of our study is that food portions were based on average portion size for each food item and therefore it can capture habitual consumption but not calculate actual nutrient intake. Misclassification of dietary exposure also could be a problem. Part of this misclassification is a result of a food frequency questionnaire being an imperfect measure of dietary history; however, we evaluated the reproducibility of the food frequency questionnaire used in this case-control study. Overall, there was a fair to good reproducibility between answers in 2 different periods (12 months apart). For example, agreement for frequency of intake of fresh herbs, tomatoes, and butter were 90.8%, 83.1%, and 83.3%, respectively.

Our sample size had sufficient statistical power to detect the effects of diet on CM.

Conclusion

Our study indicates that butter and oregano intake seem to have a protective role against the development of CM. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

References
  1. Gilchrest B, Eller MS, Geller AC, et al. The pathogenesis of melanoma induced by ultraviolet radiation. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1341-1347.
  2. Lotti T, Bruscino N, Hercogova J, et al. Controversial issues on melanoma. Dermatol Ther. 2012;25:458-462.
  3. Ródenas JM, Delgado-Rodríguez M, Herranz MT, et al. Sun exposure, pigmentary traits, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma: a case-control study in a Mediterranean population. Cancer Causes Control. 1996;7:275-283.
  4. Autier P, Doré JF. Influence of sun exposures during childhood and during adulthood on melanoma risk. EEPIMEL and EORTC. Melanoma Cooperative Group. European Organization for research and treatment of cancer. Int J Cancer. 1998;77:533-537.
  5. Fortes C, Mastroeni S, Melchi F, et al. The association between residential pesticide use and cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1066-1075.
  6. Jensen JD, Wing GJ, Dellavalle RP. Nutrition and melanoma prevention. Clin Dermatol. 2010;28:644-649.
  7. Millen AE, Tucker MA, Hartge P, et al. Diet and melanoma in a case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:1042-1051.
  8. Feskanich D, Willett WC, Hunter DJ, et al. Dietary intakes of vitamins A, C, and E and risk of melanoma in two cohorts of women. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:1381-1387.
  9. English DR, Mac Lennan R, Rivers J, et al. Epidemiological studies of melanocytic naevi: protocol for identifying and recording naevi. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) internal report. No. 90/002. Lyon, France: IARC; 1990.
  10. Cancer preventability statistics. World Cancer Research Fund website. http://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/preventing-cancer/cancer-preventability-statistics. Accessed May 24, 2016.
  11. Gandini S, Raimondi S, Gnagnarella P, et al. Vitamin D and skin cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:634-641.
  12. Gandini S, Sera F, Cattaruzza MS, et al. Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: II. sun exposure. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:45-60.
  13. Volkovova K, Bilanicova D, Bartonova A, et al. Associations between environmental factors and incidence of cutaneous melanoma. review. Environ Health. 2012;11(11, suppl 1):S12.
  14. Asgari MM, Brasky TM, White E. Association of vitamin A and carotenoid intake with melanoma risk in a large prospective cohort. J Invest Dermatol. 2012;132:1573-1582.
  15. Naldi L, Gallus S, Tavani A, et al. Risk of melanoma and vitamin A, coffee and alcohol: a case-control study from Italy. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2004;13:503-508.
  16. Le Marchand L, Saltzman BS, Hankin JH, et al. Sun exposure, diet, and melanoma in Hawaii Caucasians. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164:232-245.
  17. Kirkpatrick CS, White E, Lee JA. Case-control study of malignant melanoma in Washington State. II. diet, alcohol, and obesity. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;139:869-880.
  18. Fortes C, Mastroeni S, Melchi F, et al. A protective effect of the Mediterranean diet for cutaneous melanoma. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37:1018-1029.
  19. Landa P, Kokoska L, Pribylova M, et al. In vitro anti-inflammatory activity of carvacrol: inhibitory effect on COX-2 catalyzed prostaglandin E(2) biosynthesis. Arch Pharm Res. 2009;32:75-78.
  20. He L, Mo H, Hadisusilo S, et al. Isoprenoids suppress the growth of murine B16 melanomas in vitro and in vivo. J Nutr. 1997;127:668-674.
  21. Sánchez-Campillo M, Gabaldon JA, Castillo J, et al. Rosmarinic acid, a photo-protective agent against UV and other ionizing radiations. Food Chem Toxicol. 2009;47:386-392.
  22. Tong LX, Young LC. Nutrition: the future of melanoma prevention? J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:151-160.
References
  1. Gilchrest B, Eller MS, Geller AC, et al. The pathogenesis of melanoma induced by ultraviolet radiation. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1341-1347.
  2. Lotti T, Bruscino N, Hercogova J, et al. Controversial issues on melanoma. Dermatol Ther. 2012;25:458-462.
  3. Ródenas JM, Delgado-Rodríguez M, Herranz MT, et al. Sun exposure, pigmentary traits, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma: a case-control study in a Mediterranean population. Cancer Causes Control. 1996;7:275-283.
  4. Autier P, Doré JF. Influence of sun exposures during childhood and during adulthood on melanoma risk. EEPIMEL and EORTC. Melanoma Cooperative Group. European Organization for research and treatment of cancer. Int J Cancer. 1998;77:533-537.
  5. Fortes C, Mastroeni S, Melchi F, et al. The association between residential pesticide use and cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1066-1075.
  6. Jensen JD, Wing GJ, Dellavalle RP. Nutrition and melanoma prevention. Clin Dermatol. 2010;28:644-649.
  7. Millen AE, Tucker MA, Hartge P, et al. Diet and melanoma in a case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:1042-1051.
  8. Feskanich D, Willett WC, Hunter DJ, et al. Dietary intakes of vitamins A, C, and E and risk of melanoma in two cohorts of women. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:1381-1387.
  9. English DR, Mac Lennan R, Rivers J, et al. Epidemiological studies of melanocytic naevi: protocol for identifying and recording naevi. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) internal report. No. 90/002. Lyon, France: IARC; 1990.
  10. Cancer preventability statistics. World Cancer Research Fund website. http://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/preventing-cancer/cancer-preventability-statistics. Accessed May 24, 2016.
  11. Gandini S, Raimondi S, Gnagnarella P, et al. Vitamin D and skin cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:634-641.
  12. Gandini S, Sera F, Cattaruzza MS, et al. Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: II. sun exposure. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:45-60.
  13. Volkovova K, Bilanicova D, Bartonova A, et al. Associations between environmental factors and incidence of cutaneous melanoma. review. Environ Health. 2012;11(11, suppl 1):S12.
  14. Asgari MM, Brasky TM, White E. Association of vitamin A and carotenoid intake with melanoma risk in a large prospective cohort. J Invest Dermatol. 2012;132:1573-1582.
  15. Naldi L, Gallus S, Tavani A, et al. Risk of melanoma and vitamin A, coffee and alcohol: a case-control study from Italy. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2004;13:503-508.
  16. Le Marchand L, Saltzman BS, Hankin JH, et al. Sun exposure, diet, and melanoma in Hawaii Caucasians. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164:232-245.
  17. Kirkpatrick CS, White E, Lee JA. Case-control study of malignant melanoma in Washington State. II. diet, alcohol, and obesity. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;139:869-880.
  18. Fortes C, Mastroeni S, Melchi F, et al. A protective effect of the Mediterranean diet for cutaneous melanoma. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37:1018-1029.
  19. Landa P, Kokoska L, Pribylova M, et al. In vitro anti-inflammatory activity of carvacrol: inhibitory effect on COX-2 catalyzed prostaglandin E(2) biosynthesis. Arch Pharm Res. 2009;32:75-78.
  20. He L, Mo H, Hadisusilo S, et al. Isoprenoids suppress the growth of murine B16 melanomas in vitro and in vivo. J Nutr. 1997;127:668-674.
  21. Sánchez-Campillo M, Gabaldon JA, Castillo J, et al. Rosmarinic acid, a photo-protective agent against UV and other ionizing radiations. Food Chem Toxicol. 2009;47:386-392.
  22. Tong LX, Young LC. Nutrition: the future of melanoma prevention? J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:151-160.
Issue
Cutis - 97(6)
Issue
Cutis - 97(6)
Page Number
421-425
Page Number
421-425
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Could a Specific Dietary Intake Be a Risk Factor for Cutaneous Melanoma?
Display Headline
Could a Specific Dietary Intake Be a Risk Factor for Cutaneous Melanoma?
Legacy Keywords
diet, melanoma, risk factors for melanoma, vitamins, nutrition, dietary risk factors, diet and melanoma
Legacy Keywords
diet, melanoma, risk factors for melanoma, vitamins, nutrition, dietary risk factors, diet and melanoma
Sections
Inside the Article

Practice Points

  • Hereditary and environmental risk factors have been identified for cutaneous melanoma (CM). Nutritional factors have been suggested as possible modifiable risk factors.
  • Foods rich in vitamins A and D may be protective risk factors for CM.
Disallow All Ads
Article PDF Media

Anxiety before Mohs surgery can be easily managed

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Anxiety before Mohs surgery can be easily managed

ORLANDO – Assessment, education, and a judicious dose of medication can make a big difference to patients who are feeling anxious about undergoing Mohs surgery.

No studies or guidelines lay out a step-by-step management plan for anxious patients. But a little bit of common sense and empathy go a long way in easing the feeling, according to presenters at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Dr. Joseph Sobanko with patient

“We don’t have an algorithm for reducing anxiety,” said Dr. Joseph Sobanko of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “But we do have a lot of studies showing that better psychosocial health is related to better surgical outcomes.”

The lack of definitive guidance means that anxious patients might be identified and assessed by gut instinct, he continued. “Those of you who see patients probably have a gestalt technique of identifying the anxious ones. I would suggest this might not be the best way.”

Instead of guessing, he recommends assessing all patients with a validated screening tool, and dealing with anxiety proactively.

Assessing anxiety

Although anxiety assessment may not be part of a typical Mohs surgery intake, it probably should be, Dr. Sobanko said. There are a number of excellent, well-validated tools, and none of them require expertise in psychology to administer.

The Beck Anxiety Inventory is a 21-question index that takes about 10 minutes to complete. It assesses subjective, somatic, and panic-related symptoms of anxiety, and has been validated in a variety of clinical settings. It focuses quite a bit on strong physical symptoms, however, which Dr. Sobanko feels “may not be as relevant for our patients.”

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory consists of 40 questions and takes about 15 minutes to complete. “I like it because it not only assesses how they generally feel, but how they feel at the moment,” he said. “We think it’s good and we do use it, but it takes a while to complete.”

The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale is short, with only 14 questions, and takes only about 5 minutes to complete. “It’s validated for hospital patients, but we are often working with patients who are less sick than that,” Dr. Sobanko said.

The Skin Cancer Index is his go-to anxiety screen for Mohs patients. It includes 15 questions that “really get to the heart of things that matter to our patients: emotional, social, and appearance issues,” he noted. Created in 2006, it was validated in a large cohort of Mohs surgery patients (Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006;8[5]:314-318). The questions probe patients’ feelings about the seriousness of their skin cancer, its long-term health effect, and the impact the lesion – and its treatment – will have on appearance.

Tackling anxiety

Dr. Sobanko described his own, soon-to-be-published study of 104 Mohs surgery patients, who were randomized to receive a presurgical phone call to discuss anxiety, or the usual presurgical consultation. It was easy to implement the call, he said, noting that 70% were reached on the first try, and the interaction only took about 7 minutes.

Anxiety was common, with 43% reporting being anxious about the procedure. A frequent worry (25%) was whether their skin cancer would threaten their health over the long term. But both groups reported about the same reduction in anxiety after their discussion with the provider, whether it occurred over the phone or in person. After surgery, they expressed similar levels of satisfaction with the experience.

Clearly, the most effective method of dealing with patient anxiety has yet to be identified, Dr. Sobanko noted. Others are being explored, including music and educational videos.

In 2013, he and colleagues published a small study showing that music significantly reduced anxiety during Mohs surgery (Dermatol Surg. 2013 Feb;39[2]:298-305). It randomized 100 patients to surgery without music, or to listening to a playlist they had selected for themselves. Anxiety was measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and on a visual analog scale. Subjects in the music group experienced statistically significantly lower scores on both measures, Dr. Sobanko said.

A study presented at the meeting found that a preoperative education video helped as well. Dr. Sidney Smith of the Georgia Skin and Cancer Clinic, Savannah, examined the benefit of a 9-minute video created by the American College of Mohs Surgery. The video interviews patients about their experiences, describes the surgery and overall cure rates, and touches on reconstruction and follow-up.

The study comprised 200 patients; 100 saw the movie, and then completed a 24 question survey about their perception of the procedure. Almost all (94%) of those who viewed it said the video answered their questions; 85% said it relieved their fear about undergoing the surgery.

 

 

Treating anxiety

Anxiolytics can be easily employed to help ease day-of-surgery anxiety, Dr. Jerry Brewer said at the meeting. Generally speaking, the medications are safe, well-tolerated, and very effective.

“One thing we should remember, however, is that anxiolytics do not affect pain. They have no effect on pain receptors, although they may affect a patient’s memory of pain. For people who are anxious, though, this can be a really great help,” said Dr. Brewer of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

He favors the short-acting benzodiazepines, particularly midazolam. It has a peak concentration of 17-55 minutes, so it’s particularly well suited for shorter cases. It also has a very rapid metabolization profile, with an elimination half life of 3-7 hours.

Since midazolam has twice the affinity for the benzodiazepine receptors as does diazepam, it can be effective in relatively small doses – usually about 0.25 mg/kg. The dose should be reduced by half for elderly patients and for those with renal or hepatic failure. In those patients, the elimination half-life can be increased up to 13 hours.

The typical dose for both adults and children is 10-20 mg. “We should remember that patients who take narcotics and those who take a benzodiazepine as a sleep aide may be quite tolerant and need a higher dose,” Dr. Brewer said.

Diazepam has a peak concentration of about 2 hours, but a much longer elimination half-life – up to 48 hours in a healthy adult and up to 80 hours in an elderly person. “It’s important that patients know they’re going to have this drug in their system for a couple days. This should be part of the consenting process,” Dr. Brewer pointed out.

Lorazepam has a peak concentration of about 2 hours as well, but a shorter half-life of 12-18 hours. That can be prolonged by 75% in patients with renal problems.

With the right clinical supervision, these medications are very safe, he said. “We treat about 800 patients per year with these and have data on about 12,000. Of those, we have had very few problems. Two have fallen out of bed. One patient wrote and said he was discharged too early, as he was very tired. One person fell and hit his head in the bathroom. One was sedated enough to need a sternal rub to improve responsiveness. And one gentleman enjoyed the medication so much that when the nurse left the room for a moment he grabbed the rest of the dose and drank it.”

Safe discharge is crucial when using anxiolytics, he added. “They absolutely cannot drive themselves home and they cannot go back to work. We make sure there is a reliable person to stay with the patient for at least 4 hours after discharge.”

Dr. Brewer does not discharge any patient until that person displays a zero rating on the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) sedation scale. “That means he is awake, alert, and calmly interacting with you.”

Neither Dr. Sobanko nor Dr. Brewer had any financial declarations.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

References

Meeting/Event
Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
ACMS 2016, Mohs, skin cancer, anxiety, anxiolytic
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

ORLANDO – Assessment, education, and a judicious dose of medication can make a big difference to patients who are feeling anxious about undergoing Mohs surgery.

No studies or guidelines lay out a step-by-step management plan for anxious patients. But a little bit of common sense and empathy go a long way in easing the feeling, according to presenters at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Dr. Joseph Sobanko with patient

“We don’t have an algorithm for reducing anxiety,” said Dr. Joseph Sobanko of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “But we do have a lot of studies showing that better psychosocial health is related to better surgical outcomes.”

The lack of definitive guidance means that anxious patients might be identified and assessed by gut instinct, he continued. “Those of you who see patients probably have a gestalt technique of identifying the anxious ones. I would suggest this might not be the best way.”

Instead of guessing, he recommends assessing all patients with a validated screening tool, and dealing with anxiety proactively.

Assessing anxiety

Although anxiety assessment may not be part of a typical Mohs surgery intake, it probably should be, Dr. Sobanko said. There are a number of excellent, well-validated tools, and none of them require expertise in psychology to administer.

The Beck Anxiety Inventory is a 21-question index that takes about 10 minutes to complete. It assesses subjective, somatic, and panic-related symptoms of anxiety, and has been validated in a variety of clinical settings. It focuses quite a bit on strong physical symptoms, however, which Dr. Sobanko feels “may not be as relevant for our patients.”

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory consists of 40 questions and takes about 15 minutes to complete. “I like it because it not only assesses how they generally feel, but how they feel at the moment,” he said. “We think it’s good and we do use it, but it takes a while to complete.”

The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale is short, with only 14 questions, and takes only about 5 minutes to complete. “It’s validated for hospital patients, but we are often working with patients who are less sick than that,” Dr. Sobanko said.

The Skin Cancer Index is his go-to anxiety screen for Mohs patients. It includes 15 questions that “really get to the heart of things that matter to our patients: emotional, social, and appearance issues,” he noted. Created in 2006, it was validated in a large cohort of Mohs surgery patients (Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006;8[5]:314-318). The questions probe patients’ feelings about the seriousness of their skin cancer, its long-term health effect, and the impact the lesion – and its treatment – will have on appearance.

Tackling anxiety

Dr. Sobanko described his own, soon-to-be-published study of 104 Mohs surgery patients, who were randomized to receive a presurgical phone call to discuss anxiety, or the usual presurgical consultation. It was easy to implement the call, he said, noting that 70% were reached on the first try, and the interaction only took about 7 minutes.

Anxiety was common, with 43% reporting being anxious about the procedure. A frequent worry (25%) was whether their skin cancer would threaten their health over the long term. But both groups reported about the same reduction in anxiety after their discussion with the provider, whether it occurred over the phone or in person. After surgery, they expressed similar levels of satisfaction with the experience.

Clearly, the most effective method of dealing with patient anxiety has yet to be identified, Dr. Sobanko noted. Others are being explored, including music and educational videos.

In 2013, he and colleagues published a small study showing that music significantly reduced anxiety during Mohs surgery (Dermatol Surg. 2013 Feb;39[2]:298-305). It randomized 100 patients to surgery without music, or to listening to a playlist they had selected for themselves. Anxiety was measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and on a visual analog scale. Subjects in the music group experienced statistically significantly lower scores on both measures, Dr. Sobanko said.

A study presented at the meeting found that a preoperative education video helped as well. Dr. Sidney Smith of the Georgia Skin and Cancer Clinic, Savannah, examined the benefit of a 9-minute video created by the American College of Mohs Surgery. The video interviews patients about their experiences, describes the surgery and overall cure rates, and touches on reconstruction and follow-up.

The study comprised 200 patients; 100 saw the movie, and then completed a 24 question survey about their perception of the procedure. Almost all (94%) of those who viewed it said the video answered their questions; 85% said it relieved their fear about undergoing the surgery.

 

 

Treating anxiety

Anxiolytics can be easily employed to help ease day-of-surgery anxiety, Dr. Jerry Brewer said at the meeting. Generally speaking, the medications are safe, well-tolerated, and very effective.

“One thing we should remember, however, is that anxiolytics do not affect pain. They have no effect on pain receptors, although they may affect a patient’s memory of pain. For people who are anxious, though, this can be a really great help,” said Dr. Brewer of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

He favors the short-acting benzodiazepines, particularly midazolam. It has a peak concentration of 17-55 minutes, so it’s particularly well suited for shorter cases. It also has a very rapid metabolization profile, with an elimination half life of 3-7 hours.

Since midazolam has twice the affinity for the benzodiazepine receptors as does diazepam, it can be effective in relatively small doses – usually about 0.25 mg/kg. The dose should be reduced by half for elderly patients and for those with renal or hepatic failure. In those patients, the elimination half-life can be increased up to 13 hours.

The typical dose for both adults and children is 10-20 mg. “We should remember that patients who take narcotics and those who take a benzodiazepine as a sleep aide may be quite tolerant and need a higher dose,” Dr. Brewer said.

Diazepam has a peak concentration of about 2 hours, but a much longer elimination half-life – up to 48 hours in a healthy adult and up to 80 hours in an elderly person. “It’s important that patients know they’re going to have this drug in their system for a couple days. This should be part of the consenting process,” Dr. Brewer pointed out.

Lorazepam has a peak concentration of about 2 hours as well, but a shorter half-life of 12-18 hours. That can be prolonged by 75% in patients with renal problems.

With the right clinical supervision, these medications are very safe, he said. “We treat about 800 patients per year with these and have data on about 12,000. Of those, we have had very few problems. Two have fallen out of bed. One patient wrote and said he was discharged too early, as he was very tired. One person fell and hit his head in the bathroom. One was sedated enough to need a sternal rub to improve responsiveness. And one gentleman enjoyed the medication so much that when the nurse left the room for a moment he grabbed the rest of the dose and drank it.”

Safe discharge is crucial when using anxiolytics, he added. “They absolutely cannot drive themselves home and they cannot go back to work. We make sure there is a reliable person to stay with the patient for at least 4 hours after discharge.”

Dr. Brewer does not discharge any patient until that person displays a zero rating on the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) sedation scale. “That means he is awake, alert, and calmly interacting with you.”

Neither Dr. Sobanko nor Dr. Brewer had any financial declarations.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

ORLANDO – Assessment, education, and a judicious dose of medication can make a big difference to patients who are feeling anxious about undergoing Mohs surgery.

No studies or guidelines lay out a step-by-step management plan for anxious patients. But a little bit of common sense and empathy go a long way in easing the feeling, according to presenters at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Dr. Joseph Sobanko with patient

“We don’t have an algorithm for reducing anxiety,” said Dr. Joseph Sobanko of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “But we do have a lot of studies showing that better psychosocial health is related to better surgical outcomes.”

The lack of definitive guidance means that anxious patients might be identified and assessed by gut instinct, he continued. “Those of you who see patients probably have a gestalt technique of identifying the anxious ones. I would suggest this might not be the best way.”

Instead of guessing, he recommends assessing all patients with a validated screening tool, and dealing with anxiety proactively.

Assessing anxiety

Although anxiety assessment may not be part of a typical Mohs surgery intake, it probably should be, Dr. Sobanko said. There are a number of excellent, well-validated tools, and none of them require expertise in psychology to administer.

The Beck Anxiety Inventory is a 21-question index that takes about 10 minutes to complete. It assesses subjective, somatic, and panic-related symptoms of anxiety, and has been validated in a variety of clinical settings. It focuses quite a bit on strong physical symptoms, however, which Dr. Sobanko feels “may not be as relevant for our patients.”

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory consists of 40 questions and takes about 15 minutes to complete. “I like it because it not only assesses how they generally feel, but how they feel at the moment,” he said. “We think it’s good and we do use it, but it takes a while to complete.”

The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale is short, with only 14 questions, and takes only about 5 minutes to complete. “It’s validated for hospital patients, but we are often working with patients who are less sick than that,” Dr. Sobanko said.

The Skin Cancer Index is his go-to anxiety screen for Mohs patients. It includes 15 questions that “really get to the heart of things that matter to our patients: emotional, social, and appearance issues,” he noted. Created in 2006, it was validated in a large cohort of Mohs surgery patients (Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006;8[5]:314-318). The questions probe patients’ feelings about the seriousness of their skin cancer, its long-term health effect, and the impact the lesion – and its treatment – will have on appearance.

Tackling anxiety

Dr. Sobanko described his own, soon-to-be-published study of 104 Mohs surgery patients, who were randomized to receive a presurgical phone call to discuss anxiety, or the usual presurgical consultation. It was easy to implement the call, he said, noting that 70% were reached on the first try, and the interaction only took about 7 minutes.

Anxiety was common, with 43% reporting being anxious about the procedure. A frequent worry (25%) was whether their skin cancer would threaten their health over the long term. But both groups reported about the same reduction in anxiety after their discussion with the provider, whether it occurred over the phone or in person. After surgery, they expressed similar levels of satisfaction with the experience.

Clearly, the most effective method of dealing with patient anxiety has yet to be identified, Dr. Sobanko noted. Others are being explored, including music and educational videos.

In 2013, he and colleagues published a small study showing that music significantly reduced anxiety during Mohs surgery (Dermatol Surg. 2013 Feb;39[2]:298-305). It randomized 100 patients to surgery without music, or to listening to a playlist they had selected for themselves. Anxiety was measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and on a visual analog scale. Subjects in the music group experienced statistically significantly lower scores on both measures, Dr. Sobanko said.

A study presented at the meeting found that a preoperative education video helped as well. Dr. Sidney Smith of the Georgia Skin and Cancer Clinic, Savannah, examined the benefit of a 9-minute video created by the American College of Mohs Surgery. The video interviews patients about their experiences, describes the surgery and overall cure rates, and touches on reconstruction and follow-up.

The study comprised 200 patients; 100 saw the movie, and then completed a 24 question survey about their perception of the procedure. Almost all (94%) of those who viewed it said the video answered their questions; 85% said it relieved their fear about undergoing the surgery.

 

 

Treating anxiety

Anxiolytics can be easily employed to help ease day-of-surgery anxiety, Dr. Jerry Brewer said at the meeting. Generally speaking, the medications are safe, well-tolerated, and very effective.

“One thing we should remember, however, is that anxiolytics do not affect pain. They have no effect on pain receptors, although they may affect a patient’s memory of pain. For people who are anxious, though, this can be a really great help,” said Dr. Brewer of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

He favors the short-acting benzodiazepines, particularly midazolam. It has a peak concentration of 17-55 minutes, so it’s particularly well suited for shorter cases. It also has a very rapid metabolization profile, with an elimination half life of 3-7 hours.

Since midazolam has twice the affinity for the benzodiazepine receptors as does diazepam, it can be effective in relatively small doses – usually about 0.25 mg/kg. The dose should be reduced by half for elderly patients and for those with renal or hepatic failure. In those patients, the elimination half-life can be increased up to 13 hours.

The typical dose for both adults and children is 10-20 mg. “We should remember that patients who take narcotics and those who take a benzodiazepine as a sleep aide may be quite tolerant and need a higher dose,” Dr. Brewer said.

Diazepam has a peak concentration of about 2 hours, but a much longer elimination half-life – up to 48 hours in a healthy adult and up to 80 hours in an elderly person. “It’s important that patients know they’re going to have this drug in their system for a couple days. This should be part of the consenting process,” Dr. Brewer pointed out.

Lorazepam has a peak concentration of about 2 hours as well, but a shorter half-life of 12-18 hours. That can be prolonged by 75% in patients with renal problems.

With the right clinical supervision, these medications are very safe, he said. “We treat about 800 patients per year with these and have data on about 12,000. Of those, we have had very few problems. Two have fallen out of bed. One patient wrote and said he was discharged too early, as he was very tired. One person fell and hit his head in the bathroom. One was sedated enough to need a sternal rub to improve responsiveness. And one gentleman enjoyed the medication so much that when the nurse left the room for a moment he grabbed the rest of the dose and drank it.”

Safe discharge is crucial when using anxiolytics, he added. “They absolutely cannot drive themselves home and they cannot go back to work. We make sure there is a reliable person to stay with the patient for at least 4 hours after discharge.”

Dr. Brewer does not discharge any patient until that person displays a zero rating on the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) sedation scale. “That means he is awake, alert, and calmly interacting with you.”

Neither Dr. Sobanko nor Dr. Brewer had any financial declarations.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Anxiety before Mohs surgery can be easily managed
Display Headline
Anxiety before Mohs surgery can be easily managed
Legacy Keywords
ACMS 2016, Mohs, skin cancer, anxiety, anxiolytic
Legacy Keywords
ACMS 2016, Mohs, skin cancer, anxiety, anxiolytic
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE ACMS ANNUAL MEETING

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article