Melanoma

Recent research has revealed potential links between Agent Orange (AO) exposure and risk of acral melanoma (AM) among Vietnam War-era veterans, providing strong evidence of a relationship between the chemical and this type of cancer.

Localized to the palms, soles, and nail units, AM is a melanoma subtype less associated with UV radiation. From 1962 to 1971, the US military sprayed an estimated 18 million gallons of herbicides, including AO, over the fields and forests of Vietnam. Those herbicides have since been connected to numerous health issues, including cancer, though evidence of a relationship between AO and skin cancers has been weak. 

Vietnam War-era veterans have a higher melanoma burden than the general population, with the disease being the fourth-most common cancer among those who served. AM, however, is rare, representing about 2% to 3% of all melanomas. 

In a nested case-control study, Hwang et al used US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system data, including the VA Cancer Registry. The authors compared 1292 patients with AM and 2 pair-matched control groups: a group matched 4:1 to nonacral cutaneous melanoma controls, and a group without a melanoma diagnosis. 

Hwang et al found AO exposure was associated with increased odds of AM compared with each control group. In an accompanying editorial, Andrew Olshan, PhD, from Department of Epidemiology at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, wrote, “The magnitude of the effects was modest (about 30%) but noteworthy.” 

A limitation of the study was that presumptive AOE status was based on whether the veteran filed a disability claim with evidence of officially recognized service in a period and place where Agent Orange was used—not on an assessment of the veteran’s individual AOE potential, including level of exposure. Because melanoma has never been included on the VA list of cancers presumed to be related to AO exposure, veterans do not automatically gain benefits by filing AOE claims after diagnosis. Even so, Olshan says, the reported study findings may underestimate the true effect of AO exposure on the risk of AM. 

Given the rarity of AM, the association (if causal) would translate to 0.4 to 0.8 new annual cases of AM per 1,000,000 veterans, according to the study. Narrowed down to Vietnam War-era veterans—who are dwindling in number—the attributable cases would be scarce.

Nevertheless, the search for a better understanding of a potential link between AOE and melanomas among Vietnam War-era veterans is important, Olshan wrote.

“The Hwang et al study provides a strong impetus to further these research goals and contribute to the investigation of the legacy of the Vietnam War and honor a commitment to the veterans community.”

Recent research has revealed potential links between Agent Orange (AO) exposure and risk of acral melanoma (AM) among Vietnam War-era veterans, providing strong evidence of a relationship between the chemical and this type of cancer.

Localized to the palms, soles, and nail units, AM is a melanoma subtype less associated with UV radiation. From 1962 to 1971, the US military sprayed an estimated 18 million gallons of herbicides, including AO, over the fields and forests of Vietnam. Those herbicides have since been connected to numerous health issues, including cancer, though evidence of a relationship between AO and skin cancers has been weak. 

Vietnam War-era veterans have a higher melanoma burden than the general population, with the disease being the fourth-most common cancer among those who served. AM, however, is rare, representing about 2% to 3% of all melanomas. 

In a nested case-control study, Hwang et al used US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system data, including the VA Cancer Registry. The authors compared 1292 patients with AM and 2 pair-matched control groups: a group matched 4:1 to nonacral cutaneous melanoma controls, and a group without a melanoma diagnosis. 

Hwang et al found AO exposure was associated with increased odds of AM compared with each control group. In an accompanying editorial, Andrew Olshan, PhD, from Department of Epidemiology at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, wrote, “The magnitude of the effects was modest (about 30%) but noteworthy.” 

A limitation of the study was that presumptive AOE status was based on whether the veteran filed a disability claim with evidence of officially recognized service in a period and place where Agent Orange was used—not on an assessment of the veteran’s individual AOE potential, including level of exposure. Because melanoma has never been included on the VA list of cancers presumed to be related to AO exposure, veterans do not automatically gain benefits by filing AOE claims after diagnosis. Even so, Olshan says, the reported study findings may underestimate the true effect of AO exposure on the risk of AM. 

Given the rarity of AM, the association (if causal) would translate to 0.4 to 0.8 new annual cases of AM per 1,000,000 veterans, according to the study. Narrowed down to Vietnam War-era veterans—who are dwindling in number—the attributable cases would be scarce.

Nevertheless, the search for a better understanding of a potential link between AOE and melanomas among Vietnam War-era veterans is important, Olshan wrote.

“The Hwang et al study provides a strong impetus to further these research goals and contribute to the investigation of the legacy of the Vietnam War and honor a commitment to the veterans community.”

Recent research has revealed potential links between Agent Orange (AO) exposure and risk of acral melanoma (AM) among Vietnam War-era veterans, providing strong evidence of a relationship between the chemical and this type of cancer.

Localized to the palms, soles, and nail units, AM is a melanoma subtype less associated with UV radiation. From 1962 to 1971, the US military sprayed an estimated 18 million gallons of herbicides, including AO, over the fields and forests of Vietnam. Those herbicides have since been connected to numerous health issues, including cancer, though evidence of a relationship between AO and skin cancers has been weak. 

Vietnam War-era veterans have a higher melanoma burden than the general population, with the disease being the fourth-most common cancer among those who served. AM, however, is rare, representing about 2% to 3% of all melanomas. 

In a nested case-control study, Hwang et al used US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system data, including the VA Cancer Registry. The authors compared 1292 patients with AM and 2 pair-matched control groups: a group matched 4:1 to nonacral cutaneous melanoma controls, and a group without a melanoma diagnosis. 

Hwang et al found AO exposure was associated with increased odds of AM compared with each control group. In an accompanying editorial, Andrew Olshan, PhD, from Department of Epidemiology at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, wrote, “The magnitude of the effects was modest (about 30%) but noteworthy.” 

A limitation of the study was that presumptive AOE status was based on whether the veteran filed a disability claim with evidence of officially recognized service in a period and place where Agent Orange was used—not on an assessment of the veteran’s individual AOE potential, including level of exposure. Because melanoma has never been included on the VA list of cancers presumed to be related to AO exposure, veterans do not automatically gain benefits by filing AOE claims after diagnosis. Even so, Olshan says, the reported study findings may underestimate the true effect of AO exposure on the risk of AM. 

Given the rarity of AM, the association (if causal) would translate to 0.4 to 0.8 new annual cases of AM per 1,000,000 veterans, according to the study. Narrowed down to Vietnam War-era veterans—who are dwindling in number—the attributable cases would be scarce.

Nevertheless, the search for a better understanding of a potential link between AOE and melanomas among Vietnam War-era veterans is important, Olshan wrote.

“The Hwang et al study provides a strong impetus to further these research goals and contribute to the investigation of the legacy of the Vietnam War and honor a commitment to the veterans community.”

A trio of new studies, published simultaneously in February in Nature Medicine, add to growing evidence that manipulating the gut microbiome may enhance responses to immunotherapy in selected patients with cancer.

In these small, early-phase studies involving patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and melanoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) was associated with objective response rates that compared favorably with historical or prespecified benchmarks.

The idea that microbiome modulation via FMT “can augment immunotherapy efficacy is probably a good one and these studies certainly support that hypothesis,” said Diwakar Davar, MD, assistant professor of medicine and an oncologist/hematologist at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who wasn’t part of the new work.While “an intriguing approach and certainly worthy of further evaluation,” Davar cautioned that the latest studies are not robust enough to answer the question conclusively.

Although ICIs have improved outcomes for patients with melanoma, NSCLC, and RCC, many patients still do not respond or eventually develop resistance. A growing body of evidence suggests that the gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of ICI therapy. However, much of this evidence comes from preclinical studies showing that modulating the microbiome via FMT can alter responses to immunotherapy, along with small proof-of-concept human studies — predominantly in melanoma — suggesting this approach may help overcome primary or acquired resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy.

The new studies aimed to build on this foundation by exploring whether FMT could improve ICI responses and clinical outcomes in patients with NSCLC, melanoma, and RCC.

In the phase 2, open-label FMT-LUMINate trial, researchers tested a healthy-donor FMT delivered as oral capsules before patients began immunotherapy. FMT capsules were produced using 80-100 g of feces per dose from screened healthy donors, and patients consumed 30-40 capsules while under supervision. The study included 20 patients with NSCLC and high PD-L1 tumor expression receiving FMT before standard first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy and 20 patients with cutaneous melanoma receiving FMT before ipilimumab plus nivolumab.

In the NSCLC cohort, 16 patients (80%) achieved an objective response. The 80% objective response rate exceeded the prespecified efficacy threshold of 64% and was higher than previously described historical data, which ranged from 39% to 46%, the study team noted.

In the melanoma cohort, FMT before nivolumab and ipilimumab yielded an objective response rate of 75%, also exceeding the historical expected response rates of 50% to 58% among patients receiving this ICI combination.

In patients with NSCLC, no grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported. However, grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 13 (65%) patients in the melanoma group, suggesting a potentially accelerated onset of immune-related adverse events. Researchers also observed a higher-than-expected frequency of myocarditis in melanoma patients (15%). These toxicities clustered among patients who had FMT donors enriched in Prevotella spp, highlighting the importance of donor selection for future trials, the researchers explained.

The team plans to assess the potential of FMT to overcome primary resistance to ICI as part of the phase 2 CanBiome2 randomized trial, which aims to enroll 128 patients.

The RCC Data

The other two studies focused on FMT in patients with metastatic RCC. In the phase 1 PERFORM study, 20 treatment-naive patients with metastatic RCC added encapsulated healthy-donor FMT to standard ICI-based regimens — most commonly ipilimumab plus nivolumab, with some patients receiving pembrolizumab plus axitinib or pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib.

The primary endpoint was safety defined by the incidence and severity of immune-related adverse events. The safety endpoint was met; 50% of patients (10 of 20) experienced grade 3 immune-related adverse events, and there were no serious FMT-related toxicities and no grade 4 or 5 events.

Among 18 evaluable patients, nine (50%) achieved an objective response, including two who had complete responses (11%). Notably, most treatment responders did not develop any grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events, the researchers reported.

Finally, in the phase 2a TACITO trial, 45 patients with treatment-naive metastatic RCC were randomly allocated to receive donor FMT or placebo FMT. Patients received three administrations over 6 months — first via colonoscopy then as capsulized doses, alongside pembrolizumab plus axitinib.

The primary endpoint of 12-month progression-free survival narrowly missed statistical significance — 70% vs 41% (P = .053) — but suggested a benefit in the donor FMT group.

“We need more than 1 year to appreciate statistical significance in terms of progression-free survival,” study investigator Gianluca Ianiro, MD, PhD, with Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, told Medscape Medical News.

As for secondary endpoints, median progression-free survival was significantly longer with donor FMT (24.0 vs 9.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.50; P = .035) and the objective response rate was higher with donor FMT (52% vs 32%).

Why Might FMT Boost ICI Response?

Conceptually, FMT is intended to reshape the gut ecosystem in ways that favor antitumor immunity, and possibly reduce immune dysregulation.

Across these new studies, the mechanistic story is moving beyond the idea that more diversity is good and toward a model that suggests a benefit to removing or suppressing taxa associated with resistance or inflammatory toxicity.

For example, in the TACITO trial, microbiome analysis confirmed that acquisition or loss of specific bacterial strains was associated with 12-month progression-free survival.

Additionally, results of the FMT-LUMINate trial hinted that the therapeutic benefit of FMT may be driven by eliminating harmful bacteria present at baseline, most notably Enterocloster, Clostridium and Streptococcus spp.

“This bacterial depletion was associated with a favorable immunometabolic milieu,” the FMT-LUMINate researchers wrote. Additionally, the results suggest that “failure to eliminate baseline deleterious taxa may sustain an immunosuppressive metabolic and systemic immune milieu that compromises ICI responses.”

Is FMT Ready for Prime Time?

Ianiro told Medscape Medical News he “definitely” thinks microbiome modulation could eventually become part of standard immunotherapy regimens.

Although the “signal” of benefit is clearly there, Davar cautioned that it’s too early to justify routine, off-trial use of FMT specifically to improve ICI response.

“These remain small, proof-of-concept studies. They are not adequately powered trials of fecal transplants and multiple different covariates haven’t been considered,” Davar said.

The study researchers noted that issues around donor selection and availability, dosing schedules, product standardization, and safety risk stratification need to be resolved.

For example, TACITO’s real-world experience shows logistics can matter. Delays occurred due to capsule unavailability and other scheduling barriers, which led to late dosing and missed or shifted treatments in some patients.

That’s a reminder that scaling FMT for oncology would require robust manufacturing, distribution, and time-sensitive coordination with ICI start dates.

More broadly, “whether FMT is the most suitable method of essentially changing the gut microbiome remains unclear,” explained Davar, who suggested that engineered microbiome therapeutics or tailored therapies may be a preferable, more scalable and tailored long-term solution.

Overall, does this new research provide impetus to develop stool banks? “Probably not,” Davar said.

But is it a call for interested parties to think about clinical trials and experimental products that could influence the gut microbiome? “Those are all probably good ideas,” he said.

The PERFORM, TACITO and FMT-LUMINate trials had no commercial funding. Saman Maleki Vareki, PhD, of the PERFORM trial, is a cofounder of LND Therapeutics Inc and has submitted a US patent application related to FMT donor screening. Ianiro has received personal fees for acting as a speaker for Biocodex and Illumina and for acting as a consultant/advisor for Ferring Therapeutics. Arielle Elkrief, MD, of the FMT-LUMINate trial, has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and EMD Serono; consulting fees from EverImmune, NECBio, and Sanofi-Pasteur; and is an inventor on a patent regarding the microbiome and immunotherapy response. Davar had no relevant disclosures.

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

A trio of new studies, published simultaneously in February in Nature Medicine, add to growing evidence that manipulating the gut microbiome may enhance responses to immunotherapy in selected patients with cancer.

In these small, early-phase studies involving patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and melanoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) was associated with objective response rates that compared favorably with historical or prespecified benchmarks.

The idea that microbiome modulation via FMT “can augment immunotherapy efficacy is probably a good one and these studies certainly support that hypothesis,” said Diwakar Davar, MD, assistant professor of medicine and an oncologist/hematologist at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who wasn’t part of the new work.While “an intriguing approach and certainly worthy of further evaluation,” Davar cautioned that the latest studies are not robust enough to answer the question conclusively.

Although ICIs have improved outcomes for patients with melanoma, NSCLC, and RCC, many patients still do not respond or eventually develop resistance. A growing body of evidence suggests that the gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of ICI therapy. However, much of this evidence comes from preclinical studies showing that modulating the microbiome via FMT can alter responses to immunotherapy, along with small proof-of-concept human studies — predominantly in melanoma — suggesting this approach may help overcome primary or acquired resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy.

The new studies aimed to build on this foundation by exploring whether FMT could improve ICI responses and clinical outcomes in patients with NSCLC, melanoma, and RCC.

In the phase 2, open-label FMT-LUMINate trial, researchers tested a healthy-donor FMT delivered as oral capsules before patients began immunotherapy. FMT capsules were produced using 80-100 g of feces per dose from screened healthy donors, and patients consumed 30-40 capsules while under supervision. The study included 20 patients with NSCLC and high PD-L1 tumor expression receiving FMT before standard first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy and 20 patients with cutaneous melanoma receiving FMT before ipilimumab plus nivolumab.

In the NSCLC cohort, 16 patients (80%) achieved an objective response. The 80% objective response rate exceeded the prespecified efficacy threshold of 64% and was higher than previously described historical data, which ranged from 39% to 46%, the study team noted.

In the melanoma cohort, FMT before nivolumab and ipilimumab yielded an objective response rate of 75%, also exceeding the historical expected response rates of 50% to 58% among patients receiving this ICI combination.

In patients with NSCLC, no grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported. However, grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 13 (65%) patients in the melanoma group, suggesting a potentially accelerated onset of immune-related adverse events. Researchers also observed a higher-than-expected frequency of myocarditis in melanoma patients (15%). These toxicities clustered among patients who had FMT donors enriched in Prevotella spp, highlighting the importance of donor selection for future trials, the researchers explained.

The team plans to assess the potential of FMT to overcome primary resistance to ICI as part of the phase 2 CanBiome2 randomized trial, which aims to enroll 128 patients.

The RCC Data

The other two studies focused on FMT in patients with metastatic RCC. In the phase 1 PERFORM study, 20 treatment-naive patients with metastatic RCC added encapsulated healthy-donor FMT to standard ICI-based regimens — most commonly ipilimumab plus nivolumab, with some patients receiving pembrolizumab plus axitinib or pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib.

The primary endpoint was safety defined by the incidence and severity of immune-related adverse events. The safety endpoint was met; 50% of patients (10 of 20) experienced grade 3 immune-related adverse events, and there were no serious FMT-related toxicities and no grade 4 or 5 events.

Among 18 evaluable patients, nine (50%) achieved an objective response, including two who had complete responses (11%). Notably, most treatment responders did not develop any grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events, the researchers reported.

Finally, in the phase 2a TACITO trial, 45 patients with treatment-naive metastatic RCC were randomly allocated to receive donor FMT or placebo FMT. Patients received three administrations over 6 months — first via colonoscopy then as capsulized doses, alongside pembrolizumab plus axitinib.

The primary endpoint of 12-month progression-free survival narrowly missed statistical significance — 70% vs 41% (P = .053) — but suggested a benefit in the donor FMT group.

“We need more than 1 year to appreciate statistical significance in terms of progression-free survival,” study investigator Gianluca Ianiro, MD, PhD, with Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, told Medscape Medical News.

As for secondary endpoints, median progression-free survival was significantly longer with donor FMT (24.0 vs 9.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.50; P = .035) and the objective response rate was higher with donor FMT (52% vs 32%).

Why Might FMT Boost ICI Response?

Conceptually, FMT is intended to reshape the gut ecosystem in ways that favor antitumor immunity, and possibly reduce immune dysregulation.

Across these new studies, the mechanistic story is moving beyond the idea that more diversity is good and toward a model that suggests a benefit to removing or suppressing taxa associated with resistance or inflammatory toxicity.

For example, in the TACITO trial, microbiome analysis confirmed that acquisition or loss of specific bacterial strains was associated with 12-month progression-free survival.

Additionally, results of the FMT-LUMINate trial hinted that the therapeutic benefit of FMT may be driven by eliminating harmful bacteria present at baseline, most notably Enterocloster, Clostridium and Streptococcus spp.

“This bacterial depletion was associated with a favorable immunometabolic milieu,” the FMT-LUMINate researchers wrote. Additionally, the results suggest that “failure to eliminate baseline deleterious taxa may sustain an immunosuppressive metabolic and systemic immune milieu that compromises ICI responses.”

Is FMT Ready for Prime Time?

Ianiro told Medscape Medical News he “definitely” thinks microbiome modulation could eventually become part of standard immunotherapy regimens.

Although the “signal” of benefit is clearly there, Davar cautioned that it’s too early to justify routine, off-trial use of FMT specifically to improve ICI response.

“These remain small, proof-of-concept studies. They are not adequately powered trials of fecal transplants and multiple different covariates haven’t been considered,” Davar said.

The study researchers noted that issues around donor selection and availability, dosing schedules, product standardization, and safety risk stratification need to be resolved.

For example, TACITO’s real-world experience shows logistics can matter. Delays occurred due to capsule unavailability and other scheduling barriers, which led to late dosing and missed or shifted treatments in some patients.

That’s a reminder that scaling FMT for oncology would require robust manufacturing, distribution, and time-sensitive coordination with ICI start dates.

More broadly, “whether FMT is the most suitable method of essentially changing the gut microbiome remains unclear,” explained Davar, who suggested that engineered microbiome therapeutics or tailored therapies may be a preferable, more scalable and tailored long-term solution.

Overall, does this new research provide impetus to develop stool banks? “Probably not,” Davar said.

But is it a call for interested parties to think about clinical trials and experimental products that could influence the gut microbiome? “Those are all probably good ideas,” he said.

The PERFORM, TACITO and FMT-LUMINate trials had no commercial funding. Saman Maleki Vareki, PhD, of the PERFORM trial, is a cofounder of LND Therapeutics Inc and has submitted a US patent application related to FMT donor screening. Ianiro has received personal fees for acting as a speaker for Biocodex and Illumina and for acting as a consultant/advisor for Ferring Therapeutics. Arielle Elkrief, MD, of the FMT-LUMINate trial, has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and EMD Serono; consulting fees from EverImmune, NECBio, and Sanofi-Pasteur; and is an inventor on a patent regarding the microbiome and immunotherapy response. Davar had no relevant disclosures.

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

A trio of new studies, published simultaneously in February in Nature Medicine, add to growing evidence that manipulating the gut microbiome may enhance responses to immunotherapy in selected patients with cancer.

In these small, early-phase studies involving patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and melanoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) was associated with objective response rates that compared favorably with historical or prespecified benchmarks.

The idea that microbiome modulation via FMT “can augment immunotherapy efficacy is probably a good one and these studies certainly support that hypothesis,” said Diwakar Davar, MD, assistant professor of medicine and an oncologist/hematologist at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who wasn’t part of the new work.While “an intriguing approach and certainly worthy of further evaluation,” Davar cautioned that the latest studies are not robust enough to answer the question conclusively.

Although ICIs have improved outcomes for patients with melanoma, NSCLC, and RCC, many patients still do not respond or eventually develop resistance. A growing body of evidence suggests that the gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of ICI therapy. However, much of this evidence comes from preclinical studies showing that modulating the microbiome via FMT can alter responses to immunotherapy, along with small proof-of-concept human studies — predominantly in melanoma — suggesting this approach may help overcome primary or acquired resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy.

The new studies aimed to build on this foundation by exploring whether FMT could improve ICI responses and clinical outcomes in patients with NSCLC, melanoma, and RCC.

In the phase 2, open-label FMT-LUMINate trial, researchers tested a healthy-donor FMT delivered as oral capsules before patients began immunotherapy. FMT capsules were produced using 80-100 g of feces per dose from screened healthy donors, and patients consumed 30-40 capsules while under supervision. The study included 20 patients with NSCLC and high PD-L1 tumor expression receiving FMT before standard first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy and 20 patients with cutaneous melanoma receiving FMT before ipilimumab plus nivolumab.

In the NSCLC cohort, 16 patients (80%) achieved an objective response. The 80% objective response rate exceeded the prespecified efficacy threshold of 64% and was higher than previously described historical data, which ranged from 39% to 46%, the study team noted.

In the melanoma cohort, FMT before nivolumab and ipilimumab yielded an objective response rate of 75%, also exceeding the historical expected response rates of 50% to 58% among patients receiving this ICI combination.

In patients with NSCLC, no grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported. However, grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 13 (65%) patients in the melanoma group, suggesting a potentially accelerated onset of immune-related adverse events. Researchers also observed a higher-than-expected frequency of myocarditis in melanoma patients (15%). These toxicities clustered among patients who had FMT donors enriched in Prevotella spp, highlighting the importance of donor selection for future trials, the researchers explained.

The team plans to assess the potential of FMT to overcome primary resistance to ICI as part of the phase 2 CanBiome2 randomized trial, which aims to enroll 128 patients.

The RCC Data

The other two studies focused on FMT in patients with metastatic RCC. In the phase 1 PERFORM study, 20 treatment-naive patients with metastatic RCC added encapsulated healthy-donor FMT to standard ICI-based regimens — most commonly ipilimumab plus nivolumab, with some patients receiving pembrolizumab plus axitinib or pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib.

The primary endpoint was safety defined by the incidence and severity of immune-related adverse events. The safety endpoint was met; 50% of patients (10 of 20) experienced grade 3 immune-related adverse events, and there were no serious FMT-related toxicities and no grade 4 or 5 events.

Among 18 evaluable patients, nine (50%) achieved an objective response, including two who had complete responses (11%). Notably, most treatment responders did not develop any grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events, the researchers reported.

Finally, in the phase 2a TACITO trial, 45 patients with treatment-naive metastatic RCC were randomly allocated to receive donor FMT or placebo FMT. Patients received three administrations over 6 months — first via colonoscopy then as capsulized doses, alongside pembrolizumab plus axitinib.

The primary endpoint of 12-month progression-free survival narrowly missed statistical significance — 70% vs 41% (P = .053) — but suggested a benefit in the donor FMT group.

“We need more than 1 year to appreciate statistical significance in terms of progression-free survival,” study investigator Gianluca Ianiro, MD, PhD, with Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, told Medscape Medical News.

As for secondary endpoints, median progression-free survival was significantly longer with donor FMT (24.0 vs 9.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.50; P = .035) and the objective response rate was higher with donor FMT (52% vs 32%).

Why Might FMT Boost ICI Response?

Conceptually, FMT is intended to reshape the gut ecosystem in ways that favor antitumor immunity, and possibly reduce immune dysregulation.

Across these new studies, the mechanistic story is moving beyond the idea that more diversity is good and toward a model that suggests a benefit to removing or suppressing taxa associated with resistance or inflammatory toxicity.

For example, in the TACITO trial, microbiome analysis confirmed that acquisition or loss of specific bacterial strains was associated with 12-month progression-free survival.

Additionally, results of the FMT-LUMINate trial hinted that the therapeutic benefit of FMT may be driven by eliminating harmful bacteria present at baseline, most notably Enterocloster, Clostridium and Streptococcus spp.

“This bacterial depletion was associated with a favorable immunometabolic milieu,” the FMT-LUMINate researchers wrote. Additionally, the results suggest that “failure to eliminate baseline deleterious taxa may sustain an immunosuppressive metabolic and systemic immune milieu that compromises ICI responses.”

Is FMT Ready for Prime Time?

Ianiro told Medscape Medical News he “definitely” thinks microbiome modulation could eventually become part of standard immunotherapy regimens.

Although the “signal” of benefit is clearly there, Davar cautioned that it’s too early to justify routine, off-trial use of FMT specifically to improve ICI response.

“These remain small, proof-of-concept studies. They are not adequately powered trials of fecal transplants and multiple different covariates haven’t been considered,” Davar said.

The study researchers noted that issues around donor selection and availability, dosing schedules, product standardization, and safety risk stratification need to be resolved.

For example, TACITO’s real-world experience shows logistics can matter. Delays occurred due to capsule unavailability and other scheduling barriers, which led to late dosing and missed or shifted treatments in some patients.

That’s a reminder that scaling FMT for oncology would require robust manufacturing, distribution, and time-sensitive coordination with ICI start dates.

More broadly, “whether FMT is the most suitable method of essentially changing the gut microbiome remains unclear,” explained Davar, who suggested that engineered microbiome therapeutics or tailored therapies may be a preferable, more scalable and tailored long-term solution.

Overall, does this new research provide impetus to develop stool banks? “Probably not,” Davar said.

But is it a call for interested parties to think about clinical trials and experimental products that could influence the gut microbiome? “Those are all probably good ideas,” he said.

The PERFORM, TACITO and FMT-LUMINate trials had no commercial funding. Saman Maleki Vareki, PhD, of the PERFORM trial, is a cofounder of LND Therapeutics Inc and has submitted a US patent application related to FMT donor screening. Ianiro has received personal fees for acting as a speaker for Biocodex and Illumina and for acting as a consultant/advisor for Ferring Therapeutics. Arielle Elkrief, MD, of the FMT-LUMINate trial, has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and EMD Serono; consulting fees from EverImmune, NECBio, and Sanofi-Pasteur; and is an inventor on a patent regarding the microbiome and immunotherapy response. Davar had no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

In a review of physician-related malpractice cases from 1930 to 2025, melanoma was the most frequently litigated skin cancer, and failure or delay in diagnosis was the most common allegation, with documented death in nearly one third of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers conducted a review of physician-related medicolegal cases involving skin cancer using the LexisNexis legal database and identified 188 unique cases from 1930 through May 2025.

Cases were included if physicians were named as defendants and the litigation centered on diagnosis or management of a cutaneous malignancy.

Study outcomes examined case characteristics including cancer type, practice setting, defendant specialty, primary allegations, clinical outcomes, and case verdicts across the US.

TAKEAWAY:

Melanoma accounted for 49.5% of litigated cases, followed by squamous cell carcinoma (21.6%), basal cell carcinoma (14.2%), unspecified skin cancer (11.6%), and other rare tumors (3.1%). Death was reported in 29.8% of cases and metastatic disease in 39.9%.

Failure or delay in diagnosis was the leading allegation (38.1%), followed by treatment or management errors (24.2%), misdiagnosis (11.4%), “deliberate indifference” (8.3%), inadequate informed consent (7.5%), and pathology-related errors (7.2%).

Family physicians were the most common defendants (27.5%), followed by dermatologists, including Mohs surgeons (20.1%), and pathologists or dermatopathologists (14.4%), followed by general or plastic surgeons (7.9%), and internists (4.4%). Most cases originated in private practices (59.7%), and New York (16.0%) and California (13.3%) were the states with the most cases.

Among 109 closed cases, 5.5% resulted in plaintiff verdicts, whereas defense verdicts predominated in 55.0%. Plaintiff awards ranged from $10,000 to $4.25 million.

IN PRACTICE:

“This comprehensive review demonstrates that melanoma is the most frequently litigated skin cancer, particularly in cases involving metastatic disease or death, and that family physicians are the most commonly named defendants overall,” the authors wrote. “By examining both allegations and outcomes,” they added, “this analysis provides a pragmatic assessment of real-world litigation exposure and the clinical scenarios that expose physicians to legal proceedings, financial cost, reputational harm, and psychological burden, regardless of case disposition.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghassan Barnawi, MD, Division of Dermatology, McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and was published online on February 20, 2026, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on published court decisions, which likely underestimated malpractice burden by excluding settlements and unreported claims.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

TOPLINE:

In a review of physician-related malpractice cases from 1930 to 2025, melanoma was the most frequently litigated skin cancer, and failure or delay in diagnosis was the most common allegation, with documented death in nearly one third of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers conducted a review of physician-related medicolegal cases involving skin cancer using the LexisNexis legal database and identified 188 unique cases from 1930 through May 2025.

Cases were included if physicians were named as defendants and the litigation centered on diagnosis or management of a cutaneous malignancy.

Study outcomes examined case characteristics including cancer type, practice setting, defendant specialty, primary allegations, clinical outcomes, and case verdicts across the US.

TAKEAWAY:

Melanoma accounted for 49.5% of litigated cases, followed by squamous cell carcinoma (21.6%), basal cell carcinoma (14.2%), unspecified skin cancer (11.6%), and other rare tumors (3.1%). Death was reported in 29.8% of cases and metastatic disease in 39.9%.

Failure or delay in diagnosis was the leading allegation (38.1%), followed by treatment or management errors (24.2%), misdiagnosis (11.4%), “deliberate indifference” (8.3%), inadequate informed consent (7.5%), and pathology-related errors (7.2%).

Family physicians were the most common defendants (27.5%), followed by dermatologists, including Mohs surgeons (20.1%), and pathologists or dermatopathologists (14.4%), followed by general or plastic surgeons (7.9%), and internists (4.4%). Most cases originated in private practices (59.7%), and New York (16.0%) and California (13.3%) were the states with the most cases.

Among 109 closed cases, 5.5% resulted in plaintiff verdicts, whereas defense verdicts predominated in 55.0%. Plaintiff awards ranged from $10,000 to $4.25 million.

IN PRACTICE:

“This comprehensive review demonstrates that melanoma is the most frequently litigated skin cancer, particularly in cases involving metastatic disease or death, and that family physicians are the most commonly named defendants overall,” the authors wrote. “By examining both allegations and outcomes,” they added, “this analysis provides a pragmatic assessment of real-world litigation exposure and the clinical scenarios that expose physicians to legal proceedings, financial cost, reputational harm, and psychological burden, regardless of case disposition.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghassan Barnawi, MD, Division of Dermatology, McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and was published online on February 20, 2026, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on published court decisions, which likely underestimated malpractice burden by excluding settlements and unreported claims.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

TOPLINE:

In a review of physician-related malpractice cases from 1930 to 2025, melanoma was the most frequently litigated skin cancer, and failure or delay in diagnosis was the most common allegation, with documented death in nearly one third of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers conducted a review of physician-related medicolegal cases involving skin cancer using the LexisNexis legal database and identified 188 unique cases from 1930 through May 2025.

Cases were included if physicians were named as defendants and the litigation centered on diagnosis or management of a cutaneous malignancy.

Study outcomes examined case characteristics including cancer type, practice setting, defendant specialty, primary allegations, clinical outcomes, and case verdicts across the US.

TAKEAWAY:

Melanoma accounted for 49.5% of litigated cases, followed by squamous cell carcinoma (21.6%), basal cell carcinoma (14.2%), unspecified skin cancer (11.6%), and other rare tumors (3.1%). Death was reported in 29.8% of cases and metastatic disease in 39.9%.

Failure or delay in diagnosis was the leading allegation (38.1%), followed by treatment or management errors (24.2%), misdiagnosis (11.4%), “deliberate indifference” (8.3%), inadequate informed consent (7.5%), and pathology-related errors (7.2%).

Family physicians were the most common defendants (27.5%), followed by dermatologists, including Mohs surgeons (20.1%), and pathologists or dermatopathologists (14.4%), followed by general or plastic surgeons (7.9%), and internists (4.4%). Most cases originated in private practices (59.7%), and New York (16.0%) and California (13.3%) were the states with the most cases.

Among 109 closed cases, 5.5% resulted in plaintiff verdicts, whereas defense verdicts predominated in 55.0%. Plaintiff awards ranged from $10,000 to $4.25 million.

IN PRACTICE:

“This comprehensive review demonstrates that melanoma is the most frequently litigated skin cancer, particularly in cases involving metastatic disease or death, and that family physicians are the most commonly named defendants overall,” the authors wrote. “By examining both allegations and outcomes,” they added, “this analysis provides a pragmatic assessment of real-world litigation exposure and the clinical scenarios that expose physicians to legal proceedings, financial cost, reputational harm, and psychological burden, regardless of case disposition.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghassan Barnawi, MD, Division of Dermatology, McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and was published online on February 20, 2026, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on published court decisions, which likely underestimated malpractice burden by excluding settlements and unreported claims.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

TOPLINE:

Exposure to Agent Orange, the defoliant used by the US Air Force during the Vietnam War, was one of the factors associated with increased odds of acral melanoma (AM), a rare melanoma subtype affecting palms, soles, and nail units.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nested case-control study in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system, and identified 1292 veterans (median age, 70.13 years; 94.0% men; 73.4% White, 14.6% Black) with AM through the Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry and a validated natural language processing pipeline from 2000 to 2024.
• Researchers matched each case of AM to 4 individuals with nonacral cutaneous melanoma (CM) and 4 control individuals without melanoma diagnoses, based on diagnosis year and outpatient visit frequency.
• Exposures included age, sex, race, ethnicity, rurality, region, military branch, comorbidities, smoking status, alcohol use, BMI, Agent Orange exposure, prior photosensitizing medications, nevi, and keratinocyte carcinoma.

TAKEAWAY:

• Veterans exposed to Agent Orange had higher odds of AM than individuals with CM (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.06-1.62) and control individuals without melanoma (AOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04-1.56).
• Individuals with current smoking habit had lower odds of AM than those with CM (AOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81) and control individuals without melanoma (AOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.40-0.62).
• Patients with prior keratinocyte carcinoma and actinic keratosis had higher odds of AM than control individuals without melanoma but lower odds than those with CM.
• History of nevus was associated with higher odds of acral melanoma compared with individuals without melanoma (AOR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.49-2.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results support the need for continued investigation of AM as a distinct entity from CM and may inform future evaluations of the associations between [Agent Orange exposure] in veteran populations, as well as those between other environmental exposures in different populations," the study authors wrote. Referring to the “continued search for a better understanding of a potential link” between Agent Orange and melanoma, as well as AM, and other possible etiologic factors for AM, this study “provides a strong impetus to further these research goals and contribute to the investigation of the legacy of the Vietnam War and honor a commitment to the veterans community,” Andrew F. Olshan, PhD, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jonathan C. Hwang, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and was published online on February 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The case-control design limits causal inference and the findings might not be generalized outside US veterans. Exposure misclassification could be present.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Several authors reported receiving grants from CU Anschutz Medical Center, Department of Defense, CDMRP Melanoma Research Program, and Merck, Bayer, and Department of Veteran Affairs. They also reported receiving royalty from UpToDate, and being shareholder in many companies, including Apple. NVIDIA, Amazon, Gilead, AstraZeneca, BioNTech, and Moderna. Olshan declared being a member of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Veterans and Agent Orange review committee.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Exposure to Agent Orange, the defoliant used by the US Air Force during the Vietnam War, was one of the factors associated with increased odds of acral melanoma (AM), a rare melanoma subtype affecting palms, soles, and nail units.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nested case-control study in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system, and identified 1292 veterans (median age, 70.13 years; 94.0% men; 73.4% White, 14.6% Black) with AM through the Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry and a validated natural language processing pipeline from 2000 to 2024.
• Researchers matched each case of AM to 4 individuals with nonacral cutaneous melanoma (CM) and 4 control individuals without melanoma diagnoses, based on diagnosis year and outpatient visit frequency.
• Exposures included age, sex, race, ethnicity, rurality, region, military branch, comorbidities, smoking status, alcohol use, BMI, Agent Orange exposure, prior photosensitizing medications, nevi, and keratinocyte carcinoma.

TAKEAWAY:

• Veterans exposed to Agent Orange had higher odds of AM than individuals with CM (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.06-1.62) and control individuals without melanoma (AOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04-1.56).
• Individuals with current smoking habit had lower odds of AM than those with CM (AOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81) and control individuals without melanoma (AOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.40-0.62).
• Patients with prior keratinocyte carcinoma and actinic keratosis had higher odds of AM than control individuals without melanoma but lower odds than those with CM.
• History of nevus was associated with higher odds of acral melanoma compared with individuals without melanoma (AOR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.49-2.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results support the need for continued investigation of AM as a distinct entity from CM and may inform future evaluations of the associations between [Agent Orange exposure] in veteran populations, as well as those between other environmental exposures in different populations," the study authors wrote. Referring to the “continued search for a better understanding of a potential link” between Agent Orange and melanoma, as well as AM, and other possible etiologic factors for AM, this study “provides a strong impetus to further these research goals and contribute to the investigation of the legacy of the Vietnam War and honor a commitment to the veterans community,” Andrew F. Olshan, PhD, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jonathan C. Hwang, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and was published online on February 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The case-control design limits causal inference and the findings might not be generalized outside US veterans. Exposure misclassification could be present.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Several authors reported receiving grants from CU Anschutz Medical Center, Department of Defense, CDMRP Melanoma Research Program, and Merck, Bayer, and Department of Veteran Affairs. They also reported receiving royalty from UpToDate, and being shareholder in many companies, including Apple. NVIDIA, Amazon, Gilead, AstraZeneca, BioNTech, and Moderna. Olshan declared being a member of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Veterans and Agent Orange review committee.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Exposure to Agent Orange, the defoliant used by the US Air Force during the Vietnam War, was one of the factors associated with increased odds of acral melanoma (AM), a rare melanoma subtype affecting palms, soles, and nail units.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nested case-control study in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system, and identified 1292 veterans (median age, 70.13 years; 94.0% men; 73.4% White, 14.6% Black) with AM through the Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry and a validated natural language processing pipeline from 2000 to 2024.
• Researchers matched each case of AM to 4 individuals with nonacral cutaneous melanoma (CM) and 4 control individuals without melanoma diagnoses, based on diagnosis year and outpatient visit frequency.
• Exposures included age, sex, race, ethnicity, rurality, region, military branch, comorbidities, smoking status, alcohol use, BMI, Agent Orange exposure, prior photosensitizing medications, nevi, and keratinocyte carcinoma.

TAKEAWAY:

• Veterans exposed to Agent Orange had higher odds of AM than individuals with CM (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.06-1.62) and control individuals without melanoma (AOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04-1.56).
• Individuals with current smoking habit had lower odds of AM than those with CM (AOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81) and control individuals without melanoma (AOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.40-0.62).
• Patients with prior keratinocyte carcinoma and actinic keratosis had higher odds of AM than control individuals without melanoma but lower odds than those with CM.
• History of nevus was associated with higher odds of acral melanoma compared with individuals without melanoma (AOR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.49-2.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results support the need for continued investigation of AM as a distinct entity from CM and may inform future evaluations of the associations between [Agent Orange exposure] in veteran populations, as well as those between other environmental exposures in different populations," the study authors wrote. Referring to the “continued search for a better understanding of a potential link” between Agent Orange and melanoma, as well as AM, and other possible etiologic factors for AM, this study “provides a strong impetus to further these research goals and contribute to the investigation of the legacy of the Vietnam War and honor a commitment to the veterans community,” Andrew F. Olshan, PhD, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jonathan C. Hwang, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and was published online on February 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The case-control design limits causal inference and the findings might not be generalized outside US veterans. Exposure misclassification could be present.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Several authors reported receiving grants from CU Anschutz Medical Center, Department of Defense, CDMRP Melanoma Research Program, and Merck, Bayer, and Department of Veteran Affairs. They also reported receiving royalty from UpToDate, and being shareholder in many companies, including Apple. NVIDIA, Amazon, Gilead, AstraZeneca, BioNTech, and Moderna. Olshan declared being a member of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Veterans and Agent Orange review committee.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

When Skin Cancer Awareness Month rolls around every May, my social media feed is inundated with posts extolling the benefits of total body skin examinations and the life-saving potential of skin cancer screenings; however, time and again the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)—the leading authority on evidence-based public health recommendations in the United States—has found the evidence supporting skin cancer screenings to be insufficient. The USPSTF has cited a lack of high-quality studies and inadequate data to recommend screening for the general population, excluding those at elevated risk due to personal, family, or occupational history.¹ A 2019 Cochrane review went further, concluding that current evidence refutes the utility of population-based screening for melanoma.²

Despite these findings, skin cancer screenings and total body skin examinations remain popular among patients both with and without a personal or family history of cutaneous malignancy. Indeed, the anecdotal experience of dermatologists worldwide suggests an intangible benefit to screening that persists, even if robust data to support it remain elusive.

Putting aside studies that suggest these screenings help identify melanomas at earlier stages and with reduced Breslow thicknesses,³ there is a crucial benefit from face-to-face interaction between medical professionals and the public during skin cancer screening events or health fairs. This interaction has become especially important in an era when misinformation thrives online and so-called skin care “experts” with no formal training can amass tens of thousands—or even millions—of followers on social media.

So, what are the intangible benefits of the face-to-face interactions that occur naturally during skin cancer screenings? The most obvious is education. While the USPSTF may not recommend routine screening for skin cancer in the general population, it does endorse education for children, adolescents, and adults on the importance of minimizing exposure to UV radiation, particularly those with lighter skin tones.⁴ Publicly advertised skin cancer screenings at health fairs or other community events may offer an opportunity to raise awareness about sun safety and protection, including the value of peak UV avoidance, sun-protective clothing, and proper sunscreen use; these settings also serve as platforms for health care providers to counter misinformation, including concerns about sunscreen safety both for the patient and the environment, overhyped risks for vitamin D deficiency from sun avoidance, and myths about low skin cancer risk in patients with skin of color.

While the benefits of skin self-examination (SSE) remain uncertain, especially in low-risk populations, screening events provide an opportunity to educate patients on who is most likely to benefit from SSE and in whom the practice may cause more harm than good.⁵ For higher-risk individuals such as melanoma survivors or those with a strong family history, screening fairs can serve as meaningful touchpoints that reinforce the importance of sun protection and regular examinations with a health care provider. For those eager to perform SSEs, these events offer the chance to teach best ­practices—how to conduct SSEs effectively, what features to look for (eg, the ABCDE method or the ugly duckling sign), and when to seek professional care.

Finally (and importantly), skin cancer screening events provide peace of mind for patients. Reassurance from a professional about a benign skin lesion can alleviate anxiety that might otherwise lead to emergency or urgent care visits. While cellulitis and other skin infections are the most common dermatologic conditions seen in emergency settings, benign neoplasms and similar nonurgent conditions still contribute a substantial burden to urgent care systems in the United States.⁶ Outside emergency care, systems-level data support what many of us observe in practice: two of the most common reasons for referral to dermatology are benign neoplasms and epidermoid cysts, accounting for millions of visits annually.⁷ In fact, recent claims data suggest that the most common diagnosis made in US dermatology clinics in 2023 was (you guessed it!) seborrheic keratosis.⁸

What if instead of requiring a patient to wait weeks for a primary care appointment and months for a dermatology referral—all while worrying about a rapidly growing pigmented lesion and incurring costs in copays, travel, lost wages, and time away from work—we offered a fast, trustworthy, and free evaluation that meets the patient where they live, work, or socialize? An evaluation that not only eases their fears but also provides meaningful education about skin cancer prevention and screening guidelines? While precautions must of course be taken to ensure that the quality and completeness of such an examination equals that of an in-clinic evaluation, if services of this quality can be provided, public screening events may offer a simple, accessible, and valuable solution that delivers peace of mind and helps reduce unnecessary strain on emergency, primary, and specialty care networks.

When Skin Cancer Awareness Month rolls around every May, my social media feed is inundated with posts extolling the benefits of total body skin examinations and the life-saving potential of skin cancer screenings; however, time and again the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)—the leading authority on evidence-based public health recommendations in the United States—has found the evidence supporting skin cancer screenings to be insufficient. The USPSTF has cited a lack of high-quality studies and inadequate data to recommend screening for the general population, excluding those at elevated risk due to personal, family, or occupational history.¹ A 2019 Cochrane review went further, concluding that current evidence refutes the utility of population-based screening for melanoma.²

Despite these findings, skin cancer screenings and total body skin examinations remain popular among patients both with and without a personal or family history of cutaneous malignancy. Indeed, the anecdotal experience of dermatologists worldwide suggests an intangible benefit to screening that persists, even if robust data to support it remain elusive.

Putting aside studies that suggest these screenings help identify melanomas at earlier stages and with reduced Breslow thicknesses,³ there is a crucial benefit from face-to-face interaction between medical professionals and the public during skin cancer screening events or health fairs. This interaction has become especially important in an era when misinformation thrives online and so-called skin care “experts” with no formal training can amass tens of thousands—or even millions—of followers on social media.

So, what are the intangible benefits of the face-to-face interactions that occur naturally during skin cancer screenings? The most obvious is education. While the USPSTF may not recommend routine screening for skin cancer in the general population, it does endorse education for children, adolescents, and adults on the importance of minimizing exposure to UV radiation, particularly those with lighter skin tones.⁴ Publicly advertised skin cancer screenings at health fairs or other community events may offer an opportunity to raise awareness about sun safety and protection, including the value of peak UV avoidance, sun-protective clothing, and proper sunscreen use; these settings also serve as platforms for health care providers to counter misinformation, including concerns about sunscreen safety both for the patient and the environment, overhyped risks for vitamin D deficiency from sun avoidance, and myths about low skin cancer risk in patients with skin of color.

While the benefits of skin self-examination (SSE) remain uncertain, especially in low-risk populations, screening events provide an opportunity to educate patients on who is most likely to benefit from SSE and in whom the practice may cause more harm than good.⁵ For higher-risk individuals such as melanoma survivors or those with a strong family history, screening fairs can serve as meaningful touchpoints that reinforce the importance of sun protection and regular examinations with a health care provider. For those eager to perform SSEs, these events offer the chance to teach best ­practices—how to conduct SSEs effectively, what features to look for (eg, the ABCDE method or the ugly duckling sign), and when to seek professional care.

Finally (and importantly), skin cancer screening events provide peace of mind for patients. Reassurance from a professional about a benign skin lesion can alleviate anxiety that might otherwise lead to emergency or urgent care visits. While cellulitis and other skin infections are the most common dermatologic conditions seen in emergency settings, benign neoplasms and similar nonurgent conditions still contribute a substantial burden to urgent care systems in the United States.⁶ Outside emergency care, systems-level data support what many of us observe in practice: two of the most common reasons for referral to dermatology are benign neoplasms and epidermoid cysts, accounting for millions of visits annually.⁷ In fact, recent claims data suggest that the most common diagnosis made in US dermatology clinics in 2023 was (you guessed it!) seborrheic keratosis.⁸

What if instead of requiring a patient to wait weeks for a primary care appointment and months for a dermatology referral—all while worrying about a rapidly growing pigmented lesion and incurring costs in copays, travel, lost wages, and time away from work—we offered a fast, trustworthy, and free evaluation that meets the patient where they live, work, or socialize? An evaluation that not only eases their fears but also provides meaningful education about skin cancer prevention and screening guidelines? While precautions must of course be taken to ensure that the quality and completeness of such an examination equals that of an in-clinic evaluation, if services of this quality can be provided, public screening events may offer a simple, accessible, and valuable solution that delivers peace of mind and helps reduce unnecessary strain on emergency, primary, and specialty care networks.

When Skin Cancer Awareness Month rolls around every May, my social media feed is inundated with posts extolling the benefits of total body skin examinations and the life-saving potential of skin cancer screenings; however, time and again the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)—the leading authority on evidence-based public health recommendations in the United States—has found the evidence supporting skin cancer screenings to be insufficient. The USPSTF has cited a lack of high-quality studies and inadequate data to recommend screening for the general population, excluding those at elevated risk due to personal, family, or occupational history.¹ A 2019 Cochrane review went further, concluding that current evidence refutes the utility of population-based screening for melanoma.²

Despite these findings, skin cancer screenings and total body skin examinations remain popular among patients both with and without a personal or family history of cutaneous malignancy. Indeed, the anecdotal experience of dermatologists worldwide suggests an intangible benefit to screening that persists, even if robust data to support it remain elusive.

Putting aside studies that suggest these screenings help identify melanomas at earlier stages and with reduced Breslow thicknesses,³ there is a crucial benefit from face-to-face interaction between medical professionals and the public during skin cancer screening events or health fairs. This interaction has become especially important in an era when misinformation thrives online and so-called skin care “experts” with no formal training can amass tens of thousands—or even millions—of followers on social media.

So, what are the intangible benefits of the face-to-face interactions that occur naturally during skin cancer screenings? The most obvious is education. While the USPSTF may not recommend routine screening for skin cancer in the general population, it does endorse education for children, adolescents, and adults on the importance of minimizing exposure to UV radiation, particularly those with lighter skin tones.⁴ Publicly advertised skin cancer screenings at health fairs or other community events may offer an opportunity to raise awareness about sun safety and protection, including the value of peak UV avoidance, sun-protective clothing, and proper sunscreen use; these settings also serve as platforms for health care providers to counter misinformation, including concerns about sunscreen safety both for the patient and the environment, overhyped risks for vitamin D deficiency from sun avoidance, and myths about low skin cancer risk in patients with skin of color.

While the benefits of skin self-examination (SSE) remain uncertain, especially in low-risk populations, screening events provide an opportunity to educate patients on who is most likely to benefit from SSE and in whom the practice may cause more harm than good.⁵ For higher-risk individuals such as melanoma survivors or those with a strong family history, screening fairs can serve as meaningful touchpoints that reinforce the importance of sun protection and regular examinations with a health care provider. For those eager to perform SSEs, these events offer the chance to teach best ­practices—how to conduct SSEs effectively, what features to look for (eg, the ABCDE method or the ugly duckling sign), and when to seek professional care.

Finally (and importantly), skin cancer screening events provide peace of mind for patients. Reassurance from a professional about a benign skin lesion can alleviate anxiety that might otherwise lead to emergency or urgent care visits. While cellulitis and other skin infections are the most common dermatologic conditions seen in emergency settings, benign neoplasms and similar nonurgent conditions still contribute a substantial burden to urgent care systems in the United States.⁶ Outside emergency care, systems-level data support what many of us observe in practice: two of the most common reasons for referral to dermatology are benign neoplasms and epidermoid cysts, accounting for millions of visits annually.⁷ In fact, recent claims data suggest that the most common diagnosis made in US dermatology clinics in 2023 was (you guessed it!) seborrheic keratosis.⁸

What if instead of requiring a patient to wait weeks for a primary care appointment and months for a dermatology referral—all while worrying about a rapidly growing pigmented lesion and incurring costs in copays, travel, lost wages, and time away from work—we offered a fast, trustworthy, and free evaluation that meets the patient where they live, work, or socialize? An evaluation that not only eases their fears but also provides meaningful education about skin cancer prevention and screening guidelines? While precautions must of course be taken to ensure that the quality and completeness of such an examination equals that of an in-clinic evaluation, if services of this quality can be provided, public screening events may offer a simple, accessible, and valuable solution that delivers peace of mind and helps reduce unnecessary strain on emergency, primary, and specialty care networks.

Practice Gap

Tissue processing and complete margin assessment in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) are challenging concepts for residents, yet they are essential components of the dermatology residency curriculum. We propose a hands-on active teaching method using craft foam blocks to help residents master these techniques. Prior educational tools have included instructional videos¹ as well as the peanut butter–cup and cantaloupe analogies.^2,3 Specifically, our method utilizes inexpensive, readily available supplies that allow for repeated practice in a low-stakes environment without limitation of resources. This method provides an immersive, hands-on experience that allows residents to perform multiple practice excisions and simulate positive peripheral or deep margins, unlike tools that offer only fixed-depth or purely visual representations. Additionally, our learning model uniquely enables residents to flatten the simulated tissue, providing a clearer understanding of how a 3-dimensional specimen is transformed on a slide during histologic preparation. This step is particularly important, as tissue architecture can shift during processing, making it one of the most difficult concepts to grasp without hands-on experience. Having a multitude of teaching methods is crucial to accommodate various learning styles, and active learning has been shown to enhance retention for dermatology residents.⁴

The Technique

Residents use simple art supplies (including craft foam blocks and ink) and inexpensive, readily available surgical tools to simulate MMS (Table)(Figure 1). If desired, the resident can follow along with the comprehensive, stepwise textbook description of MMS, outlined by Benedetto et al⁵ to contextualize this hands-on exercise within a standardized didactic framework.

The foam block, which represents patient tissue, serves as the specimen. The resident begins by freehand drawing a simulated cutaneous tumor directly onto the foam using a surgical marking pen. At this point, the instructor discusses the advantages and limitations of tumor debulking with a sharp blade or curette. Residents then mark appropriate margins (1-3 mm) of normal-appearing “epidermis” on the foam block and add hash marks for orientation. This is another opportunity for the instructor to discuss common methods for marking tissue in vivo and to review situations when larger or smaller margins might be appropriate. 

Next, the resident removes the first layer of simulated tissue using a disposable #15 blade scalpel at a 45° angle circumferentially and deep around the representative tumor. The resident also may use scissors and tissue forceps to remove the representative tumor. Next, the excised foam layer (the simulated “specimen”) is transferred to gauze. To demonstrate a positive margin, the resident or instructor marks the deep or peripheral foam block with a surgical marking pen, indicating residual tumor (Figure 2). This allows for multiple sequential layers of foam to be removed, demonstrating successive stages of MMS. 

An inkwell holds different colors of washable paint to simulate tissue inking. After excision, the resident uses cotton-tipped applicators to apply different paint colors to the edges of the excised foam specimen at designated orientation points (eg, 3 o'clock and 12 o'clock). The resident then records the location of the excised sample by hand-drawing it on a printable Mohs map, labeling the corresponding paint colors to indicate orientation (Figure 3). 

The resident then places the specimen between 2 ­plastic page protectors mimicking a glass slide and cover slip. Clear tape can be used to help flatten the specimen (Figure 4). The tissue is compressed between the page protector so that the simulated epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous fat are all in the same plane. At this stage, the instructor may discuss the use of relaxing incisions, especially for deeper tissue specimens or when excision at a 45° bevel is not achieved.⁵ The view from the underside of the page protector reveals 100% of the specimen’s margin and mimics the first cut off the tissue block. The resident can visualize the complete circumferential, peripheral, and deep margins and can easily identify any positive margins. At this point, the exercise can conclude, or the resident can explore further stages for positive margins, bisected specimens, or other tissue preparation variations.

Practice Implications

By individually designing and removing a representative tumor with margins, creating hash marks, and preparing a tissue specimen for histologic analysis, our interactive teaching method provides dermatology residents with a relatively simple, effective, and active learning experience for MMS outside the surgical setting. Using a piece of craft foam allows the representative tissue to be manipulated and flattened, similar to cutaneous tissue. This method was implemented and refined across 3 separate teaching sessions held by teaching faculty (E.I.P and E.B.W.) at the San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortium Dermatology Residency Program (San Antonio, Texas). This method has consistently generated strong resident engagement and prompted insightful questions and discussions. Program directors at other residency programs can readily incorporate this method in their surgical curriculum by allocating a brief didactic period to the exercise and facilitating the discussion with a dermatologic surgeon. Its simplicity, low cost, and effectiveness make the foam block model an easily adoptable teaching tool for dermatology residency programs seeking to provide a comprehensive, hands-on understanding of MMS.

Practice Gap

Tissue processing and complete margin assessment in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) are challenging concepts for residents, yet they are essential components of the dermatology residency curriculum. We propose a hands-on active teaching method using craft foam blocks to help residents master these techniques. Prior educational tools have included instructional videos¹ as well as the peanut butter–cup and cantaloupe analogies.^2,3 Specifically, our method utilizes inexpensive, readily available supplies that allow for repeated practice in a low-stakes environment without limitation of resources. This method provides an immersive, hands-on experience that allows residents to perform multiple practice excisions and simulate positive peripheral or deep margins, unlike tools that offer only fixed-depth or purely visual representations. Additionally, our learning model uniquely enables residents to flatten the simulated tissue, providing a clearer understanding of how a 3-dimensional specimen is transformed on a slide during histologic preparation. This step is particularly important, as tissue architecture can shift during processing, making it one of the most difficult concepts to grasp without hands-on experience. Having a multitude of teaching methods is crucial to accommodate various learning styles, and active learning has been shown to enhance retention for dermatology residents.⁴

The Technique

Residents use simple art supplies (including craft foam blocks and ink) and inexpensive, readily available surgical tools to simulate MMS (Table)(Figure 1). If desired, the resident can follow along with the comprehensive, stepwise textbook description of MMS, outlined by Benedetto et al⁵ to contextualize this hands-on exercise within a standardized didactic framework.

The foam block, which represents patient tissue, serves as the specimen. The resident begins by freehand drawing a simulated cutaneous tumor directly onto the foam using a surgical marking pen. At this point, the instructor discusses the advantages and limitations of tumor debulking with a sharp blade or curette. Residents then mark appropriate margins (1-3 mm) of normal-appearing “epidermis” on the foam block and add hash marks for orientation. This is another opportunity for the instructor to discuss common methods for marking tissue in vivo and to review situations when larger or smaller margins might be appropriate. 

Next, the resident removes the first layer of simulated tissue using a disposable #15 blade scalpel at a 45° angle circumferentially and deep around the representative tumor. The resident also may use scissors and tissue forceps to remove the representative tumor. Next, the excised foam layer (the simulated “specimen”) is transferred to gauze. To demonstrate a positive margin, the resident or instructor marks the deep or peripheral foam block with a surgical marking pen, indicating residual tumor (Figure 2). This allows for multiple sequential layers of foam to be removed, demonstrating successive stages of MMS. 

An inkwell holds different colors of washable paint to simulate tissue inking. After excision, the resident uses cotton-tipped applicators to apply different paint colors to the edges of the excised foam specimen at designated orientation points (eg, 3 o'clock and 12 o'clock). The resident then records the location of the excised sample by hand-drawing it on a printable Mohs map, labeling the corresponding paint colors to indicate orientation (Figure 3). 

The resident then places the specimen between 2 ­plastic page protectors mimicking a glass slide and cover slip. Clear tape can be used to help flatten the specimen (Figure 4). The tissue is compressed between the page protector so that the simulated epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous fat are all in the same plane. At this stage, the instructor may discuss the use of relaxing incisions, especially for deeper tissue specimens or when excision at a 45° bevel is not achieved.⁵ The view from the underside of the page protector reveals 100% of the specimen’s margin and mimics the first cut off the tissue block. The resident can visualize the complete circumferential, peripheral, and deep margins and can easily identify any positive margins. At this point, the exercise can conclude, or the resident can explore further stages for positive margins, bisected specimens, or other tissue preparation variations.

Practice Implications

By individually designing and removing a representative tumor with margins, creating hash marks, and preparing a tissue specimen for histologic analysis, our interactive teaching method provides dermatology residents with a relatively simple, effective, and active learning experience for MMS outside the surgical setting. Using a piece of craft foam allows the representative tissue to be manipulated and flattened, similar to cutaneous tissue. This method was implemented and refined across 3 separate teaching sessions held by teaching faculty (E.I.P and E.B.W.) at the San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortium Dermatology Residency Program (San Antonio, Texas). This method has consistently generated strong resident engagement and prompted insightful questions and discussions. Program directors at other residency programs can readily incorporate this method in their surgical curriculum by allocating a brief didactic period to the exercise and facilitating the discussion with a dermatologic surgeon. Its simplicity, low cost, and effectiveness make the foam block model an easily adoptable teaching tool for dermatology residency programs seeking to provide a comprehensive, hands-on understanding of MMS.

Practice Gap

Tissue processing and complete margin assessment in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) are challenging concepts for residents, yet they are essential components of the dermatology residency curriculum. We propose a hands-on active teaching method using craft foam blocks to help residents master these techniques. Prior educational tools have included instructional videos¹ as well as the peanut butter–cup and cantaloupe analogies.^2,3 Specifically, our method utilizes inexpensive, readily available supplies that allow for repeated practice in a low-stakes environment without limitation of resources. This method provides an immersive, hands-on experience that allows residents to perform multiple practice excisions and simulate positive peripheral or deep margins, unlike tools that offer only fixed-depth or purely visual representations. Additionally, our learning model uniquely enables residents to flatten the simulated tissue, providing a clearer understanding of how a 3-dimensional specimen is transformed on a slide during histologic preparation. This step is particularly important, as tissue architecture can shift during processing, making it one of the most difficult concepts to grasp without hands-on experience. Having a multitude of teaching methods is crucial to accommodate various learning styles, and active learning has been shown to enhance retention for dermatology residents.⁴

The Technique

Residents use simple art supplies (including craft foam blocks and ink) and inexpensive, readily available surgical tools to simulate MMS (Table)(Figure 1). If desired, the resident can follow along with the comprehensive, stepwise textbook description of MMS, outlined by Benedetto et al⁵ to contextualize this hands-on exercise within a standardized didactic framework.

The foam block, which represents patient tissue, serves as the specimen. The resident begins by freehand drawing a simulated cutaneous tumor directly onto the foam using a surgical marking pen. At this point, the instructor discusses the advantages and limitations of tumor debulking with a sharp blade or curette. Residents then mark appropriate margins (1-3 mm) of normal-appearing “epidermis” on the foam block and add hash marks for orientation. This is another opportunity for the instructor to discuss common methods for marking tissue in vivo and to review situations when larger or smaller margins might be appropriate. 

Next, the resident removes the first layer of simulated tissue using a disposable #15 blade scalpel at a 45° angle circumferentially and deep around the representative tumor. The resident also may use scissors and tissue forceps to remove the representative tumor. Next, the excised foam layer (the simulated “specimen”) is transferred to gauze. To demonstrate a positive margin, the resident or instructor marks the deep or peripheral foam block with a surgical marking pen, indicating residual tumor (Figure 2). This allows for multiple sequential layers of foam to be removed, demonstrating successive stages of MMS. 

An inkwell holds different colors of washable paint to simulate tissue inking. After excision, the resident uses cotton-tipped applicators to apply different paint colors to the edges of the excised foam specimen at designated orientation points (eg, 3 o'clock and 12 o'clock). The resident then records the location of the excised sample by hand-drawing it on a printable Mohs map, labeling the corresponding paint colors to indicate orientation (Figure 3). 

The resident then places the specimen between 2 ­plastic page protectors mimicking a glass slide and cover slip. Clear tape can be used to help flatten the specimen (Figure 4). The tissue is compressed between the page protector so that the simulated epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous fat are all in the same plane. At this stage, the instructor may discuss the use of relaxing incisions, especially for deeper tissue specimens or when excision at a 45° bevel is not achieved.⁵ The view from the underside of the page protector reveals 100% of the specimen’s margin and mimics the first cut off the tissue block. The resident can visualize the complete circumferential, peripheral, and deep margins and can easily identify any positive margins. At this point, the exercise can conclude, or the resident can explore further stages for positive margins, bisected specimens, or other tissue preparation variations.

Practice Implications

By individually designing and removing a representative tumor with margins, creating hash marks, and preparing a tissue specimen for histologic analysis, our interactive teaching method provides dermatology residents with a relatively simple, effective, and active learning experience for MMS outside the surgical setting. Using a piece of craft foam allows the representative tissue to be manipulated and flattened, similar to cutaneous tissue. This method was implemented and refined across 3 separate teaching sessions held by teaching faculty (E.I.P and E.B.W.) at the San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortium Dermatology Residency Program (San Antonio, Texas). This method has consistently generated strong resident engagement and prompted insightful questions and discussions. Program directors at other residency programs can readily incorporate this method in their surgical curriculum by allocating a brief didactic period to the exercise and facilitating the discussion with a dermatologic surgeon. Its simplicity, low cost, and effectiveness make the foam block model an easily adoptable teaching tool for dermatology residency programs seeking to provide a comprehensive, hands-on understanding of MMS.

TOPLINE:

The incidence of skin cancer in England varied by ethnicity: White individuals had higher rates of melanoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and basal cell carcinoma than Asian or Black individuals. In contrast, acral lentiginous melanoma was most common among Black individuals, whereas cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and Kaposi sarcoma were highest among those in the "Other" ethnic group.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analysed all cases of cutaneous melanoma (melanoma and acral lentiginous melanoma), basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and Kaposi sarcoma using data from the NHS National Disease Registration Service cancer registry between 2013 and 2020.
• Data collection incorporated ethnicity information from multiple health care datasets, including Clinical Outcomes and Services Dataset, Patient Administration System, Radiotherapy Dataset, Diagnostic Imaging Dataset, and Hospital Episode Statistics.
• A population analysis categorised patients into 7 standardised ethnic groups (on the basis of Office for National Statistics classifications): White, Asian, Chinese, Black, mixed, other, and unknown groups, with ethnicity data being self-reported by patients.
• Outcomes included European age-standardised rates calculated using the 2013 European Standard Population and reported per 100,000 person-years (PYs).

TAKEAWAY:

• White Individuals had 13-fold higher rates of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (61.75 per 100,000 PYs), 26-fold and 27-fold higher rates of basal cell carcinoma (153.69 per 100,000 PYs), and 33-fold and 16-fold higher rates of cutaneous melanoma (27.29 per 100,000 PYs) than Asian and Black individuals, respectively.
• Black individuals had the highest incidence of acral lentiginous melanoma (0.85 per 100,000 PYs), and those in the other ethnic group had the highest incidence of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (1.74 per 100,000 PYs) and Kaposi sarcoma (1.57 per 100,000 PYs).
• The presentation of early-stage melanoma was low among Asian (53.5%), Black (62.4%), mixed (62.5%), and other (76.4%) ethnic groups compared to that among White ethnicities (79.8%).
• Acral lentiginous melanomas were less likely to get urgent suspected cancer pathway referrals than overall melanoma (40.1% vs 44.6%; P < .001) and more likely to be diagnosed late than overall melanoma (stage I/II at diagnosis; 72% vs 80%; P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

"The findings emphasise the need for better, targeted ethnicity data collection strategies to address incidence, outcomes and health care equity for not just skin cancer but all health conditions in underserved populations," the authors wrote. "While projects like the Global Burden of Disease have improved global health care reporting, continuous audit and improvement of collected data are essential to provide better care across people of all ethnicities."

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shehnaz Ahmed, British Association of Dermatologists, London, England. It was published online on September 10, 2025, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Census data collection after every 10 years could have contributed to inaccurate population estimates and incidence rates. Small sample sizes in certain ethnic groups could have led to potential confounders, requiring a cautious interpretation of relative incidence. The NHS data included only self-reported ethnicity data with no available details of skin phototypes, skin tones, or racial ancestry. This study lacked granular ethnicity census data and stage data for basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous small cell carcinoma, and Kaposi sarcoma.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported through a partnership between the British Association of Dermatologists and NHS England's National Disease Registration Service. Two authors reported being employees of the British Association of Dermatologists.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The incidence of skin cancer in England varied by ethnicity: White individuals had higher rates of melanoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and basal cell carcinoma than Asian or Black individuals. In contrast, acral lentiginous melanoma was most common among Black individuals, whereas cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and Kaposi sarcoma were highest among those in the "Other" ethnic group.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analysed all cases of cutaneous melanoma (melanoma and acral lentiginous melanoma), basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and Kaposi sarcoma using data from the NHS National Disease Registration Service cancer registry between 2013 and 2020.
• Data collection incorporated ethnicity information from multiple health care datasets, including Clinical Outcomes and Services Dataset, Patient Administration System, Radiotherapy Dataset, Diagnostic Imaging Dataset, and Hospital Episode Statistics.
• A population analysis categorised patients into 7 standardised ethnic groups (on the basis of Office for National Statistics classifications): White, Asian, Chinese, Black, mixed, other, and unknown groups, with ethnicity data being self-reported by patients.
• Outcomes included European age-standardised rates calculated using the 2013 European Standard Population and reported per 100,000 person-years (PYs).

TAKEAWAY:

• White Individuals had 13-fold higher rates of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (61.75 per 100,000 PYs), 26-fold and 27-fold higher rates of basal cell carcinoma (153.69 per 100,000 PYs), and 33-fold and 16-fold higher rates of cutaneous melanoma (27.29 per 100,000 PYs) than Asian and Black individuals, respectively.
• Black individuals had the highest incidence of acral lentiginous melanoma (0.85 per 100,000 PYs), and those in the other ethnic group had the highest incidence of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (1.74 per 100,000 PYs) and Kaposi sarcoma (1.57 per 100,000 PYs).
• The presentation of early-stage melanoma was low among Asian (53.5%), Black (62.4%), mixed (62.5%), and other (76.4%) ethnic groups compared to that among White ethnicities (79.8%).
• Acral lentiginous melanomas were less likely to get urgent suspected cancer pathway referrals than overall melanoma (40.1% vs 44.6%; P < .001) and more likely to be diagnosed late than overall melanoma (stage I/II at diagnosis; 72% vs 80%; P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

"The findings emphasise the need for better, targeted ethnicity data collection strategies to address incidence, outcomes and health care equity for not just skin cancer but all health conditions in underserved populations," the authors wrote. "While projects like the Global Burden of Disease have improved global health care reporting, continuous audit and improvement of collected data are essential to provide better care across people of all ethnicities."

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shehnaz Ahmed, British Association of Dermatologists, London, England. It was published online on September 10, 2025, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Census data collection after every 10 years could have contributed to inaccurate population estimates and incidence rates. Small sample sizes in certain ethnic groups could have led to potential confounders, requiring a cautious interpretation of relative incidence. The NHS data included only self-reported ethnicity data with no available details of skin phototypes, skin tones, or racial ancestry. This study lacked granular ethnicity census data and stage data for basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous small cell carcinoma, and Kaposi sarcoma.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported through a partnership between the British Association of Dermatologists and NHS England's National Disease Registration Service. Two authors reported being employees of the British Association of Dermatologists.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The incidence of skin cancer in England varied by ethnicity: White individuals had higher rates of melanoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and basal cell carcinoma than Asian or Black individuals. In contrast, acral lentiginous melanoma was most common among Black individuals, whereas cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and Kaposi sarcoma were highest among those in the "Other" ethnic group.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analysed all cases of cutaneous melanoma (melanoma and acral lentiginous melanoma), basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and Kaposi sarcoma using data from the NHS National Disease Registration Service cancer registry between 2013 and 2020.
• Data collection incorporated ethnicity information from multiple health care datasets, including Clinical Outcomes and Services Dataset, Patient Administration System, Radiotherapy Dataset, Diagnostic Imaging Dataset, and Hospital Episode Statistics.
• A population analysis categorised patients into 7 standardised ethnic groups (on the basis of Office for National Statistics classifications): White, Asian, Chinese, Black, mixed, other, and unknown groups, with ethnicity data being self-reported by patients.
• Outcomes included European age-standardised rates calculated using the 2013 European Standard Population and reported per 100,000 person-years (PYs).

TAKEAWAY:

• White Individuals had 13-fold higher rates of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (61.75 per 100,000 PYs), 26-fold and 27-fold higher rates of basal cell carcinoma (153.69 per 100,000 PYs), and 33-fold and 16-fold higher rates of cutaneous melanoma (27.29 per 100,000 PYs) than Asian and Black individuals, respectively.
• Black individuals had the highest incidence of acral lentiginous melanoma (0.85 per 100,000 PYs), and those in the other ethnic group had the highest incidence of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (1.74 per 100,000 PYs) and Kaposi sarcoma (1.57 per 100,000 PYs).
• The presentation of early-stage melanoma was low among Asian (53.5%), Black (62.4%), mixed (62.5%), and other (76.4%) ethnic groups compared to that among White ethnicities (79.8%).
• Acral lentiginous melanomas were less likely to get urgent suspected cancer pathway referrals than overall melanoma (40.1% vs 44.6%; P < .001) and more likely to be diagnosed late than overall melanoma (stage I/II at diagnosis; 72% vs 80%; P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

"The findings emphasise the need for better, targeted ethnicity data collection strategies to address incidence, outcomes and health care equity for not just skin cancer but all health conditions in underserved populations," the authors wrote. "While projects like the Global Burden of Disease have improved global health care reporting, continuous audit and improvement of collected data are essential to provide better care across people of all ethnicities."

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shehnaz Ahmed, British Association of Dermatologists, London, England. It was published online on September 10, 2025, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Census data collection after every 10 years could have contributed to inaccurate population estimates and incidence rates. Small sample sizes in certain ethnic groups could have led to potential confounders, requiring a cautious interpretation of relative incidence. The NHS data included only self-reported ethnicity data with no available details of skin phototypes, skin tones, or racial ancestry. This study lacked granular ethnicity census data and stage data for basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous small cell carcinoma, and Kaposi sarcoma.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported through a partnership between the British Association of Dermatologists and NHS England's National Disease Registration Service. Two authors reported being employees of the British Association of Dermatologists.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

Background

Choroidal malignant melanoma is a relatively rare condition, yet it remains the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults, affecting approximately 5 individuals per million each year in the United States. Associated risk factors include fair skin, light-colored eyes, ocular melanocytosis, and BAP1 genetic mutations. While 13% of patients presenting with choroidal melanoma are asymptomatic, some symptoms can include photopsia, floaters, blurred vision, and progressive visual field loss.

Case Presentation

We present a case of choroidal melanoma in a 57-year-old male with a past medical history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, major depressive disorder, and alcohol use disorder. This patient presented to the clinic following a detoxification admission, reporting one week of progressive vision loss in the left eye. Upon initial physical examination, the patient exhibited left superior quadrantanopia, with a visual acuity of 20/40 measured in the left eye. Initial imaging with CT head identified an intraocular hyperdensity within the left globe, raising concerns for potential retinal detachment. Urgent ophthalmologic evaluation revealed an afferent pupillary defect and a large choroidal lesion adjacent to the optic nerve head. Ultrasonography showed a low internal reflectivity mass (5.36 mm by 9.05 mm), and a subsequent dilated fundus examination confirmed a classic dome-shaped choroidal melanoma (11.5 mm by 16.5 mm). Gene expression profiling demonstrated a class 1b uveal melanoma with PRAME positivity and mutations in GNAQ and SF3B1. Comprehensive staging scans were negative for metastatic disease. The patient received four treatment sessions of proton beam therapy, which resulted in rapid improvements in his visual fields. For long-term management, he was scheduled for close ophthalmologic follow-up and regular imaging of the chest and abdomen every six months to monitor for recurrence.

Conclusions

This case highlights the challenges of diagnosing choroidal melanoma in the primary care setting and the importance of multidisciplinary involvement, multimodal imaging, and gene expression profiling in facilitating early diagnosis and treatment.

Background

Choroidal malignant melanoma is a relatively rare condition, yet it remains the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults, affecting approximately 5 individuals per million each year in the United States. Associated risk factors include fair skin, light-colored eyes, ocular melanocytosis, and BAP1 genetic mutations. While 13% of patients presenting with choroidal melanoma are asymptomatic, some symptoms can include photopsia, floaters, blurred vision, and progressive visual field loss.

Case Presentation

We present a case of choroidal melanoma in a 57-year-old male with a past medical history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, major depressive disorder, and alcohol use disorder. This patient presented to the clinic following a detoxification admission, reporting one week of progressive vision loss in the left eye. Upon initial physical examination, the patient exhibited left superior quadrantanopia, with a visual acuity of 20/40 measured in the left eye. Initial imaging with CT head identified an intraocular hyperdensity within the left globe, raising concerns for potential retinal detachment. Urgent ophthalmologic evaluation revealed an afferent pupillary defect and a large choroidal lesion adjacent to the optic nerve head. Ultrasonography showed a low internal reflectivity mass (5.36 mm by 9.05 mm), and a subsequent dilated fundus examination confirmed a classic dome-shaped choroidal melanoma (11.5 mm by 16.5 mm). Gene expression profiling demonstrated a class 1b uveal melanoma with PRAME positivity and mutations in GNAQ and SF3B1. Comprehensive staging scans were negative for metastatic disease. The patient received four treatment sessions of proton beam therapy, which resulted in rapid improvements in his visual fields. For long-term management, he was scheduled for close ophthalmologic follow-up and regular imaging of the chest and abdomen every six months to monitor for recurrence.

Conclusions

This case highlights the challenges of diagnosing choroidal melanoma in the primary care setting and the importance of multidisciplinary involvement, multimodal imaging, and gene expression profiling in facilitating early diagnosis and treatment.

Background

Choroidal malignant melanoma is a relatively rare condition, yet it remains the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults, affecting approximately 5 individuals per million each year in the United States. Associated risk factors include fair skin, light-colored eyes, ocular melanocytosis, and BAP1 genetic mutations. While 13% of patients presenting with choroidal melanoma are asymptomatic, some symptoms can include photopsia, floaters, blurred vision, and progressive visual field loss.

Case Presentation

We present a case of choroidal melanoma in a 57-year-old male with a past medical history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, major depressive disorder, and alcohol use disorder. This patient presented to the clinic following a detoxification admission, reporting one week of progressive vision loss in the left eye. Upon initial physical examination, the patient exhibited left superior quadrantanopia, with a visual acuity of 20/40 measured in the left eye. Initial imaging with CT head identified an intraocular hyperdensity within the left globe, raising concerns for potential retinal detachment. Urgent ophthalmologic evaluation revealed an afferent pupillary defect and a large choroidal lesion adjacent to the optic nerve head. Ultrasonography showed a low internal reflectivity mass (5.36 mm by 9.05 mm), and a subsequent dilated fundus examination confirmed a classic dome-shaped choroidal melanoma (11.5 mm by 16.5 mm). Gene expression profiling demonstrated a class 1b uveal melanoma with PRAME positivity and mutations in GNAQ and SF3B1. Comprehensive staging scans were negative for metastatic disease. The patient received four treatment sessions of proton beam therapy, which resulted in rapid improvements in his visual fields. For long-term management, he was scheduled for close ophthalmologic follow-up and regular imaging of the chest and abdomen every six months to monitor for recurrence.

Conclusions

This case highlights the challenges of diagnosing choroidal melanoma in the primary care setting and the importance of multidisciplinary involvement, multimodal imaging, and gene expression profiling in facilitating early diagnosis and treatment.