Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

 

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

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

 

Four Noninvasive Tools Are in Routine Use

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

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

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

 

Each Noninvasive Tool Reduces Biopsy Rates

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Total Body Photograph Helps With Serial Screens

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

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

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

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

 

Noninvasive Screening Training Is Appropriate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Four Noninvasive Tools Are in Routine Use

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

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

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

 

Each Noninvasive Tool Reduces Biopsy Rates

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Total Body Photograph Helps With Serial Screens

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

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

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

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

 

Noninvasive Screening Training Is Appropriate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Four Noninvasive Tools Are in Routine Use

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

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

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

 

Each Noninvasive Tool Reduces Biopsy Rates

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Total Body Photograph Helps With Serial Screens

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

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

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

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

 

Noninvasive Screening Training Is Appropriate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But is that really the case? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But is that really the case? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But is that really the case? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Butler reported that he had no relevant financial disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Butler reported that he had no relevant financial disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Butler reported that he had no relevant financial disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Then: Where We Were

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

A Turning Point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Then: Where We Were

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

A Turning Point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Then: Where We Were

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

A Turning Point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOPLINE:

Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) and ambient ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure account for most Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) cases in the United States.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 38,020 MCC cases (38% women; 93% non-Hispanic White, 4% Hispanic, 1% non-Hispanic Black) diagnosed in the United States from 2001 to 2019 to estimate the contribution of potentially modifiable risk factors to the burden of MCC.
• Population-based cancer registries and linkages with HIV and transplant registries were utilized to identify MCC cases in patients with HIV, solid organ transplant recipients, and patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).
• Data on cloud-adjusted daily ambient UVR irradiance were merged with cancer registry information on the county of residence at diagnosis to assess UVR exposure. Studies reporting the prevalence of MCPyV in MCC specimens collected in the United States were combined via a meta-analysis.
• The study assessed population attributable fractions of MCC cases that were attributable to major immunosuppressive conditions (HIV, solid organ transplant, and chronic CLL), ambient UVR exposure, and MCPyV.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of MCC was higher in people with HIV (standardized incidence ratio [SIR], 2.78), organ transplant recipients (SIR, 13.1), and patients with CLL (SIR, 5.75) than in the general US population. However, only 2.5% of MCC cases were attributable to these immunosuppressive conditions.
• Non-Hispanic White individuals showed elevated MCC incidence at both lower and higher ambient UVR exposure levels, with incidence rate ratios of 4.05 and 4.91, respectively, for MCC on the head and neck.
• A meta-analysis of 19 case series revealed that 63.8% of MCC cases were attributable to MCPyV, with a similar prevalence observed between immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients.
• Overall, 65.1% of MCC cases were attributable to ambient UVR exposure, with higher attribution for cases diagnosed on the head and neck than those diagnosed on other sites (72.1% vs 60.2%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this study suggest that most MCC cases in the US are attributable to MCPyV and/or ambient UVR [UV radiation] exposure, with a smaller fraction attributable to three major immunosuppressive conditions,” the authors wrote. “Future studies should investigate UVR mutational signature, TMB [tumor mutational burden], and MCPyV prevalence according to race and ethnicity and patient immune status to help clarify the overlap between MCC risk factors.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Incidences of MCC may have been inflated because of increased medical surveillance in immunosuppressed populations. The analysis assumed that only cases among non-Hispanic White individuals were associated with UVR. Additionally, the meta-analysis of MCPyV prevalence primarily included studies from large academic institutions, which may not be representative of the entire US population.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NCI and the National Institutes of Health Medical Research Scholars Program. Additional funding was provided through a public-private partnership with contributions from the American Association for Dental Research and the Colgate-Palmolive Company to the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) and ambient ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure account for most Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) cases in the United States.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 38,020 MCC cases (38% women; 93% non-Hispanic White, 4% Hispanic, 1% non-Hispanic Black) diagnosed in the United States from 2001 to 2019 to estimate the contribution of potentially modifiable risk factors to the burden of MCC.
• Population-based cancer registries and linkages with HIV and transplant registries were utilized to identify MCC cases in patients with HIV, solid organ transplant recipients, and patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).
• Data on cloud-adjusted daily ambient UVR irradiance were merged with cancer registry information on the county of residence at diagnosis to assess UVR exposure. Studies reporting the prevalence of MCPyV in MCC specimens collected in the United States were combined via a meta-analysis.
• The study assessed population attributable fractions of MCC cases that were attributable to major immunosuppressive conditions (HIV, solid organ transplant, and chronic CLL), ambient UVR exposure, and MCPyV.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of MCC was higher in people with HIV (standardized incidence ratio [SIR], 2.78), organ transplant recipients (SIR, 13.1), and patients with CLL (SIR, 5.75) than in the general US population. However, only 2.5% of MCC cases were attributable to these immunosuppressive conditions.
• Non-Hispanic White individuals showed elevated MCC incidence at both lower and higher ambient UVR exposure levels, with incidence rate ratios of 4.05 and 4.91, respectively, for MCC on the head and neck.
• A meta-analysis of 19 case series revealed that 63.8% of MCC cases were attributable to MCPyV, with a similar prevalence observed between immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients.
• Overall, 65.1% of MCC cases were attributable to ambient UVR exposure, with higher attribution for cases diagnosed on the head and neck than those diagnosed on other sites (72.1% vs 60.2%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this study suggest that most MCC cases in the US are attributable to MCPyV and/or ambient UVR [UV radiation] exposure, with a smaller fraction attributable to three major immunosuppressive conditions,” the authors wrote. “Future studies should investigate UVR mutational signature, TMB [tumor mutational burden], and MCPyV prevalence according to race and ethnicity and patient immune status to help clarify the overlap between MCC risk factors.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Incidences of MCC may have been inflated because of increased medical surveillance in immunosuppressed populations. The analysis assumed that only cases among non-Hispanic White individuals were associated with UVR. Additionally, the meta-analysis of MCPyV prevalence primarily included studies from large academic institutions, which may not be representative of the entire US population.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NCI and the National Institutes of Health Medical Research Scholars Program. Additional funding was provided through a public-private partnership with contributions from the American Association for Dental Research and the Colgate-Palmolive Company to the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) and ambient ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure account for most Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) cases in the United States.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 38,020 MCC cases (38% women; 93% non-Hispanic White, 4% Hispanic, 1% non-Hispanic Black) diagnosed in the United States from 2001 to 2019 to estimate the contribution of potentially modifiable risk factors to the burden of MCC.
• Population-based cancer registries and linkages with HIV and transplant registries were utilized to identify MCC cases in patients with HIV, solid organ transplant recipients, and patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).
• Data on cloud-adjusted daily ambient UVR irradiance were merged with cancer registry information on the county of residence at diagnosis to assess UVR exposure. Studies reporting the prevalence of MCPyV in MCC specimens collected in the United States were combined via a meta-analysis.
• The study assessed population attributable fractions of MCC cases that were attributable to major immunosuppressive conditions (HIV, solid organ transplant, and chronic CLL), ambient UVR exposure, and MCPyV.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of MCC was higher in people with HIV (standardized incidence ratio [SIR], 2.78), organ transplant recipients (SIR, 13.1), and patients with CLL (SIR, 5.75) than in the general US population. However, only 2.5% of MCC cases were attributable to these immunosuppressive conditions.
• Non-Hispanic White individuals showed elevated MCC incidence at both lower and higher ambient UVR exposure levels, with incidence rate ratios of 4.05 and 4.91, respectively, for MCC on the head and neck.
• A meta-analysis of 19 case series revealed that 63.8% of MCC cases were attributable to MCPyV, with a similar prevalence observed between immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients.
• Overall, 65.1% of MCC cases were attributable to ambient UVR exposure, with higher attribution for cases diagnosed on the head and neck than those diagnosed on other sites (72.1% vs 60.2%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this study suggest that most MCC cases in the US are attributable to MCPyV and/or ambient UVR [UV radiation] exposure, with a smaller fraction attributable to three major immunosuppressive conditions,” the authors wrote. “Future studies should investigate UVR mutational signature, TMB [tumor mutational burden], and MCPyV prevalence according to race and ethnicity and patient immune status to help clarify the overlap between MCC risk factors.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Incidences of MCC may have been inflated because of increased medical surveillance in immunosuppressed populations. The analysis assumed that only cases among non-Hispanic White individuals were associated with UVR. Additionally, the meta-analysis of MCPyV prevalence primarily included studies from large academic institutions, which may not be representative of the entire US population.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NCI and the National Institutes of Health Medical Research Scholars Program. Additional funding was provided through a public-private partnership with contributions from the American Association for Dental Research and the Colgate-Palmolive Company to the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.