Psychogastroenterology, or gastrointestinal psychology, refers to psychosocial research and clinical practice related to GI conditions. This field is situated within a biopsychosocial model of illness and grounded in an understanding of the gut-brain axis. A key feature of GI psychology intervention is behavioral symptom management. Commonly referred to as “brain-gut psychotherapies,” the primary goal of these interventions is to reduce GI symptoms and their impact on those experiencing them. Additionally, GI-focused psychotherapies can help patients with GI disorders cope with their symptoms, diagnosis, or treatment.

GI psychology providers

GI-focused psychotherapies are typically provided by clinical health psychologists (PhDs or PsyDs) with specialized training in GI disorders, although sometimes they are provided by a clinical social worker or advanced-practice nursing provider. Psychologists that identify GI as their primary specialty area often refer to themselves as “GI psychologists.” Psychologists that treat patients with a variety of medical concerns, which may include GI disorders, typically refer to themselves with the broader term, “health psychologists.”

Interventions

A variety of psychological treatments have been applied to GI populations, including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), gut-directed hypnotherapy (GDH), psychodynamic interpersonal therapy, relaxation training, and mindfulness-based stress reduction. Psychological therapies have been shown to be useful in a variety of GI disorders, with a number needed to treat of four in IBS.¹ Common ingredients of GI-focused psychotherapy interventions include psychoeducation regarding the gut-brain relationship and relaxation strategies to provide in-the-moment tools to deescalate the body’s stress response.

CBT and GDH are the most commonly used interventions across a range of GI conditions, with the bulk of empirical evidence in IBS.^2-5 CBT is a theoretical orientation in which thoughts and behaviors are understood to be modifiable factors that impact emotions and physical sensations. When utilized in a GI setting (i.e., GI-CBT), treatment aims to address GI-specific outcomes such as reducing GI symptoms, optimizing health care utilization, and improving quality of life. These interventions target cognitive and behavioral factors common among GI patient populations, such as GI-specific anxiety, symptom hypervigilance, and rigid coping strategies. See Figure 1 for a GI-CBT model.

While research studies often implement manualized protocols, in clinical practice many GI psychologists use cognitive-behavioral interventions flexibly to tailor them to each patient’s presentation, while also integrating theory and practice from other types of therapies such as acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT; pronounced as one word). ACT, a “new wave” therapy derived from traditional CBT, emphasizes acceptance of distress (including GI symptoms), with a focus on engaging in values-based activities rather than symptom reduction.

Clinical hypnotherapy is utilized in a variety of medical specialties and has been studied in GI disorders for over 30 years. There are two evidence-based gut-directed hypnotherapy protocols, the Manchester⁶ and the North Carolina,⁷ that are widely used by GI psychologists. Though the exact mechanisms of hypnotherapy are unknown, it is thought to improve GI symptoms by modulating autonomic arousal and nerve sensitivity in the GI tract.
 

Evaluation

GI psychologists typically meet with patients for a 1-hour evaluation to determine appropriateness for psychogastroenterology intervention and develop a treatment plan. If GI-focused psychotherapy is indicated, patients are typically offered a course of treatment ranging from four to eight sessions. Depending on the nature of the patient’s concerns, longer courses of treatment may be offered, such as for with patients with active inflammatory bowel disease undergoing changes in medical treatment.

Appropriateness for psychogastroenterology treatment

Ideal patients are those who are psychologically stable and whose distress is primarily related to GI concerns, as opposed to family, work, or other situational stressors. While these other stressors can certainly impact GI symptoms, general mental health professionals are best suited to assist patients with these concerns. Patients experiencing more severe mental health concerns may be recommended to pursue a different treatment, such as mental health treatment for depression or anxiety or specialized treatments for trauma, eating disorders, or substance use. In both cases, once these general, non-GI, stressors or significant mental health concerns are more optimally managed, patients are likely to benefit from a GI-focused psychological treatment. Note, however, that because a GI psychologist’s particular practice can vary because of interest, experience, and institutional factors, it is best to connect directly with the GI psychologist you work with to clarify the types of referrals they are comfortable seeing and any specific characteristics of their practice.

Best practice recommendations for gastroenterologists

Developing a collaborative relationship with the GI psychologist, as well as any therapists to whom you regularly refer patients, is key to the success of integrated care. When talking to patients about the referral, refer to the GI psychologist as your colleague and a member of the treatment team. Maintain communication with the GI psychologist, and let the patient know that you are doing so.

When referring a patient, do so after you have completed your work-up and have optimized basic medical management for their condition but suspect that psychosocial factors may be negatively impacting their symptoms or ability to cope. Present the referral as an evaluation rather than implying a guarantee of treatment. This is particularly helpful in those cases where the patient is recommended to pursue a different treatment prior to GI-focused psychotherapy. Additionally, avoid telling patients that they are being referred for a specific intervention such as “a referral for CBT” or “a referral for hypnotherapy,” as the GI psychologist will recommend the most appropriate treatment for the patient upon evaluation. See Figure 2 for example scripts to use when referring.

Expect to maintain communication with the GI psychologist after making the referral. GI psychologists typically send the referring provider a written summary following the initial evaluation and conclusion of treatment and, in some cases, provide updates throughout. Be prepared to answer questions or provide input as requested. Not only may the psychologist have questions about the medical diagnosis or treatment, but they may enlist your help for medical expert opinion during treatment to address misinformation, which can often fuel concerns like treatment nonadherence or anxiety.
 

Identifying a psychogastroenterology provider

In recent years there has been significant growth in the training and hiring of GI psychologists, and it is increasingly common for GI psychologists to be employed at academic medical centers. However, the majority of gastroenterologists do not have access to a fully integrated or co-located GI psychologist. In these cases, gastroenterologists should search for other health psychology options in their area, such as psychologists or clinical social workers with experience with patients with chronic medical conditions and CBT. One positive product of the COVID-19 pandemic is that telemedicine has become increasingly utilized, and in some cases GI psychologists are able to provide virtual therapy to patients across state lines. However, this should be confirmed with the therapy practice as there are numerous factors to consider regarding virtual practice.

Dr. Bedell is assistant professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago. She has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Resources available

To locate a GI psychology provider in your area: Search the Rome Psychogastroenterology directory (https://romegipsych.org/).

To locate general mental health providers: Search the Psychology Today website using the therapist finder function, which allows patients or providers to search by insurance, location, and specialty area (www.psychologytoday.com/us). The patient can also request a list of in-network psychotherapy providers from their insurance company and may find it helpful to cross-check these providers for potential fit by searching them online.

References

1. Ford AC et al. Effect of antidepressants and psychological therapies in irritable bowel syndrome: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019 Jan;114(1):21-39. doi: 10.1038/s41395-018-0222-5.

2. Laird KT et al. Short-term and long-term efficacy of psychological therapies for irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jul;14(7):937-47.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.11.020.

3. Lackner JM et al. Improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms after cognitive behavior therapy for refractory irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jul;155(1):47-57. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.03.063.

4. Lövdahl J et al. Nurse-administered, gut-directed hypnotherapy in IBS: Efficacy and factors predicting a positive response. Am J Clin Hypn. 2015 Jul;58(1):100-14. doi: 10.1080/00029157.2015.1030492.

5. Smith GD. Effect of nurse-led gut-directed hypnotherapy upon health-related quality of life in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Nurs. 2006 Jun;15(6):678-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01356.x.

6. Gonsalkorale WM. Gut-directed hypnotherapy: the Manchester approach for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2006 Jan;54(1):27-50. doi: 10.1080/00207140500323030.

7. Palsson OS. Standardized hypnosis treatment for irritable bowel syndrome: The North Carolina protocol. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2006 Jan;54(1):51-64. doi: 10.1080/00207140500322933.

Psychogastroenterology, or gastrointestinal psychology, refers to psychosocial research and clinical practice related to GI conditions. This field is situated within a biopsychosocial model of illness and grounded in an understanding of the gut-brain axis. A key feature of GI psychology intervention is behavioral symptom management. Commonly referred to as “brain-gut psychotherapies,” the primary goal of these interventions is to reduce GI symptoms and their impact on those experiencing them. Additionally, GI-focused psychotherapies can help patients with GI disorders cope with their symptoms, diagnosis, or treatment.

GI psychology providers

GI-focused psychotherapies are typically provided by clinical health psychologists (PhDs or PsyDs) with specialized training in GI disorders, although sometimes they are provided by a clinical social worker or advanced-practice nursing provider. Psychologists that identify GI as their primary specialty area often refer to themselves as “GI psychologists.” Psychologists that treat patients with a variety of medical concerns, which may include GI disorders, typically refer to themselves with the broader term, “health psychologists.”

Interventions

A variety of psychological treatments have been applied to GI populations, including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), gut-directed hypnotherapy (GDH), psychodynamic interpersonal therapy, relaxation training, and mindfulness-based stress reduction. Psychological therapies have been shown to be useful in a variety of GI disorders, with a number needed to treat of four in IBS.¹ Common ingredients of GI-focused psychotherapy interventions include psychoeducation regarding the gut-brain relationship and relaxation strategies to provide in-the-moment tools to deescalate the body’s stress response.

CBT and GDH are the most commonly used interventions across a range of GI conditions, with the bulk of empirical evidence in IBS.^2-5 CBT is a theoretical orientation in which thoughts and behaviors are understood to be modifiable factors that impact emotions and physical sensations. When utilized in a GI setting (i.e., GI-CBT), treatment aims to address GI-specific outcomes such as reducing GI symptoms, optimizing health care utilization, and improving quality of life. These interventions target cognitive and behavioral factors common among GI patient populations, such as GI-specific anxiety, symptom hypervigilance, and rigid coping strategies. See Figure 1 for a GI-CBT model.

While research studies often implement manualized protocols, in clinical practice many GI psychologists use cognitive-behavioral interventions flexibly to tailor them to each patient’s presentation, while also integrating theory and practice from other types of therapies such as acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT; pronounced as one word). ACT, a “new wave” therapy derived from traditional CBT, emphasizes acceptance of distress (including GI symptoms), with a focus on engaging in values-based activities rather than symptom reduction.

Clinical hypnotherapy is utilized in a variety of medical specialties and has been studied in GI disorders for over 30 years. There are two evidence-based gut-directed hypnotherapy protocols, the Manchester⁶ and the North Carolina,⁷ that are widely used by GI psychologists. Though the exact mechanisms of hypnotherapy are unknown, it is thought to improve GI symptoms by modulating autonomic arousal and nerve sensitivity in the GI tract.
 

Evaluation

GI psychologists typically meet with patients for a 1-hour evaluation to determine appropriateness for psychogastroenterology intervention and develop a treatment plan. If GI-focused psychotherapy is indicated, patients are typically offered a course of treatment ranging from four to eight sessions. Depending on the nature of the patient’s concerns, longer courses of treatment may be offered, such as for with patients with active inflammatory bowel disease undergoing changes in medical treatment.

Appropriateness for psychogastroenterology treatment

Ideal patients are those who are psychologically stable and whose distress is primarily related to GI concerns, as opposed to family, work, or other situational stressors. While these other stressors can certainly impact GI symptoms, general mental health professionals are best suited to assist patients with these concerns. Patients experiencing more severe mental health concerns may be recommended to pursue a different treatment, such as mental health treatment for depression or anxiety or specialized treatments for trauma, eating disorders, or substance use. In both cases, once these general, non-GI, stressors or significant mental health concerns are more optimally managed, patients are likely to benefit from a GI-focused psychological treatment. Note, however, that because a GI psychologist’s particular practice can vary because of interest, experience, and institutional factors, it is best to connect directly with the GI psychologist you work with to clarify the types of referrals they are comfortable seeing and any specific characteristics of their practice.

Best practice recommendations for gastroenterologists

Developing a collaborative relationship with the GI psychologist, as well as any therapists to whom you regularly refer patients, is key to the success of integrated care. When talking to patients about the referral, refer to the GI psychologist as your colleague and a member of the treatment team. Maintain communication with the GI psychologist, and let the patient know that you are doing so.

When referring a patient, do so after you have completed your work-up and have optimized basic medical management for their condition but suspect that psychosocial factors may be negatively impacting their symptoms or ability to cope. Present the referral as an evaluation rather than implying a guarantee of treatment. This is particularly helpful in those cases where the patient is recommended to pursue a different treatment prior to GI-focused psychotherapy. Additionally, avoid telling patients that they are being referred for a specific intervention such as “a referral for CBT” or “a referral for hypnotherapy,” as the GI psychologist will recommend the most appropriate treatment for the patient upon evaluation. See Figure 2 for example scripts to use when referring.

Expect to maintain communication with the GI psychologist after making the referral. GI psychologists typically send the referring provider a written summary following the initial evaluation and conclusion of treatment and, in some cases, provide updates throughout. Be prepared to answer questions or provide input as requested. Not only may the psychologist have questions about the medical diagnosis or treatment, but they may enlist your help for medical expert opinion during treatment to address misinformation, which can often fuel concerns like treatment nonadherence or anxiety.
 

Identifying a psychogastroenterology provider

In recent years there has been significant growth in the training and hiring of GI psychologists, and it is increasingly common for GI psychologists to be employed at academic medical centers. However, the majority of gastroenterologists do not have access to a fully integrated or co-located GI psychologist. In these cases, gastroenterologists should search for other health psychology options in their area, such as psychologists or clinical social workers with experience with patients with chronic medical conditions and CBT. One positive product of the COVID-19 pandemic is that telemedicine has become increasingly utilized, and in some cases GI psychologists are able to provide virtual therapy to patients across state lines. However, this should be confirmed with the therapy practice as there are numerous factors to consider regarding virtual practice.

Dr. Bedell is assistant professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago. She has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Resources available

To locate a GI psychology provider in your area: Search the Rome Psychogastroenterology directory (https://romegipsych.org/).

To locate general mental health providers: Search the Psychology Today website using the therapist finder function, which allows patients or providers to search by insurance, location, and specialty area (www.psychologytoday.com/us). The patient can also request a list of in-network psychotherapy providers from their insurance company and may find it helpful to cross-check these providers for potential fit by searching them online.

References

1. Ford AC et al. Effect of antidepressants and psychological therapies in irritable bowel syndrome: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019 Jan;114(1):21-39. doi: 10.1038/s41395-018-0222-5.

2. Laird KT et al. Short-term and long-term efficacy of psychological therapies for irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jul;14(7):937-47.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.11.020.

3. Lackner JM et al. Improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms after cognitive behavior therapy for refractory irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jul;155(1):47-57. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.03.063.

4. Lövdahl J et al. Nurse-administered, gut-directed hypnotherapy in IBS: Efficacy and factors predicting a positive response. Am J Clin Hypn. 2015 Jul;58(1):100-14. doi: 10.1080/00029157.2015.1030492.

5. Smith GD. Effect of nurse-led gut-directed hypnotherapy upon health-related quality of life in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Nurs. 2006 Jun;15(6):678-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01356.x.

6. Gonsalkorale WM. Gut-directed hypnotherapy: the Manchester approach for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2006 Jan;54(1):27-50. doi: 10.1080/00207140500323030.

7. Palsson OS. Standardized hypnosis treatment for irritable bowel syndrome: The North Carolina protocol. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2006 Jan;54(1):51-64. doi: 10.1080/00207140500322933.

Psychogastroenterology, or gastrointestinal psychology, refers to psychosocial research and clinical practice related to GI conditions. This field is situated within a biopsychosocial model of illness and grounded in an understanding of the gut-brain axis. A key feature of GI psychology intervention is behavioral symptom management. Commonly referred to as “brain-gut psychotherapies,” the primary goal of these interventions is to reduce GI symptoms and their impact on those experiencing them. Additionally, GI-focused psychotherapies can help patients with GI disorders cope with their symptoms, diagnosis, or treatment.

GI psychology providers

GI-focused psychotherapies are typically provided by clinical health psychologists (PhDs or PsyDs) with specialized training in GI disorders, although sometimes they are provided by a clinical social worker or advanced-practice nursing provider. Psychologists that identify GI as their primary specialty area often refer to themselves as “GI psychologists.” Psychologists that treat patients with a variety of medical concerns, which may include GI disorders, typically refer to themselves with the broader term, “health psychologists.”

Interventions

A variety of psychological treatments have been applied to GI populations, including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), gut-directed hypnotherapy (GDH), psychodynamic interpersonal therapy, relaxation training, and mindfulness-based stress reduction. Psychological therapies have been shown to be useful in a variety of GI disorders, with a number needed to treat of four in IBS.¹ Common ingredients of GI-focused psychotherapy interventions include psychoeducation regarding the gut-brain relationship and relaxation strategies to provide in-the-moment tools to deescalate the body’s stress response.

CBT and GDH are the most commonly used interventions across a range of GI conditions, with the bulk of empirical evidence in IBS.^2-5 CBT is a theoretical orientation in which thoughts and behaviors are understood to be modifiable factors that impact emotions and physical sensations. When utilized in a GI setting (i.e., GI-CBT), treatment aims to address GI-specific outcomes such as reducing GI symptoms, optimizing health care utilization, and improving quality of life. These interventions target cognitive and behavioral factors common among GI patient populations, such as GI-specific anxiety, symptom hypervigilance, and rigid coping strategies. See Figure 1 for a GI-CBT model.

While research studies often implement manualized protocols, in clinical practice many GI psychologists use cognitive-behavioral interventions flexibly to tailor them to each patient’s presentation, while also integrating theory and practice from other types of therapies such as acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT; pronounced as one word). ACT, a “new wave” therapy derived from traditional CBT, emphasizes acceptance of distress (including GI symptoms), with a focus on engaging in values-based activities rather than symptom reduction.

Clinical hypnotherapy is utilized in a variety of medical specialties and has been studied in GI disorders for over 30 years. There are two evidence-based gut-directed hypnotherapy protocols, the Manchester⁶ and the North Carolina,⁷ that are widely used by GI psychologists. Though the exact mechanisms of hypnotherapy are unknown, it is thought to improve GI symptoms by modulating autonomic arousal and nerve sensitivity in the GI tract.
 

Evaluation

GI psychologists typically meet with patients for a 1-hour evaluation to determine appropriateness for psychogastroenterology intervention and develop a treatment plan. If GI-focused psychotherapy is indicated, patients are typically offered a course of treatment ranging from four to eight sessions. Depending on the nature of the patient’s concerns, longer courses of treatment may be offered, such as for with patients with active inflammatory bowel disease undergoing changes in medical treatment.

Appropriateness for psychogastroenterology treatment

Ideal patients are those who are psychologically stable and whose distress is primarily related to GI concerns, as opposed to family, work, or other situational stressors. While these other stressors can certainly impact GI symptoms, general mental health professionals are best suited to assist patients with these concerns. Patients experiencing more severe mental health concerns may be recommended to pursue a different treatment, such as mental health treatment for depression or anxiety or specialized treatments for trauma, eating disorders, or substance use. In both cases, once these general, non-GI, stressors or significant mental health concerns are more optimally managed, patients are likely to benefit from a GI-focused psychological treatment. Note, however, that because a GI psychologist’s particular practice can vary because of interest, experience, and institutional factors, it is best to connect directly with the GI psychologist you work with to clarify the types of referrals they are comfortable seeing and any specific characteristics of their practice.

Best practice recommendations for gastroenterologists

Developing a collaborative relationship with the GI psychologist, as well as any therapists to whom you regularly refer patients, is key to the success of integrated care. When talking to patients about the referral, refer to the GI psychologist as your colleague and a member of the treatment team. Maintain communication with the GI psychologist, and let the patient know that you are doing so.

When referring a patient, do so after you have completed your work-up and have optimized basic medical management for their condition but suspect that psychosocial factors may be negatively impacting their symptoms or ability to cope. Present the referral as an evaluation rather than implying a guarantee of treatment. This is particularly helpful in those cases where the patient is recommended to pursue a different treatment prior to GI-focused psychotherapy. Additionally, avoid telling patients that they are being referred for a specific intervention such as “a referral for CBT” or “a referral for hypnotherapy,” as the GI psychologist will recommend the most appropriate treatment for the patient upon evaluation. See Figure 2 for example scripts to use when referring.

Expect to maintain communication with the GI psychologist after making the referral. GI psychologists typically send the referring provider a written summary following the initial evaluation and conclusion of treatment and, in some cases, provide updates throughout. Be prepared to answer questions or provide input as requested. Not only may the psychologist have questions about the medical diagnosis or treatment, but they may enlist your help for medical expert opinion during treatment to address misinformation, which can often fuel concerns like treatment nonadherence or anxiety.
 

Identifying a psychogastroenterology provider

In recent years there has been significant growth in the training and hiring of GI psychologists, and it is increasingly common for GI psychologists to be employed at academic medical centers. However, the majority of gastroenterologists do not have access to a fully integrated or co-located GI psychologist. In these cases, gastroenterologists should search for other health psychology options in their area, such as psychologists or clinical social workers with experience with patients with chronic medical conditions and CBT. One positive product of the COVID-19 pandemic is that telemedicine has become increasingly utilized, and in some cases GI psychologists are able to provide virtual therapy to patients across state lines. However, this should be confirmed with the therapy practice as there are numerous factors to consider regarding virtual practice.

Dr. Bedell is assistant professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago. She has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Resources available

To locate a GI psychology provider in your area: Search the Rome Psychogastroenterology directory (https://romegipsych.org/).

To locate general mental health providers: Search the Psychology Today website using the therapist finder function, which allows patients or providers to search by insurance, location, and specialty area (www.psychologytoday.com/us). The patient can also request a list of in-network psychotherapy providers from their insurance company and may find it helpful to cross-check these providers for potential fit by searching them online.

References

1. Ford AC et al. Effect of antidepressants and psychological therapies in irritable bowel syndrome: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019 Jan;114(1):21-39. doi: 10.1038/s41395-018-0222-5.

2. Laird KT et al. Short-term and long-term efficacy of psychological therapies for irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jul;14(7):937-47.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.11.020.

3. Lackner JM et al. Improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms after cognitive behavior therapy for refractory irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jul;155(1):47-57. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.03.063.

4. Lövdahl J et al. Nurse-administered, gut-directed hypnotherapy in IBS: Efficacy and factors predicting a positive response. Am J Clin Hypn. 2015 Jul;58(1):100-14. doi: 10.1080/00029157.2015.1030492.

5. Smith GD. Effect of nurse-led gut-directed hypnotherapy upon health-related quality of life in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Nurs. 2006 Jun;15(6):678-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01356.x.

6. Gonsalkorale WM. Gut-directed hypnotherapy: the Manchester approach for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2006 Jan;54(1):27-50. doi: 10.1080/00207140500323030.

7. Palsson OS. Standardized hypnosis treatment for irritable bowel syndrome: The North Carolina protocol. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2006 Jan;54(1):51-64. doi: 10.1080/00207140500322933.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have unquestionably revolutionized the care of patients with malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and other types of cancer.

But about 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs will experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they write in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Recommendations from the EADV “Dermatology for Cancer Patients” task force have been published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Task force members developed the recommendations based on clinical experience from published data and came up with specific recommendations for treating cutaneous toxicities associated with dermatologic immune-related adverse events (dirAEs) that occur in patients receiving immunotherapy with an ICI.

ICIs include the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb), and inhibitors of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1), including nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck), and other agents.

“The basic principle of management is that the interventions should be tailored to serve the equilibrium between patients’ relief from the symptoms and signs of skin toxicity and the preservation of an unimpeded oncologic treatment,” they write.

The recommendations are in line with those included in a 2021 update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on the management of irAEs in patients treated with ICIs across the whole range of organ systems, said Milan J. Anadkat, MD, professor of dermatology and director of dermatology clinical trials at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Anadkat was a coauthor of the ASCO guideline update.

Although the European recommendations focus only on dermatologic side effects of ICIs in patients with cancer, “that doesn’t diminish their importance. They do a good job of summarizing how to approach and how to manage it depending on the severity of the toxicities and the various types of toxicities,” he told this news organization.

Having a paper focused exclusively on the dermatologic side effects of ICIs allows the inclusion of photographs that can help clinicians identify specific conditions that may require referral to a dermatologist, he said.

Both Dr. Anadkat and the authors of the European recommendations noted that dermatologic irAEs are more common with CTLA-4 inhibition than with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition.

“It has to do with where the target is,” Dr. Anadkat said. “CTLA-4 inhibition works on a central aspect of the immune system, so it’s a much less specific site, whereas PD-1 affects an interaction at the site of the tumor cell itself, so it’s a little more specific.”

Pruritus

ICI-induced pruritus can occur without apparent skin changes, they write, noting that in a recent study of patients with dirAEs, about one-third had isolated pruritus. 

The task force members cite a meta-analysis indicating a pruritus incidence of 13.2% for patients treated with nivolumab and 20.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab but respective grade 3 pruritus rates of only 0.5% and 2.3%. The reported incidence of pruritus with ipilimumab was 47% in a different study.

Recommended treatments include topical moisturizers with or without medium-to-high potency corticosteroids for grade 1 reactions, non-sedating histamines and/or GABA agonists such as pregabalin, or gabapentin for grade 2 pruritus, and suspension of ICIs until pruritus improves in patients with grade 3 pruritus.
 

Maculopapular rash

Maculopapular or eczema-like rashes may occur in up to 68% of patients who receive a CTLA-4 inhibitor and up to 20% of those who receive a PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor, the authors note. Rashes commonly appear within 3-6 weeks of initiating therapy.

“The clinical presentation is nonspecific and consists of a rapid onset of multiple minimally scaly, erythematous macules and papules, congregating into plaques. Lesions are mostly located on trunk and extensor surfaces of the extremities and the face is generally spared,” they write.

Maculopapular rashes are typically accompanied by itching but could be asymptomatic, they noted.

Mild (grade 1) rashes may respond to moisturizers and topical potent or super-potent corticosteroids. Patients with grade 2 rash should also receive oral antihistamines. Systemic corticosteroids may be considered for patients with grade 3 rashes but only after other dirAEs that may require specific management, such as psoriasis, are ruled out.
 

Psoriasis-like rash

The most common form of psoriasis seen in patients treated with ICIs is psoriasis vulgaris with plaques, but other clinical variants are also seen, the authors note.

“Topical agents (corticosteroids, Vitamin D analogues) are prescribed in Grades 1/2 and supplementary” to systemic treatment for patients with grade 3 or recalcitrant lesions, they write. “If skin-directed therapies fail to provide symptomatic control,” systemic treatment and narrow band UVB phototherapy “should be considered,” they add. 

Evidence regarding the use of systemic therapies to treat psoriasis-like rash associated with ICIs is sparse. Acitretin can be safely used in patients with cancer. Low-dose methotrexate is also safe to use except in patients with non-melanoma skin cancers. Cyclosporine, however, should be avoided because of the potential for tumor-promoting effects, they emphasized.

The recommendations also cover treatment of lichen planus-like and vitiligo-like rashes, as well as hair and nail changes, autoimmune bullous disorders, and oral mucosal dirAEs.

In addition, the recommendations cover severe cutaneous adverse reactions as well as serious, potentially life-threatening dirAEs, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DRESS/DIHS).

“The dose of corticosteroids may be adapted to the severity of DRESS. The therapeutic benefit of systemic corticosteroids in the management of SJS/TEN remains controversial, and some authors favor treatment with cyclosporine. However, the use of corticosteroids in this context of ICI treatment appears reasonable and should be proposed. Short courses of steroids seem also effective in AGEP,” the task force members write.

The recommendations did not have outside funding. Of the 19 authors, 6 disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Leo Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and/or Janssen. Dr. Anadkat disclosed previous relationships with Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and current relationships with others.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have unquestionably revolutionized the care of patients with malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and other types of cancer.

But about 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs will experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they write in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Recommendations from the EADV “Dermatology for Cancer Patients” task force have been published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Task force members developed the recommendations based on clinical experience from published data and came up with specific recommendations for treating cutaneous toxicities associated with dermatologic immune-related adverse events (dirAEs) that occur in patients receiving immunotherapy with an ICI.

ICIs include the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb), and inhibitors of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1), including nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck), and other agents.

“The basic principle of management is that the interventions should be tailored to serve the equilibrium between patients’ relief from the symptoms and signs of skin toxicity and the preservation of an unimpeded oncologic treatment,” they write.

The recommendations are in line with those included in a 2021 update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on the management of irAEs in patients treated with ICIs across the whole range of organ systems, said Milan J. Anadkat, MD, professor of dermatology and director of dermatology clinical trials at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Anadkat was a coauthor of the ASCO guideline update.

Although the European recommendations focus only on dermatologic side effects of ICIs in patients with cancer, “that doesn’t diminish their importance. They do a good job of summarizing how to approach and how to manage it depending on the severity of the toxicities and the various types of toxicities,” he told this news organization.

Having a paper focused exclusively on the dermatologic side effects of ICIs allows the inclusion of photographs that can help clinicians identify specific conditions that may require referral to a dermatologist, he said.

Both Dr. Anadkat and the authors of the European recommendations noted that dermatologic irAEs are more common with CTLA-4 inhibition than with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition.

“It has to do with where the target is,” Dr. Anadkat said. “CTLA-4 inhibition works on a central aspect of the immune system, so it’s a much less specific site, whereas PD-1 affects an interaction at the site of the tumor cell itself, so it’s a little more specific.”

Pruritus

ICI-induced pruritus can occur without apparent skin changes, they write, noting that in a recent study of patients with dirAEs, about one-third had isolated pruritus. 

The task force members cite a meta-analysis indicating a pruritus incidence of 13.2% for patients treated with nivolumab and 20.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab but respective grade 3 pruritus rates of only 0.5% and 2.3%. The reported incidence of pruritus with ipilimumab was 47% in a different study.

Recommended treatments include topical moisturizers with or without medium-to-high potency corticosteroids for grade 1 reactions, non-sedating histamines and/or GABA agonists such as pregabalin, or gabapentin for grade 2 pruritus, and suspension of ICIs until pruritus improves in patients with grade 3 pruritus.
 

Maculopapular rash

Maculopapular or eczema-like rashes may occur in up to 68% of patients who receive a CTLA-4 inhibitor and up to 20% of those who receive a PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor, the authors note. Rashes commonly appear within 3-6 weeks of initiating therapy.

“The clinical presentation is nonspecific and consists of a rapid onset of multiple minimally scaly, erythematous macules and papules, congregating into plaques. Lesions are mostly located on trunk and extensor surfaces of the extremities and the face is generally spared,” they write.

Maculopapular rashes are typically accompanied by itching but could be asymptomatic, they noted.

Mild (grade 1) rashes may respond to moisturizers and topical potent or super-potent corticosteroids. Patients with grade 2 rash should also receive oral antihistamines. Systemic corticosteroids may be considered for patients with grade 3 rashes but only after other dirAEs that may require specific management, such as psoriasis, are ruled out.
 

Psoriasis-like rash

The most common form of psoriasis seen in patients treated with ICIs is psoriasis vulgaris with plaques, but other clinical variants are also seen, the authors note.

“Topical agents (corticosteroids, Vitamin D analogues) are prescribed in Grades 1/2 and supplementary” to systemic treatment for patients with grade 3 or recalcitrant lesions, they write. “If skin-directed therapies fail to provide symptomatic control,” systemic treatment and narrow band UVB phototherapy “should be considered,” they add. 

Evidence regarding the use of systemic therapies to treat psoriasis-like rash associated with ICIs is sparse. Acitretin can be safely used in patients with cancer. Low-dose methotrexate is also safe to use except in patients with non-melanoma skin cancers. Cyclosporine, however, should be avoided because of the potential for tumor-promoting effects, they emphasized.

The recommendations also cover treatment of lichen planus-like and vitiligo-like rashes, as well as hair and nail changes, autoimmune bullous disorders, and oral mucosal dirAEs.

In addition, the recommendations cover severe cutaneous adverse reactions as well as serious, potentially life-threatening dirAEs, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DRESS/DIHS).

“The dose of corticosteroids may be adapted to the severity of DRESS. The therapeutic benefit of systemic corticosteroids in the management of SJS/TEN remains controversial, and some authors favor treatment with cyclosporine. However, the use of corticosteroids in this context of ICI treatment appears reasonable and should be proposed. Short courses of steroids seem also effective in AGEP,” the task force members write.

The recommendations did not have outside funding. Of the 19 authors, 6 disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Leo Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and/or Janssen. Dr. Anadkat disclosed previous relationships with Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and current relationships with others.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have unquestionably revolutionized the care of patients with malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and other types of cancer.

But about 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs will experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they write in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Recommendations from the EADV “Dermatology for Cancer Patients” task force have been published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Task force members developed the recommendations based on clinical experience from published data and came up with specific recommendations for treating cutaneous toxicities associated with dermatologic immune-related adverse events (dirAEs) that occur in patients receiving immunotherapy with an ICI.

ICIs include the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb), and inhibitors of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1), including nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck), and other agents.

“The basic principle of management is that the interventions should be tailored to serve the equilibrium between patients’ relief from the symptoms and signs of skin toxicity and the preservation of an unimpeded oncologic treatment,” they write.

The recommendations are in line with those included in a 2021 update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on the management of irAEs in patients treated with ICIs across the whole range of organ systems, said Milan J. Anadkat, MD, professor of dermatology and director of dermatology clinical trials at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Anadkat was a coauthor of the ASCO guideline update.

Although the European recommendations focus only on dermatologic side effects of ICIs in patients with cancer, “that doesn’t diminish their importance. They do a good job of summarizing how to approach and how to manage it depending on the severity of the toxicities and the various types of toxicities,” he told this news organization.

Having a paper focused exclusively on the dermatologic side effects of ICIs allows the inclusion of photographs that can help clinicians identify specific conditions that may require referral to a dermatologist, he said.

Both Dr. Anadkat and the authors of the European recommendations noted that dermatologic irAEs are more common with CTLA-4 inhibition than with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition.

“It has to do with where the target is,” Dr. Anadkat said. “CTLA-4 inhibition works on a central aspect of the immune system, so it’s a much less specific site, whereas PD-1 affects an interaction at the site of the tumor cell itself, so it’s a little more specific.”

Pruritus

ICI-induced pruritus can occur without apparent skin changes, they write, noting that in a recent study of patients with dirAEs, about one-third had isolated pruritus. 

The task force members cite a meta-analysis indicating a pruritus incidence of 13.2% for patients treated with nivolumab and 20.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab but respective grade 3 pruritus rates of only 0.5% and 2.3%. The reported incidence of pruritus with ipilimumab was 47% in a different study.

Recommended treatments include topical moisturizers with or without medium-to-high potency corticosteroids for grade 1 reactions, non-sedating histamines and/or GABA agonists such as pregabalin, or gabapentin for grade 2 pruritus, and suspension of ICIs until pruritus improves in patients with grade 3 pruritus.
 

Maculopapular rash

Maculopapular or eczema-like rashes may occur in up to 68% of patients who receive a CTLA-4 inhibitor and up to 20% of those who receive a PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor, the authors note. Rashes commonly appear within 3-6 weeks of initiating therapy.

“The clinical presentation is nonspecific and consists of a rapid onset of multiple minimally scaly, erythematous macules and papules, congregating into plaques. Lesions are mostly located on trunk and extensor surfaces of the extremities and the face is generally spared,” they write.

Maculopapular rashes are typically accompanied by itching but could be asymptomatic, they noted.

Mild (grade 1) rashes may respond to moisturizers and topical potent or super-potent corticosteroids. Patients with grade 2 rash should also receive oral antihistamines. Systemic corticosteroids may be considered for patients with grade 3 rashes but only after other dirAEs that may require specific management, such as psoriasis, are ruled out.
 

Psoriasis-like rash

The most common form of psoriasis seen in patients treated with ICIs is psoriasis vulgaris with plaques, but other clinical variants are also seen, the authors note.

“Topical agents (corticosteroids, Vitamin D analogues) are prescribed in Grades 1/2 and supplementary” to systemic treatment for patients with grade 3 or recalcitrant lesions, they write. “If skin-directed therapies fail to provide symptomatic control,” systemic treatment and narrow band UVB phototherapy “should be considered,” they add. 

Evidence regarding the use of systemic therapies to treat psoriasis-like rash associated with ICIs is sparse. Acitretin can be safely used in patients with cancer. Low-dose methotrexate is also safe to use except in patients with non-melanoma skin cancers. Cyclosporine, however, should be avoided because of the potential for tumor-promoting effects, they emphasized.

The recommendations also cover treatment of lichen planus-like and vitiligo-like rashes, as well as hair and nail changes, autoimmune bullous disorders, and oral mucosal dirAEs.

In addition, the recommendations cover severe cutaneous adverse reactions as well as serious, potentially life-threatening dirAEs, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DRESS/DIHS).

“The dose of corticosteroids may be adapted to the severity of DRESS. The therapeutic benefit of systemic corticosteroids in the management of SJS/TEN remains controversial, and some authors favor treatment with cyclosporine. However, the use of corticosteroids in this context of ICI treatment appears reasonable and should be proposed. Short courses of steroids seem also effective in AGEP,” the task force members write.

The recommendations did not have outside funding. Of the 19 authors, 6 disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Leo Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and/or Janssen. Dr. Anadkat disclosed previous relationships with Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and current relationships with others.

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

Key clinical point: The risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) varies with underlying etiologies, with active hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis posing the highest and alcoholic or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) cirrhosis posing the lowest risk of developing HCC.

Major finding: Patients with active HCV (3.36%) showed the highest annual HCC incidence rate, followed by those with cured HCV (1.71%), alcoholic liver disease (1.32%), and NAFLD cirrhosis (1.24%). Patients with active HCV vs. NAFLD were at a 2.1-fold higher risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio 2.16; 95% CI, 1.16-4.04).

Study details: This multicenter, prospective cohort study analyzed data from two multiethnic cohorts enrolling a total of 2,733 patients with cirrhosis.

Disclosures: The study received financial support from the National Cancer Institute; Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas grant; and Center for Gastrointestinal Development, Infection, and Injury. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Kanwal F et al. Risk factors for hepatocellular cancer in contemporary cohorts of patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2022 (Mar 1). Doi: 10.1002/hep.32434

Key clinical point: The risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) varies with underlying etiologies, with active hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis posing the highest and alcoholic or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) cirrhosis posing the lowest risk of developing HCC.

Major finding: Patients with active HCV (3.36%) showed the highest annual HCC incidence rate, followed by those with cured HCV (1.71%), alcoholic liver disease (1.32%), and NAFLD cirrhosis (1.24%). Patients with active HCV vs. NAFLD were at a 2.1-fold higher risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio 2.16; 95% CI, 1.16-4.04).

Study details: This multicenter, prospective cohort study analyzed data from two multiethnic cohorts enrolling a total of 2,733 patients with cirrhosis.

Disclosures: The study received financial support from the National Cancer Institute; Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas grant; and Center for Gastrointestinal Development, Infection, and Injury. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Kanwal F et al. Risk factors for hepatocellular cancer in contemporary cohorts of patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2022 (Mar 1). Doi: 10.1002/hep.32434

Key clinical point: The risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) varies with underlying etiologies, with active hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis posing the highest and alcoholic or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) cirrhosis posing the lowest risk of developing HCC.

Major finding: Patients with active HCV (3.36%) showed the highest annual HCC incidence rate, followed by those with cured HCV (1.71%), alcoholic liver disease (1.32%), and NAFLD cirrhosis (1.24%). Patients with active HCV vs. NAFLD were at a 2.1-fold higher risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio 2.16; 95% CI, 1.16-4.04).

Study details: This multicenter, prospective cohort study analyzed data from two multiethnic cohorts enrolling a total of 2,733 patients with cirrhosis.

Disclosures: The study received financial support from the National Cancer Institute; Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas grant; and Center for Gastrointestinal Development, Infection, and Injury. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Kanwal F et al. Risk factors for hepatocellular cancer in contemporary cohorts of patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2022 (Mar 1). Doi: 10.1002/hep.32434

Key clinical point: Active hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection negatively affects overall and recurrence-free survival in patients with very early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after curative radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Major finding: Active HCV infection was a significant risk factor for shorter overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.17; P = .003) and early recurrence of HCC (aHR 1.47; P = .022). Patients with vs. without active HCV infection had a shorter median overall (66 months vs. 145 months) and recurrence-free (20 months vs. 31 months) survival (both P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a single-center retrospective study including 302 patients with very early-stage HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0) who underwent RFA and had follow-up of >6 months, of which 195 had HCV infection, including 132 active infection cases.

Disclosures: M Kurosaki and N Izumi declared funding support from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Japanese Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Labor, respectively, and along with K Tsuchiya, receiving lecture fees from several sources.

Source: Takaura K et al. The impact of background liver disease on the long-term prognosis of very-early-stage HCC after ablation therapy. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0264075 (Feb 23). Doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0264075

Key clinical point: Active hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection negatively affects overall and recurrence-free survival in patients with very early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after curative radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Major finding: Active HCV infection was a significant risk factor for shorter overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.17; P = .003) and early recurrence of HCC (aHR 1.47; P = .022). Patients with vs. without active HCV infection had a shorter median overall (66 months vs. 145 months) and recurrence-free (20 months vs. 31 months) survival (both P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a single-center retrospective study including 302 patients with very early-stage HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0) who underwent RFA and had follow-up of >6 months, of which 195 had HCV infection, including 132 active infection cases.

Disclosures: M Kurosaki and N Izumi declared funding support from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Japanese Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Labor, respectively, and along with K Tsuchiya, receiving lecture fees from several sources.

Source: Takaura K et al. The impact of background liver disease on the long-term prognosis of very-early-stage HCC after ablation therapy. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0264075 (Feb 23). Doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0264075

Key clinical point: Active hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection negatively affects overall and recurrence-free survival in patients with very early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after curative radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Major finding: Active HCV infection was a significant risk factor for shorter overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.17; P = .003) and early recurrence of HCC (aHR 1.47; P = .022). Patients with vs. without active HCV infection had a shorter median overall (66 months vs. 145 months) and recurrence-free (20 months vs. 31 months) survival (both P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a single-center retrospective study including 302 patients with very early-stage HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0) who underwent RFA and had follow-up of >6 months, of which 195 had HCV infection, including 132 active infection cases.

Disclosures: M Kurosaki and N Izumi declared funding support from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Japanese Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Labor, respectively, and along with K Tsuchiya, receiving lecture fees from several sources.

Source: Takaura K et al. The impact of background liver disease on the long-term prognosis of very-early-stage HCC after ablation therapy. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0264075 (Feb 23). Doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0264075

Key clinical point: Independent risk factors for postoperative recurrence among patients undergoing curative hepatic resection for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) include preoperative alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level >400 µg/L, tumor size >5 cm, satellite nodules, multiple tumors, and microvascular invasion.

Major finding: Cirrhosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.49; P < .001), preoperative AFP level >400 µg/L (aHR 1.28; P = .004), tumor size >5 cm (aHR 1.74; P < .001), satellite nodules (aHR 1.35; P = .040), multiple tumors (aHR 1.63; P = .015), microvascular invasion (aHR 1.51; P < .001), and intraoperative blood transfusion (aHR 1.50; P = .013) were identified as independent risk factors associated with postoperative recurrence.

Study details: The data come from a large-scale, multicenter retrospective study including 1,424 adult patients who underwent curative hepatic resection for early-stage HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0/A).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

Source: Yao L-Q et al. Clinical features of recurrence after hepatic resection for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma and long-term survival outcomes of patients with recurrence: A multi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 Feb 22. Doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11454-y

Key clinical point: Independent risk factors for postoperative recurrence among patients undergoing curative hepatic resection for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) include preoperative alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level >400 µg/L, tumor size >5 cm, satellite nodules, multiple tumors, and microvascular invasion.

Major finding: Cirrhosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.49; P < .001), preoperative AFP level >400 µg/L (aHR 1.28; P = .004), tumor size >5 cm (aHR 1.74; P < .001), satellite nodules (aHR 1.35; P = .040), multiple tumors (aHR 1.63; P = .015), microvascular invasion (aHR 1.51; P < .001), and intraoperative blood transfusion (aHR 1.50; P = .013) were identified as independent risk factors associated with postoperative recurrence.

Study details: The data come from a large-scale, multicenter retrospective study including 1,424 adult patients who underwent curative hepatic resection for early-stage HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0/A).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

Source: Yao L-Q et al. Clinical features of recurrence after hepatic resection for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma and long-term survival outcomes of patients with recurrence: A multi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 Feb 22. Doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11454-y

Key clinical point: Independent risk factors for postoperative recurrence among patients undergoing curative hepatic resection for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) include preoperative alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level >400 µg/L, tumor size >5 cm, satellite nodules, multiple tumors, and microvascular invasion.

Major finding: Cirrhosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.49; P < .001), preoperative AFP level >400 µg/L (aHR 1.28; P = .004), tumor size >5 cm (aHR 1.74; P < .001), satellite nodules (aHR 1.35; P = .040), multiple tumors (aHR 1.63; P = .015), microvascular invasion (aHR 1.51; P < .001), and intraoperative blood transfusion (aHR 1.50; P = .013) were identified as independent risk factors associated with postoperative recurrence.

Study details: The data come from a large-scale, multicenter retrospective study including 1,424 adult patients who underwent curative hepatic resection for early-stage HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0/A).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

Source: Yao L-Q et al. Clinical features of recurrence after hepatic resection for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma and long-term survival outcomes of patients with recurrence: A multi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 Feb 22. Doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11454-y

Key clinical point: Hampered ultrasound visualization in patients with cirrhosis receiving hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance is associated with worse test performance, negatively affecting both sensitivity and specificity of surveillance.

Major finding: Patients with cirrhosis and HCC having severely impaired ultrasound visualization before HCC diagnosis showed increased odds of false-negative results (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.94; 95% CI 1.23-51.16), whereas those with only cirrhosis having moderately impaired visualization showed increased odds of false-positive results (aOR 1.60; 95% CI 1.13-2.27).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study involving 2,238 patients with cirrhosis, with (n = 186) or without (n = 2,052) HCC, who underwent at least one abdominal ultrasound examination.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the United States National Institute of Health. A Singal and D Fetzer declared serving as consultants or advisory board members of or having research agreements with various organizations.

Source: Chong N et al. Association between ultrasound quality and test performance for HCC surveillance in patients with cirrhosis: a retrospective cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022;55(6):683-690 (Feb 15). Doi: 10.1111/apt.16779

Key clinical point: Hampered ultrasound visualization in patients with cirrhosis receiving hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance is associated with worse test performance, negatively affecting both sensitivity and specificity of surveillance.

Major finding: Patients with cirrhosis and HCC having severely impaired ultrasound visualization before HCC diagnosis showed increased odds of false-negative results (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.94; 95% CI 1.23-51.16), whereas those with only cirrhosis having moderately impaired visualization showed increased odds of false-positive results (aOR 1.60; 95% CI 1.13-2.27).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study involving 2,238 patients with cirrhosis, with (n = 186) or without (n = 2,052) HCC, who underwent at least one abdominal ultrasound examination.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the United States National Institute of Health. A Singal and D Fetzer declared serving as consultants or advisory board members of or having research agreements with various organizations.

Source: Chong N et al. Association between ultrasound quality and test performance for HCC surveillance in patients with cirrhosis: a retrospective cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022;55(6):683-690 (Feb 15). Doi: 10.1111/apt.16779

Key clinical point: Hampered ultrasound visualization in patients with cirrhosis receiving hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance is associated with worse test performance, negatively affecting both sensitivity and specificity of surveillance.

Major finding: Patients with cirrhosis and HCC having severely impaired ultrasound visualization before HCC diagnosis showed increased odds of false-negative results (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.94; 95% CI 1.23-51.16), whereas those with only cirrhosis having moderately impaired visualization showed increased odds of false-positive results (aOR 1.60; 95% CI 1.13-2.27).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study involving 2,238 patients with cirrhosis, with (n = 186) or without (n = 2,052) HCC, who underwent at least one abdominal ultrasound examination.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the United States National Institute of Health. A Singal and D Fetzer declared serving as consultants or advisory board members of or having research agreements with various organizations.

Source: Chong N et al. Association between ultrasound quality and test performance for HCC surveillance in patients with cirrhosis: a retrospective cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022;55(6):683-690 (Feb 15). Doi: 10.1111/apt.16779

Key clinical point: Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE)-based shear strain mapping may serve as a noninvasive biomarker enabling the characterization of the tumor-liver interface and preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion (MVI) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: The positive MVI vs. negative MVI group displayed a significantly higher octahedral shear strain (OSS) percentage of low-shear-strain length (pLSL) at three evaluation frequencies (60 Hz: 75% vs. 40%, 40 Hz: 85% vs. 40%, and 30 Hz: 70% vs. 20%; all P < .01). The peritumor OSS-pLSL area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.73-0.90) for MVI prediction was good/excellent at all frequencies.

Study details: The data are derived from a retrospective study of 59 patients with HCC, all of whom underwent the conventional 60 Hz MRE examination; of these, 29 patients also underwent 40 and 30 Hz MRE examinations.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, among others. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Li M et al. MR elastography-based shear strain mapping for assessment of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2022 (Feb 11). Doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-08578-w

Key clinical point: Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE)-based shear strain mapping may serve as a noninvasive biomarker enabling the characterization of the tumor-liver interface and preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion (MVI) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: The positive MVI vs. negative MVI group displayed a significantly higher octahedral shear strain (OSS) percentage of low-shear-strain length (pLSL) at three evaluation frequencies (60 Hz: 75% vs. 40%, 40 Hz: 85% vs. 40%, and 30 Hz: 70% vs. 20%; all P < .01). The peritumor OSS-pLSL area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.73-0.90) for MVI prediction was good/excellent at all frequencies.

Study details: The data are derived from a retrospective study of 59 patients with HCC, all of whom underwent the conventional 60 Hz MRE examination; of these, 29 patients also underwent 40 and 30 Hz MRE examinations.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, among others. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Li M et al. MR elastography-based shear strain mapping for assessment of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2022 (Feb 11). Doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-08578-w

Key clinical point: Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE)-based shear strain mapping may serve as a noninvasive biomarker enabling the characterization of the tumor-liver interface and preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion (MVI) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: The positive MVI vs. negative MVI group displayed a significantly higher octahedral shear strain (OSS) percentage of low-shear-strain length (pLSL) at three evaluation frequencies (60 Hz: 75% vs. 40%, 40 Hz: 85% vs. 40%, and 30 Hz: 70% vs. 20%; all P < .01). The peritumor OSS-pLSL area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.73-0.90) for MVI prediction was good/excellent at all frequencies.

Study details: The data are derived from a retrospective study of 59 patients with HCC, all of whom underwent the conventional 60 Hz MRE examination; of these, 29 patients also underwent 40 and 30 Hz MRE examinations.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, among others. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Li M et al. MR elastography-based shear strain mapping for assessment of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2022 (Feb 11). Doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-08578-w

Key clinical point: Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels ≥400 ng/mL experience a consistent survival benefit with ramucirumab therapy irrespective of baseline prognostic covariates.

Major finding: Ramucirumab vs. placebo improved overall survival in patients with viral (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97) and nonviral (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.49-0.79) etiologies and in those with above-median AFP levels (≥4,081.5 ng/mL; HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.54-0.95).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc meta-analysis of the phase 3 REACH and REACH-2 trials involving 542 patients with aHCC and AFP levels ≥400 ng/mL who were randomly assigned to receive ramucirumab (n = 316) or placebo (n = 226).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. JM Llovet, A Singal, A Villanueva, R Finn, M Kudo, P Galle, M Ikeda, and A Zhu reported receiving grants, personal/advisory board/consulting fees, or honoraria from various sources, including Eli Lilly. The other authors are employees or shareholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: Llovet JM et al. Prognostic and predictive factors in patients with advanced HCC and elevated alpha-fetoprotein treated with ramucirumab in two randomized phase III trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 (Mar 4). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-4000

Key clinical point: Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels ≥400 ng/mL experience a consistent survival benefit with ramucirumab therapy irrespective of baseline prognostic covariates.

Major finding: Ramucirumab vs. placebo improved overall survival in patients with viral (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97) and nonviral (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.49-0.79) etiologies and in those with above-median AFP levels (≥4,081.5 ng/mL; HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.54-0.95).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc meta-analysis of the phase 3 REACH and REACH-2 trials involving 542 patients with aHCC and AFP levels ≥400 ng/mL who were randomly assigned to receive ramucirumab (n = 316) or placebo (n = 226).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. JM Llovet, A Singal, A Villanueva, R Finn, M Kudo, P Galle, M Ikeda, and A Zhu reported receiving grants, personal/advisory board/consulting fees, or honoraria from various sources, including Eli Lilly. The other authors are employees or shareholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: Llovet JM et al. Prognostic and predictive factors in patients with advanced HCC and elevated alpha-fetoprotein treated with ramucirumab in two randomized phase III trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 (Mar 4). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-4000

Key clinical point: Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels ≥400 ng/mL experience a consistent survival benefit with ramucirumab therapy irrespective of baseline prognostic covariates.

Major finding: Ramucirumab vs. placebo improved overall survival in patients with viral (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97) and nonviral (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.49-0.79) etiologies and in those with above-median AFP levels (≥4,081.5 ng/mL; HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.54-0.95).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc meta-analysis of the phase 3 REACH and REACH-2 trials involving 542 patients with aHCC and AFP levels ≥400 ng/mL who were randomly assigned to receive ramucirumab (n = 316) or placebo (n = 226).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. JM Llovet, A Singal, A Villanueva, R Finn, M Kudo, P Galle, M Ikeda, and A Zhu reported receiving grants, personal/advisory board/consulting fees, or honoraria from various sources, including Eli Lilly. The other authors are employees or shareholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: Llovet JM et al. Prognostic and predictive factors in patients with advanced HCC and elevated alpha-fetoprotein treated with ramucirumab in two randomized phase III trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 (Mar 4). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-4000

Key clinical point: Compared with patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to other causes, a higher proportion of those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)-related HCC do not have cirrhosis and lack an indication for HCC surveillance, thus calling for surveillance strategies for patients with NAFLD without cirrhosis but at high risk for HCC.

Major finding: The proportion of patients without cirrhosis was higher among those with NAFLD-related HCC vs. HCC due to other causes (38.5% vs. 14.6%; P < .0001). Before cancer diagnosis, only 32.8% of patients with NAFLD-related HCC underwent HCC surveillance relative to 55.7% of those with HCC due to other causes (odds ratio 0.36; P < .0001).

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 61 studies including 94,636 patients with HCC related to either NAFLD (n = 15,377) or other causes (n = 79,259).

Disclosures: No funding was received for the study. Some authors declared having stock options from, serving as paid/unpaid consultants or advisory board members for, and receiving royalties or research grants from various organizations.

Source: Tan DJH et al. Clinical characteristics, surveillance, treatment allocation, and outcomes of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease-related hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2022 (Mar 4). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00078-X

Key clinical point: Compared with patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to other causes, a higher proportion of those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)-related HCC do not have cirrhosis and lack an indication for HCC surveillance, thus calling for surveillance strategies for patients with NAFLD without cirrhosis but at high risk for HCC.

Major finding: The proportion of patients without cirrhosis was higher among those with NAFLD-related HCC vs. HCC due to other causes (38.5% vs. 14.6%; P < .0001). Before cancer diagnosis, only 32.8% of patients with NAFLD-related HCC underwent HCC surveillance relative to 55.7% of those with HCC due to other causes (odds ratio 0.36; P < .0001).

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 61 studies including 94,636 patients with HCC related to either NAFLD (n = 15,377) or other causes (n = 79,259).

Disclosures: No funding was received for the study. Some authors declared having stock options from, serving as paid/unpaid consultants or advisory board members for, and receiving royalties or research grants from various organizations.

Source: Tan DJH et al. Clinical characteristics, surveillance, treatment allocation, and outcomes of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease-related hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2022 (Mar 4). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00078-X

Key clinical point: Compared with patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to other causes, a higher proportion of those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)-related HCC do not have cirrhosis and lack an indication for HCC surveillance, thus calling for surveillance strategies for patients with NAFLD without cirrhosis but at high risk for HCC.

Major finding: The proportion of patients without cirrhosis was higher among those with NAFLD-related HCC vs. HCC due to other causes (38.5% vs. 14.6%; P < .0001). Before cancer diagnosis, only 32.8% of patients with NAFLD-related HCC underwent HCC surveillance relative to 55.7% of those with HCC due to other causes (odds ratio 0.36; P < .0001).

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 61 studies including 94,636 patients with HCC related to either NAFLD (n = 15,377) or other causes (n = 79,259).

Disclosures: No funding was received for the study. Some authors declared having stock options from, serving as paid/unpaid consultants or advisory board members for, and receiving royalties or research grants from various organizations.

Source: Tan DJH et al. Clinical characteristics, surveillance, treatment allocation, and outcomes of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease-related hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2022 (Mar 4). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00078-X

To the Editor:

Dermatologists sometimes are consulted in the inpatient setting to rule out possible skin cancer. This scenario provides an opportunity to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of cutaneous malignancy, often in patients who might not have sought regular outpatient dermatology care. Few studies have described the outcomes of inpatient biopsies to identify skin cancer.^1,2

Seeking to better understand the nature of these patient encounters, we reviewed all consultations at a medical center for which the referring physician suspected skin cancer rather than only those lesions that were biopsied by the dermatologist. We also collected data about subsequent treatment to better understand the outcomes of these patient encounters.

We conducted a retrospective review of inpatient dermatology referrals at an academic-affiliated tertiary medical center. We identified all patients who were provided with an inpatient dermatology consultation for suspected skin cancer or what was identified as a “skin lesion” between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2019. We collected information on each patient’s sex, age at time of consultation, and race, as well as the specialty of the referring provider, lesion location, maximum diameter of the lesion, whether a biopsy was performed, where the biopsy was performed (inpatient or outpatient setting), clinical diagnosis, histopathologic diagnosis, and subsequent treatment.

The institutional review board at Eastern Virginia Medical School (Norfolk, Virginia) approved this study, and all protocol conformed to the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Thirty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria. Their characteristics are listed in the Table. Consultations for possible skin cancer accounted for 4% (38/950) of all inpatient dermatology consultations over the study period. Outcomes of the referrals are shown in the Figure. Consultations were received from 12 different physician specialties.

In the 38 patients, 47 lesions were identified; most (66% [31/47]) were on the head and neck. Twenty of 38 patients were found to have at least 1 biopsy-confirmed cutaneous malignancy (23 total tumors). Of those 23 identified malignancies, 10 were basal cell carcinoma, 11 squamous cell carcinoma, 1 malignant melanoma, and 1 anaplastic T-cell lymphoma. Of note, 17 of 23 (74%) identified cutaneous malignancies were 2.0 cm in diameter at biopsy or larger. Subsequently performed treatments for these patients included wide local excision (n=3), Mohs micrographic surgery (n=5), radiation therapy (n=3), topical fluorouracil (n=1), electrodesiccation and curettage (n=4), and chemotherapy or immunotherapy (n=2). Two patients who were diagnosed with skin cancer died of unrelated causes before treatment was completed.

In 10 of 38 patients, only nonmalignant entities were diagnosed, including seborrheic keratosis (n=6), benign melanocytic nevus (n=1), epidermal inclusion cyst (n=1), actinic keratosis (n=1), and radiation-induced necrosis (n=1). Of the 8 remaining patients, 4 were ultimately lost to follow-up before planned outpatient biopsy could be completed; 1 opted to follow up for biopsy at an unaffiliated outpatient dermatology provider. For 2 patients, the decision was made to forgo biopsy despite clinical suspicion of skin cancer because of overall poor health status, and 1 additional patient died before a planned outpatient biopsy could be performed.

In summary, approximately half of the inpatient dermatology consultations for suspected cutaneous malignancy resulted in a diagnosis of skin cancer. The patients in this population were admitted for a range of diagnoses, most unrelated to their cutaneous malignancy, suggesting that the inpatient setting offers the opportunity for physicians in a variety of specialties to help identify skin cancer that might otherwise be unaddressed and then facilitate management, whether ultimately in an inpatient or outpatient setting.

In many of these cases, it might be most appropriate to arrange subsequent outpatient dermatology follow-up after hospitalization, rather than making an inpatient consultation, as these situations usually are nonurgent and not directly related to hospitalization. However, in cases in which the lesion is directly related to admission, the lesion is advanced, there is concern for metastatic disease, or extenuating circumstances make outpatient follow-up difficult, inpatient dermatology consultation may be reasonable. There sometimes can be compelling reasons to expedite diagnosis and treatment as an inpatient.

In hospitalized, medically complex patients, in whom a new cutaneous malignancy is identified, dermatologists should discuss the situation thoughtfully with the patient, the patient’s family (when appropriate), and other physicians on the treatment team to determine the most appropriate course of action. In some cases, the most appropriate course might be to delay biopsy or treatment until the outpatient setting or to even defer further action completely when the prognosis is very limited. Consulting dermatologists must be mindful of patients’ overall medical situation in planning care for a cutaneous malignancy in these inpatient situations.

This study also highlights the surprising number of large-diameter, high-risk tumors identified in these scenarios. Limitations of this study include a relatively small sample size from a single facility that might not be representative of other practice settings and locations. Future multicenter studies could further explore the impact of inpatient dermatologic consultation on the diagnosis and management of skin cancer.

To the Editor:

Dermatologists sometimes are consulted in the inpatient setting to rule out possible skin cancer. This scenario provides an opportunity to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of cutaneous malignancy, often in patients who might not have sought regular outpatient dermatology care. Few studies have described the outcomes of inpatient biopsies to identify skin cancer.^1,2

Seeking to better understand the nature of these patient encounters, we reviewed all consultations at a medical center for which the referring physician suspected skin cancer rather than only those lesions that were biopsied by the dermatologist. We also collected data about subsequent treatment to better understand the outcomes of these patient encounters.

We conducted a retrospective review of inpatient dermatology referrals at an academic-affiliated tertiary medical center. We identified all patients who were provided with an inpatient dermatology consultation for suspected skin cancer or what was identified as a “skin lesion” between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2019. We collected information on each patient’s sex, age at time of consultation, and race, as well as the specialty of the referring provider, lesion location, maximum diameter of the lesion, whether a biopsy was performed, where the biopsy was performed (inpatient or outpatient setting), clinical diagnosis, histopathologic diagnosis, and subsequent treatment.

The institutional review board at Eastern Virginia Medical School (Norfolk, Virginia) approved this study, and all protocol conformed to the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Thirty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria. Their characteristics are listed in the Table. Consultations for possible skin cancer accounted for 4% (38/950) of all inpatient dermatology consultations over the study period. Outcomes of the referrals are shown in the Figure. Consultations were received from 12 different physician specialties.

In the 38 patients, 47 lesions were identified; most (66% [31/47]) were on the head and neck. Twenty of 38 patients were found to have at least 1 biopsy-confirmed cutaneous malignancy (23 total tumors). Of those 23 identified malignancies, 10 were basal cell carcinoma, 11 squamous cell carcinoma, 1 malignant melanoma, and 1 anaplastic T-cell lymphoma. Of note, 17 of 23 (74%) identified cutaneous malignancies were 2.0 cm in diameter at biopsy or larger. Subsequently performed treatments for these patients included wide local excision (n=3), Mohs micrographic surgery (n=5), radiation therapy (n=3), topical fluorouracil (n=1), electrodesiccation and curettage (n=4), and chemotherapy or immunotherapy (n=2). Two patients who were diagnosed with skin cancer died of unrelated causes before treatment was completed.

In 10 of 38 patients, only nonmalignant entities were diagnosed, including seborrheic keratosis (n=6), benign melanocytic nevus (n=1), epidermal inclusion cyst (n=1), actinic keratosis (n=1), and radiation-induced necrosis (n=1). Of the 8 remaining patients, 4 were ultimately lost to follow-up before planned outpatient biopsy could be completed; 1 opted to follow up for biopsy at an unaffiliated outpatient dermatology provider. For 2 patients, the decision was made to forgo biopsy despite clinical suspicion of skin cancer because of overall poor health status, and 1 additional patient died before a planned outpatient biopsy could be performed.

In summary, approximately half of the inpatient dermatology consultations for suspected cutaneous malignancy resulted in a diagnosis of skin cancer. The patients in this population were admitted for a range of diagnoses, most unrelated to their cutaneous malignancy, suggesting that the inpatient setting offers the opportunity for physicians in a variety of specialties to help identify skin cancer that might otherwise be unaddressed and then facilitate management, whether ultimately in an inpatient or outpatient setting.

In many of these cases, it might be most appropriate to arrange subsequent outpatient dermatology follow-up after hospitalization, rather than making an inpatient consultation, as these situations usually are nonurgent and not directly related to hospitalization. However, in cases in which the lesion is directly related to admission, the lesion is advanced, there is concern for metastatic disease, or extenuating circumstances make outpatient follow-up difficult, inpatient dermatology consultation may be reasonable. There sometimes can be compelling reasons to expedite diagnosis and treatment as an inpatient.

In hospitalized, medically complex patients, in whom a new cutaneous malignancy is identified, dermatologists should discuss the situation thoughtfully with the patient, the patient’s family (when appropriate), and other physicians on the treatment team to determine the most appropriate course of action. In some cases, the most appropriate course might be to delay biopsy or treatment until the outpatient setting or to even defer further action completely when the prognosis is very limited. Consulting dermatologists must be mindful of patients’ overall medical situation in planning care for a cutaneous malignancy in these inpatient situations.

This study also highlights the surprising number of large-diameter, high-risk tumors identified in these scenarios. Limitations of this study include a relatively small sample size from a single facility that might not be representative of other practice settings and locations. Future multicenter studies could further explore the impact of inpatient dermatologic consultation on the diagnosis and management of skin cancer.

To the Editor:

Dermatologists sometimes are consulted in the inpatient setting to rule out possible skin cancer. This scenario provides an opportunity to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of cutaneous malignancy, often in patients who might not have sought regular outpatient dermatology care. Few studies have described the outcomes of inpatient biopsies to identify skin cancer.^1,2

Seeking to better understand the nature of these patient encounters, we reviewed all consultations at a medical center for which the referring physician suspected skin cancer rather than only those lesions that were biopsied by the dermatologist. We also collected data about subsequent treatment to better understand the outcomes of these patient encounters.

We conducted a retrospective review of inpatient dermatology referrals at an academic-affiliated tertiary medical center. We identified all patients who were provided with an inpatient dermatology consultation for suspected skin cancer or what was identified as a “skin lesion” between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2019. We collected information on each patient’s sex, age at time of consultation, and race, as well as the specialty of the referring provider, lesion location, maximum diameter of the lesion, whether a biopsy was performed, where the biopsy was performed (inpatient or outpatient setting), clinical diagnosis, histopathologic diagnosis, and subsequent treatment.

The institutional review board at Eastern Virginia Medical School (Norfolk, Virginia) approved this study, and all protocol conformed to the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Thirty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria. Their characteristics are listed in the Table. Consultations for possible skin cancer accounted for 4% (38/950) of all inpatient dermatology consultations over the study period. Outcomes of the referrals are shown in the Figure. Consultations were received from 12 different physician specialties.

In the 38 patients, 47 lesions were identified; most (66% [31/47]) were on the head and neck. Twenty of 38 patients were found to have at least 1 biopsy-confirmed cutaneous malignancy (23 total tumors). Of those 23 identified malignancies, 10 were basal cell carcinoma, 11 squamous cell carcinoma, 1 malignant melanoma, and 1 anaplastic T-cell lymphoma. Of note, 17 of 23 (74%) identified cutaneous malignancies were 2.0 cm in diameter at biopsy or larger. Subsequently performed treatments for these patients included wide local excision (n=3), Mohs micrographic surgery (n=5), radiation therapy (n=3), topical fluorouracil (n=1), electrodesiccation and curettage (n=4), and chemotherapy or immunotherapy (n=2). Two patients who were diagnosed with skin cancer died of unrelated causes before treatment was completed.

In 10 of 38 patients, only nonmalignant entities were diagnosed, including seborrheic keratosis (n=6), benign melanocytic nevus (n=1), epidermal inclusion cyst (n=1), actinic keratosis (n=1), and radiation-induced necrosis (n=1). Of the 8 remaining patients, 4 were ultimately lost to follow-up before planned outpatient biopsy could be completed; 1 opted to follow up for biopsy at an unaffiliated outpatient dermatology provider. For 2 patients, the decision was made to forgo biopsy despite clinical suspicion of skin cancer because of overall poor health status, and 1 additional patient died before a planned outpatient biopsy could be performed.

In summary, approximately half of the inpatient dermatology consultations for suspected cutaneous malignancy resulted in a diagnosis of skin cancer. The patients in this population were admitted for a range of diagnoses, most unrelated to their cutaneous malignancy, suggesting that the inpatient setting offers the opportunity for physicians in a variety of specialties to help identify skin cancer that might otherwise be unaddressed and then facilitate management, whether ultimately in an inpatient or outpatient setting.

In many of these cases, it might be most appropriate to arrange subsequent outpatient dermatology follow-up after hospitalization, rather than making an inpatient consultation, as these situations usually are nonurgent and not directly related to hospitalization. However, in cases in which the lesion is directly related to admission, the lesion is advanced, there is concern for metastatic disease, or extenuating circumstances make outpatient follow-up difficult, inpatient dermatology consultation may be reasonable. There sometimes can be compelling reasons to expedite diagnosis and treatment as an inpatient.

In hospitalized, medically complex patients, in whom a new cutaneous malignancy is identified, dermatologists should discuss the situation thoughtfully with the patient, the patient’s family (when appropriate), and other physicians on the treatment team to determine the most appropriate course of action. In some cases, the most appropriate course might be to delay biopsy or treatment until the outpatient setting or to even defer further action completely when the prognosis is very limited. Consulting dermatologists must be mindful of patients’ overall medical situation in planning care for a cutaneous malignancy in these inpatient situations.

This study also highlights the surprising number of large-diameter, high-risk tumors identified in these scenarios. Limitations of this study include a relatively small sample size from a single facility that might not be representative of other practice settings and locations. Future multicenter studies could further explore the impact of inpatient dermatologic consultation on the diagnosis and management of skin cancer.