Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is the most common cancer in the United States, and cutaneous melanoma is projected to be the fifth most common form of cancer in 2022, with increasing incidence and high potential for mortality.^1-3 Estimates indicate that 35% to 45% of all cancers in White patients are cutaneous, with 4% to 5% occurring in Hispanic patients, 2% to 4% in Asian patients, and 1% to 2% in Black patients.⁴ Of the keratinocyte carcinomas, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most prevalent, projected to affect approximately 33% to 39% of White males and 23% to 28% of White females in the United States during their lifetimes. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the second most common skin malignancy, with a lifetime risk of 9% to 14% for White males and 4% to 9% for White females in the United States.⁵ The incidence of melanoma continues to increase, with approximately 99,780 new cases expected in the United States in 2022.¹

UV-induced DNA damage plays a key role in the pathogenesis and development of various skin malignancies.⁶ UV radiation from sunlight or tanning devices causes photocarcinogenesis due to molecular and cellular effects, including the generation of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage due to the formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and pyrimidine-pyrimidone, melanogenesis, apoptosis, and the increased expression of harmful genes and proteins.⁶ The summation of this damage can result in skin malignancies, including NMSC and melanoma.^6,7 Dietary antioxidants theoretically help prevent oxidative reactions from occurring within the body, and it has been suggested that intake of dietary antioxidants may decrease DNA damage and prevent tumorigenesis secondary to UV radiation.⁸ Antioxidants exist naturally in the body but can be acquired exogenously. Investigators have studied dietary antioxidants in preventing skin cancer formation with promising results in the laboratory setting.^8-11 Recently, more robust human studies have been initiated to further delineate this relationship. We present clinical evidence of several frequently utilized antioxidant vitamins and their effects on melanoma and NMSC.

Antioxidants

Vitamin A—Vitamin A is a fat-soluble vitamin found in animal sources, including fish, liver, and eggs. Carotenoids, such as beta carotene, are provitamin A plant derivatives found in fruits and vegetables that are converted into biologically active retinol and retinoic acid.¹² Retinols play a key role in cellular growth and differentiation and are thought to be protective against skin cancer via the inactivation of free radicals and immunologic enhancement due to their antiproliferative, antioxidative, and antiapoptotic effects.^13-16 Animal studies have demonstrated this protective effect and the ability of retinoids to suppress carcinogenesis; however, human studies reveal conflicting results.^17,18

Greenberg et al¹⁹ investigated the use of beta carotene in preventing the formation of NMSC. Patients (N=1805) were randomized to receive 50 mg of beta carotene daily or placebo. Over a 5-year period, there was no significant reduction in the occurrence of NMSC (relative risk [RR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.91-1.22).¹⁹ Frieling et al²⁰ conducted a similar randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating beta carotene for primary prevention of NMSC in 22,071 healthy male physicians. The study group received 50 mg of beta carotene every other day for 12 years’ duration, and there was no significant effect on the incidence of first NMSC development (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.05).²⁰

A case-control study by Naldi et al²¹ found an inverse association between vitamin A intake and development of melanoma. Study participants were stratified into quartiles based on level of dietary intake and found an odds ratio (OR) of 0.71 for beta carotene (95% CI, 0.50-1.02), 0.57 for retinol (95% CI, 0.39-0.83), and 0.51 for total vitamin A (95% CI, 0.35-0.75) when comparing the upper quartile of vitamin A intake to the lower quartile. Upper-quartile cutoff values of vitamin A intake were 214 µg/d for beta carotene, 149 µg/d for retinol, and 359 µg/d for total vitamin A.²¹ More recently, a meta-analysis by Zhang et al²² pooled data from 8 case-control studies and 2 prospective studies. Intake of retinol but not total vitamin A or beta carotene was associated with a reduced risk for development of melanoma (retinol: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92; total vitamin A: OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.59-1.25; beta carotene: OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62-1.20).²² Feskanich et al²³ demonstrated similar findings with use of food-frequency questionnaires in White women, suggesting that retinol intake from food combined with supplements may be protective for women who were otherwise at a low risk for melanoma based on nondietary factors. These factors included painful or blistering sunburns during childhood, history of more than 6 sunburns, more than 3 moles on the left arm, having red or blonde hair, and having a parent or sibling with melanoma (P=.01). However, this relationship did not hold true when looking at women at an intermediate or high risk for melanoma (P=.16 and P=.46).²³

When looking at high-risk patients, such as transplant patients, oral retinoids have been beneficial in preventing NMSC.^24-27 Bavinck et al²⁴ investigated 44 renal transplant patients with a history of more than 10 NMSCs treated with 30 mg of acitretin daily vs placebo. Patients receiving oral retinoid supplementation developed fewer NMSCs over a 6-month treatment period (P=.01).²⁴ Similarly, George et al²⁵ investigated acitretin in renal transplant patients and found a statistically significant decrease in number of SCCs in patients on supplementation (P=.002). Solomon-Cohen et al²⁶ performed a retrospective case-crossover study in solid organ transplant recipients and found that those treated with 10 mg of acitretin daily for 2 years had a significant reduction in the number of new keratinocyte carcinomas (P=.002). Other investigators have demonstrated similar results, and in 2006, Otley et al²⁷ proposed standardized dosing of acitretin for chemoprevention in high-risk patients, including patients developing 5 to 10 NMSCs per year, solid organ transplant recipients, and those with syndromes associated with the development of NMSC.^28,29 Overall, in the general population, vitamin A and related compounds have not demonstrated a significant association with decreased development of NMSC; however, oral retinoids have proven useful for high-risk patients. Furthermore, several studies have suggested a negative association between vitamin A levels and the incidence of melanoma, specifically in the retinol formulation. 

Vitamin B₃—Nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) is a water-soluble form of vitamin B₃ and is obtained from animal-based and plant-based foods, such as meat, fish, and legumes.³⁰ Nicotinamide plays a key role in cellular metabolism, cellular signaling, and DNA repair, including protection from UV damage within keratinocytes.^31,32 Early mouse models demonstrated decreased formation of skin tumors in mice treated with topical or oral nicotinamide.^32,33 A number of human studies have revealed similar results.^34-36

Chen et al³⁴ conducted the ONTRAC study, a phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) looking at 386 participants with a history of at least 2 NMSCs in the preceding 5 years. At 12 months, those treated with 500 mg of nicotinamide twice daily demonstrated a statistically significant decreased rate of SCC formation (P=.05). A decreased incidence of BCC development was noted; however, this trend did not reach statistical significance (P=.12). Precancerous skin lesions also were found to be decreased in the treatment group, with 20% lower incidence of actinic keratoses (AKs) after 9 months of treatment (P<.001).³⁴ Drago et al³⁵ specifically studied the incidence of AKs in 38 transplant recipients—8 liver and 30 kidney—and found that previously noted AKs had decreased in size for 18 of 19 patients taking 500 mg of nicotinamide daily when originally photographed AKs were remeasured at 6-month follow-up, with 7 of these 18 patients demonstrating complete clinical regression. Of those on nicotinamide supplementation, no new AKs developed compared to the control group, which demonstrated increased size of AKs or development of new AKs in 91% of patients, with 7 AKs progressing into SCC.³⁵

Nicotinamide has been demonstrated to be useful in preventing skin cancer in high-risk populations, such as transplant patients or those with a high incidence of NMSC.^34,36 Despite promising results within the laboratory setting, nicotinamide’s effects on melanoma in humans remains less clear.^31,37 Studies suggest that nicotinamide enhances tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and DNA repair mechanisms in melanocytes, which may translate into nicotinamide, providing chemoprevention for melanoma, but research in human patients is limited.^31,37

Vitamin B₉—Folate, the natural form of vitamin B₉, is a water-soluble compound that is found in many foods, especially green leafy vegetables, and often is supplemented because of its health benefits.^38,39 In the skin, folic acid plays a key role in cellular replication and proliferation.³⁸ Controversy exists regarding folate’s effects on cellular growth and turnover with respect to cancer incidence.^38,40 Donnenfeld et al⁴¹ conducted a prospective study assessing dietary folic acid intake and development of NMSC. A total of 5880 participants completed dietary records throughout the first 2 years of the study. After an average follow-up period of 12.6 years, there was an overall increased incidence of skin cancer in those with increased dietary folate (P=.03). Furthermore, when striating by skin cancer type, there was an increased incidence of NMSC overall as well as BCC when analyzing by type of NMSC (P=.03 for NMSC; P=.05 for BCC). However, when stratifying by gender, these findings only held true for women.⁴¹ Similar effects were observed by Fung et al,⁴² who prospectively studied the intake of various vitamins in relationship to the development of BCC in women. During 12 years of follow-up, a positive association was observed between folate intake and BCC development (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.10-1.31).⁴² Fung et al⁴³ also investigated the role of several vitamins in the development of SCC and found that folate showed a negative association, which did not reach statistical significance (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.56-1.11). Furthermore, Vollset et al⁴⁰ conducted a meta-analysis comparing folic acid to placebo in the incidence of various types of cancer. The study excluded NMSC but reported no significant association between the development of melanoma and folic acid supplementation.⁴⁰ In summary, the effects of folate have diverse consequences, potentially promoting the formation of NMSC, but studies suggest that an individual’s gender and other genetic and environmental factors also may play a role.

Vitamin C—Vitamin C (also known as ascorbic acid) is a water-soluble vitamin with antioxidant immune-mediating effects. It is found in various fruits and vegetables and serves as a cofactor for enzymes within the body playing a key role in immune function and collagen formation.^44,45 It has been postulated that ascorbic acid can provide protection from UV radiation damage via its intracellular activity but conversely can contribute to oxidative damage.⁴⁴ Multiple in vitro laboratory studies and animal models have demonstrated photoprotective effects of ascorbic acid.^46-48 Despite these findings, minimal photoprotective effects have been found in the human population.

Kune et al⁴⁹ performed a case-control study of 88 males with previously diagnosed NMSC undergoing surgical removal and investigated patients’ prior dietary habits. Patients with NMSC had a statistically significantly lower level of vitamin C–containing food in their diet than those without NMSC (P=.004).⁴⁹ In addition, Vural et al⁵⁰ analyzed plasma samples and blood cells of patients with AK and BCC and found a significant decrease in ascorbic acid levels in both the AK (P<.001) and BCC (P<.001) groups compared with controls. However, studies have found that consumption of certain dietary compounds can rapidly increase plasma concentration levels, which may serve as a major confounding variable in this study. Plasma concentrations of ascorbic acid and beta carotene were found to be significantly increased following consumption of a high-antioxidant diet for as short a duration as 2 weeks (P<.05).⁵¹ More recently, Heinen et al⁵² performed a prospective study on 1001 adults. In patients without a history of skin cancer, they found that vitamin C from food sources plus dietary supplements was positively associated with the development of BCC (P=.03).⁵² Similarly, Fung et al⁴² performed a study in women and found a positive association between vitamin C intake and the development of BCC (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.23).

The relationship between vitamin C intake—either in dietary or supplemental form—and melanoma remains controversial. Mice-based studies found that high concentrations of orally administered vitamin C induce cytotoxicity in melanoma cell lines, but at low concentrations they promote tumor growth of malignant melanoma.⁵³ Feskanich et al²³ examined the relationship between vitamin C intake and melanoma development via food frequency questionnaires in White women and found that vitamin C was associated with a higher risk for melanoma (P=.05), and furthermore, a positive dose response with frequency of orange juice intake was observed (P=.008). Overall, despite promising laboratory studies, there is a lack of RCTs investigating the use of vitamin C supplementation for prevention of NMSC and melanoma in humans, and the oral benefits of vitamin C for chemoprevention remain unclear.

Vitamin D—Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that is found in fish, liver, egg, and cheese, and is endogenously produced when UV radiation from sun exposure interacts with the skin, triggering the synthesis of vitamin D.⁵⁴ Vitamin D is biologically inactive and must be converted to its active form 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D after entering the body. Vitamin D modulates many genes involved in cellular proliferation and differentiation.⁵⁴ Vitamin D receptors are expressed on keratinocytes and melanocytes.⁵⁵ Animal studies have demonstrated a potentially protective effect of vitamin D in the development of NMSC.⁵⁶ In a mouse model, Ellison et al⁵⁶ found that mice without vitamin D receptors developed skin tumors more rapidly than those with vitamin D receptors.

Unfortunately, these findings have not been demonstrated in humans, and studies have even reported an increased risk for development of NMSC in patients with normal or increased vitamin D levels compared with those with low levels of vitamin D.^57-60 Eide et al⁵⁷ studied 3223 patients seeking advice for low bone density by recording their vitamin D levels at the time of presentation and monitoring development of NMSC. Vitamin D levels greater than 15 ng/mL were positively associated with the development of NMSC (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.04-2.7). This association held true for both SCC and BCC, with a higher risk estimated for SCC (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 0.4-24.0 for SCC; OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 0.5-5.8 for BCC).⁵⁷ An increased vitamin D serum level also was found to be significantly associated with a higher risk for BCC and melanoma by van der Pols et al.⁵⁸ This prospective study looked at the incidence of skin cancer over 11 years. Study participants with vitamin D levels over 75 nmol/L more frequently developed BCC (P=.01) and melanoma (P=.05). In contrast, SCC was less frequently observed in participants with these high levels of vitamin D (P=.07).⁵⁸ Furthermore, Park et al⁶⁰ looked at vitamin D and skin cancer risk for men and women in the United States and found no association with risk for SCC or melanoma but a positive association with BCC (P=.05 for total vitamin D; P<.01 for dietary vitamin D). Additional studies have been performed with inconsistent results, and multiple authors suggest the possible confounding relationship between vitamin D levels and UV radiation exposure.^59-62 Furthermore, some studies have even demonstrated a negative association between vitamin D and NMSC. Tang et al⁶³ performed a retrospective case-control study in elderly males, investigating serum levels of vitamin D and patients’ self-reported history of NMSC, which demonstrated that higher levels of vitamin D were associated with a decreased risk for NMSC. Overall, the relationship between vitamin D and skin cancer development remains unclear for both melanoma and NMSC.

Vitamin E—Vitamin E is a fat-soluble vitamin that is found in plant-based oils, nuts, seeds, fruits, and vegetables.⁶⁴ It works as an antioxidant to protect against free radicals and heighten immune function, and it also serves as a pro-oxidant.^65,66 Vitamin E naturally exists in 8 chemical forms, of which gamma-tocopherol is the most frequently obtained form in the diet, and alpha-tocopherol is the most abundant form found in the body.^64,65

Early animal studies demonstrated the inhibition of UV-induced damage in mice receiving vitamin E supplementation.^67,68 Human studies have not consistently shown these effects. Vural et al⁵⁰ investigated plasma samples and blood cells of patients with AKs and BCCs and reported a significant decrease in alpha-tocopherol levels in both the AK (P<.05) and BCC (P<.001) groups compared with controls. However, studies also have demonstrated a positive association between vitamin E intake and the development of BCC, including one by Fung et al,⁴² which found a significant association in women (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26).

Vitamin E has been found to inhibit melanin synthesis in the laboratory, suggesting a potentially protective effect in melanoma.^69,70 However, in the study performed by Feskanich et al²³ examining vitamin intake and melanoma incidence via food-frequency questionnaires, vitamin E was not associated with a lower risk for melanoma. Despite promising laboratory studies, the data surrounding the use of a vitamin E supplement for prevention of melanoma and NMSC in humans remains unclear.

Selenium—Selenium is a trace mineral found in plants, meat, and fish. It plays a key role in reproduction, hormone metabolism, DNA synthesis, and protection from oxidative damage.⁷¹ In mice studies, lack of selenium-containing proteins resulted in skin abnormalities, including the development of a hyperplastic epidermis and aberrant hair follicle morphogenesis with alopecia after birth, and numerous experimental studies have demonstrated a negative association between selenium intake and cancer.^72,73 However, human studies have yielded alternative results. 

The Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Study Group analyzed 1312 dermatology patients with a history of NMSC.⁷⁴ The study population was obtained from 7 dermatology clinics with randomization to control for confounding variables. Study participants received either 200 μg of selenium daily or placebo.⁷⁴ Baseline characteristics of each study group were overall balanced. Selenium intake was found to have no effect on the development of BCC (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94-1.26) but an increased risk for developing SCC (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.03-1.51) and total NMSC (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.34).^74,75 Similarly, Reid et al⁷⁶ performed an RCT comparing patients treated with 400 μg/d of selenium to those treated with 200 μg/d of selenium. When compared with placebo, those treated with 200 μg/d of selenium had a statistically significantly increased incidence of NMSC (P=.006); however, those treated with 400 μg/d of selenium had no significant change in total incidence of NMSC (P=.51).⁷⁶ Furthermore, Vinceti et al⁷⁷ performed a review of 83 studies from the literature investigating the effect of dietary selenium, and from the RCTs, there was no beneficial effect of selenium in reducing cancer risk in general; however, some studies demonstrated an increased incidence of other types of cancer, including melanoma. Of the RCTs included in the study investigating NMSC incidence specifically, it was found that the incidence was not affected by selenium administration (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.30-4.42; 2 studies, 2027 participants).⁷⁷ Despite data from several studies demonstrating an increased risk for NMSC, the effects of selenium on the risk for NMSC and melanoma remain unclear. 

Combination Antioxidant Studies

In addition to investigating the use of single antioxidants in skin cancer prevention, studies utilizing the combination of various antioxidants or other dietary minerals have been conducted. Hercberg et al⁷⁸ performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 13,017 adults (7876 women and 5141 men) receiving a combination of 120 mg vitamin C, 30 mg vitamin E, 100 μg selenium, 6 mg beta carotene, and 20 mg zinc. Study participants were followed for an average of 7.5 years, and the development of skin cancers were recorded. Overall, the incidence rate of skin cancer did not differ between the 2 treatment groups; however, when segregated by gender, the study found that there was an increased risk for developing skin cancer in women taking the antioxidant supplement combination compared with placebo (P=.03). This difference was not observed in the 2 treatment groups of male patients (P=.11). When looking specifically at NMSC, there was no difference between treatment groups for male or female patients (P=.39 for males; P=.15 for females). In contrast, there was a higher incidence of melanoma identified in female patients taking the combination antioxidant supplement (P=.01), but this was not seen within the male study population (P=.51).⁷⁸ In addition, Chang et al⁷⁹ performed a meta-analysis of 10 previously published RCTs. Analysis revealed that treatment with a variety of supplements, including vitamins A, C, E, and beta carotene, were found to have no preventative effects on the incidence of skin cancer development (RR, 0.98; CI, 0.98-1.03). Notable limitations to this study included the variability in protocols of the studies included in this meta-analysis, the limited number of RCTs investigating vitamin supplementation and the risk for skin cancer development, and the influence of dietary intake on study outcomes.⁷⁹

Other Dietary Agents

Furocoumarins—Furocoumarins are botanical substances found in various fruits and plants, including many citrus products. Furocoumarins are activated by UV light radiation and can lead to development of a phototoxic eruption. Several studies have suggested a pharmacogenetic effect of furocoumarins.⁸⁰ Sun et al⁸⁰ collected dietary data from 47,453 men and 75,291 women on furocoumarin intake and correlation with the development of NMSC. Overall, the study suggested that the intake of furocoumarins may lead to an increase in the development of BCC (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21; P=.002); however, there was no significant association identified between total intake of furocoumarins in the risk for SCC or melanoma.⁸⁰ Furthermore, Sakaki et al⁸¹ conducted a survey study looking at the consumption of citrus products and the development of NMSC. The group found that there was an increased risk for NMSC in those consuming an increased amount of citrus products (P=.007).⁸¹

Conclusion

Dietary antioxidants have been investigated for their potential role in the prevention of tumorigenesis. Specific antioxidant vitamins, such as vitamin A derivatives and niacinamide, have demonstrated clinical utility in the prevention of NMSC in high-risk populations. Retinol also has been associated with a reduced incidence of melanoma. Numerous antioxidants have demonstrated promising data within the laboratory setting; however, inconsistent results have been appreciated in humans. Furthermore, several research studies suggest that folate, vitamin D, and furocoumarins may be associated with an increased risk for skin cancer development; however, these studies are inconclusive, and dietary studies are challenging to conduct. Overall, RCTs investigating the role of antioxidants for chemoprevention are limited. Moreover, the study of dietary antioxidants and vitamins may be affected by various confounding variables that can be difficult to account for because of patients’ potentially poor recall of dietary intake and the effect of dietary intake in supplemental studies. Given the increasing prevalence of skin cancer worldwide, further research into the clinical utility of antioxidants in skin cancer prevention is warranted. 

Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is the most common cancer in the United States, and cutaneous melanoma is projected to be the fifth most common form of cancer in 2022, with increasing incidence and high potential for mortality.^1-3 Estimates indicate that 35% to 45% of all cancers in White patients are cutaneous, with 4% to 5% occurring in Hispanic patients, 2% to 4% in Asian patients, and 1% to 2% in Black patients.⁴ Of the keratinocyte carcinomas, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most prevalent, projected to affect approximately 33% to 39% of White males and 23% to 28% of White females in the United States during their lifetimes. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the second most common skin malignancy, with a lifetime risk of 9% to 14% for White males and 4% to 9% for White females in the United States.⁵ The incidence of melanoma continues to increase, with approximately 99,780 new cases expected in the United States in 2022.¹

UV-induced DNA damage plays a key role in the pathogenesis and development of various skin malignancies.⁶ UV radiation from sunlight or tanning devices causes photocarcinogenesis due to molecular and cellular effects, including the generation of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage due to the formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and pyrimidine-pyrimidone, melanogenesis, apoptosis, and the increased expression of harmful genes and proteins.⁶ The summation of this damage can result in skin malignancies, including NMSC and melanoma.^6,7 Dietary antioxidants theoretically help prevent oxidative reactions from occurring within the body, and it has been suggested that intake of dietary antioxidants may decrease DNA damage and prevent tumorigenesis secondary to UV radiation.⁸ Antioxidants exist naturally in the body but can be acquired exogenously. Investigators have studied dietary antioxidants in preventing skin cancer formation with promising results in the laboratory setting.^8-11 Recently, more robust human studies have been initiated to further delineate this relationship. We present clinical evidence of several frequently utilized antioxidant vitamins and their effects on melanoma and NMSC.

Antioxidants

Vitamin A—Vitamin A is a fat-soluble vitamin found in animal sources, including fish, liver, and eggs. Carotenoids, such as beta carotene, are provitamin A plant derivatives found in fruits and vegetables that are converted into biologically active retinol and retinoic acid.¹² Retinols play a key role in cellular growth and differentiation and are thought to be protective against skin cancer via the inactivation of free radicals and immunologic enhancement due to their antiproliferative, antioxidative, and antiapoptotic effects.^13-16 Animal studies have demonstrated this protective effect and the ability of retinoids to suppress carcinogenesis; however, human studies reveal conflicting results.^17,18

Greenberg et al¹⁹ investigated the use of beta carotene in preventing the formation of NMSC. Patients (N=1805) were randomized to receive 50 mg of beta carotene daily or placebo. Over a 5-year period, there was no significant reduction in the occurrence of NMSC (relative risk [RR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.91-1.22).¹⁹ Frieling et al²⁰ conducted a similar randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating beta carotene for primary prevention of NMSC in 22,071 healthy male physicians. The study group received 50 mg of beta carotene every other day for 12 years’ duration, and there was no significant effect on the incidence of first NMSC development (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.05).²⁰

A case-control study by Naldi et al²¹ found an inverse association between vitamin A intake and development of melanoma. Study participants were stratified into quartiles based on level of dietary intake and found an odds ratio (OR) of 0.71 for beta carotene (95% CI, 0.50-1.02), 0.57 for retinol (95% CI, 0.39-0.83), and 0.51 for total vitamin A (95% CI, 0.35-0.75) when comparing the upper quartile of vitamin A intake to the lower quartile. Upper-quartile cutoff values of vitamin A intake were 214 µg/d for beta carotene, 149 µg/d for retinol, and 359 µg/d for total vitamin A.²¹ More recently, a meta-analysis by Zhang et al²² pooled data from 8 case-control studies and 2 prospective studies. Intake of retinol but not total vitamin A or beta carotene was associated with a reduced risk for development of melanoma (retinol: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92; total vitamin A: OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.59-1.25; beta carotene: OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62-1.20).²² Feskanich et al²³ demonstrated similar findings with use of food-frequency questionnaires in White women, suggesting that retinol intake from food combined with supplements may be protective for women who were otherwise at a low risk for melanoma based on nondietary factors. These factors included painful or blistering sunburns during childhood, history of more than 6 sunburns, more than 3 moles on the left arm, having red or blonde hair, and having a parent or sibling with melanoma (P=.01). However, this relationship did not hold true when looking at women at an intermediate or high risk for melanoma (P=.16 and P=.46).²³

When looking at high-risk patients, such as transplant patients, oral retinoids have been beneficial in preventing NMSC.^24-27 Bavinck et al²⁴ investigated 44 renal transplant patients with a history of more than 10 NMSCs treated with 30 mg of acitretin daily vs placebo. Patients receiving oral retinoid supplementation developed fewer NMSCs over a 6-month treatment period (P=.01).²⁴ Similarly, George et al²⁵ investigated acitretin in renal transplant patients and found a statistically significant decrease in number of SCCs in patients on supplementation (P=.002). Solomon-Cohen et al²⁶ performed a retrospective case-crossover study in solid organ transplant recipients and found that those treated with 10 mg of acitretin daily for 2 years had a significant reduction in the number of new keratinocyte carcinomas (P=.002). Other investigators have demonstrated similar results, and in 2006, Otley et al²⁷ proposed standardized dosing of acitretin for chemoprevention in high-risk patients, including patients developing 5 to 10 NMSCs per year, solid organ transplant recipients, and those with syndromes associated with the development of NMSC.^28,29 Overall, in the general population, vitamin A and related compounds have not demonstrated a significant association with decreased development of NMSC; however, oral retinoids have proven useful for high-risk patients. Furthermore, several studies have suggested a negative association between vitamin A levels and the incidence of melanoma, specifically in the retinol formulation. 

Vitamin B₃—Nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) is a water-soluble form of vitamin B₃ and is obtained from animal-based and plant-based foods, such as meat, fish, and legumes.³⁰ Nicotinamide plays a key role in cellular metabolism, cellular signaling, and DNA repair, including protection from UV damage within keratinocytes.^31,32 Early mouse models demonstrated decreased formation of skin tumors in mice treated with topical or oral nicotinamide.^32,33 A number of human studies have revealed similar results.^34-36

Chen et al³⁴ conducted the ONTRAC study, a phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) looking at 386 participants with a history of at least 2 NMSCs in the preceding 5 years. At 12 months, those treated with 500 mg of nicotinamide twice daily demonstrated a statistically significant decreased rate of SCC formation (P=.05). A decreased incidence of BCC development was noted; however, this trend did not reach statistical significance (P=.12). Precancerous skin lesions also were found to be decreased in the treatment group, with 20% lower incidence of actinic keratoses (AKs) after 9 months of treatment (P<.001).³⁴ Drago et al³⁵ specifically studied the incidence of AKs in 38 transplant recipients—8 liver and 30 kidney—and found that previously noted AKs had decreased in size for 18 of 19 patients taking 500 mg of nicotinamide daily when originally photographed AKs were remeasured at 6-month follow-up, with 7 of these 18 patients demonstrating complete clinical regression. Of those on nicotinamide supplementation, no new AKs developed compared to the control group, which demonstrated increased size of AKs or development of new AKs in 91% of patients, with 7 AKs progressing into SCC.³⁵

Nicotinamide has been demonstrated to be useful in preventing skin cancer in high-risk populations, such as transplant patients or those with a high incidence of NMSC.^34,36 Despite promising results within the laboratory setting, nicotinamide’s effects on melanoma in humans remains less clear.^31,37 Studies suggest that nicotinamide enhances tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and DNA repair mechanisms in melanocytes, which may translate into nicotinamide, providing chemoprevention for melanoma, but research in human patients is limited.^31,37

Vitamin B₉—Folate, the natural form of vitamin B₉, is a water-soluble compound that is found in many foods, especially green leafy vegetables, and often is supplemented because of its health benefits.^38,39 In the skin, folic acid plays a key role in cellular replication and proliferation.³⁸ Controversy exists regarding folate’s effects on cellular growth and turnover with respect to cancer incidence.^38,40 Donnenfeld et al⁴¹ conducted a prospective study assessing dietary folic acid intake and development of NMSC. A total of 5880 participants completed dietary records throughout the first 2 years of the study. After an average follow-up period of 12.6 years, there was an overall increased incidence of skin cancer in those with increased dietary folate (P=.03). Furthermore, when striating by skin cancer type, there was an increased incidence of NMSC overall as well as BCC when analyzing by type of NMSC (P=.03 for NMSC; P=.05 for BCC). However, when stratifying by gender, these findings only held true for women.⁴¹ Similar effects were observed by Fung et al,⁴² who prospectively studied the intake of various vitamins in relationship to the development of BCC in women. During 12 years of follow-up, a positive association was observed between folate intake and BCC development (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.10-1.31).⁴² Fung et al⁴³ also investigated the role of several vitamins in the development of SCC and found that folate showed a negative association, which did not reach statistical significance (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.56-1.11). Furthermore, Vollset et al⁴⁰ conducted a meta-analysis comparing folic acid to placebo in the incidence of various types of cancer. The study excluded NMSC but reported no significant association between the development of melanoma and folic acid supplementation.⁴⁰ In summary, the effects of folate have diverse consequences, potentially promoting the formation of NMSC, but studies suggest that an individual’s gender and other genetic and environmental factors also may play a role.

Vitamin C—Vitamin C (also known as ascorbic acid) is a water-soluble vitamin with antioxidant immune-mediating effects. It is found in various fruits and vegetables and serves as a cofactor for enzymes within the body playing a key role in immune function and collagen formation.^44,45 It has been postulated that ascorbic acid can provide protection from UV radiation damage via its intracellular activity but conversely can contribute to oxidative damage.⁴⁴ Multiple in vitro laboratory studies and animal models have demonstrated photoprotective effects of ascorbic acid.^46-48 Despite these findings, minimal photoprotective effects have been found in the human population.

Kune et al⁴⁹ performed a case-control study of 88 males with previously diagnosed NMSC undergoing surgical removal and investigated patients’ prior dietary habits. Patients with NMSC had a statistically significantly lower level of vitamin C–containing food in their diet than those without NMSC (P=.004).⁴⁹ In addition, Vural et al⁵⁰ analyzed plasma samples and blood cells of patients with AK and BCC and found a significant decrease in ascorbic acid levels in both the AK (P<.001) and BCC (P<.001) groups compared with controls. However, studies have found that consumption of certain dietary compounds can rapidly increase plasma concentration levels, which may serve as a major confounding variable in this study. Plasma concentrations of ascorbic acid and beta carotene were found to be significantly increased following consumption of a high-antioxidant diet for as short a duration as 2 weeks (P<.05).⁵¹ More recently, Heinen et al⁵² performed a prospective study on 1001 adults. In patients without a history of skin cancer, they found that vitamin C from food sources plus dietary supplements was positively associated with the development of BCC (P=.03).⁵² Similarly, Fung et al⁴² performed a study in women and found a positive association between vitamin C intake and the development of BCC (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.23).

The relationship between vitamin C intake—either in dietary or supplemental form—and melanoma remains controversial. Mice-based studies found that high concentrations of orally administered vitamin C induce cytotoxicity in melanoma cell lines, but at low concentrations they promote tumor growth of malignant melanoma.⁵³ Feskanich et al²³ examined the relationship between vitamin C intake and melanoma development via food frequency questionnaires in White women and found that vitamin C was associated with a higher risk for melanoma (P=.05), and furthermore, a positive dose response with frequency of orange juice intake was observed (P=.008). Overall, despite promising laboratory studies, there is a lack of RCTs investigating the use of vitamin C supplementation for prevention of NMSC and melanoma in humans, and the oral benefits of vitamin C for chemoprevention remain unclear.

Vitamin D—Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that is found in fish, liver, egg, and cheese, and is endogenously produced when UV radiation from sun exposure interacts with the skin, triggering the synthesis of vitamin D.⁵⁴ Vitamin D is biologically inactive and must be converted to its active form 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D after entering the body. Vitamin D modulates many genes involved in cellular proliferation and differentiation.⁵⁴ Vitamin D receptors are expressed on keratinocytes and melanocytes.⁵⁵ Animal studies have demonstrated a potentially protective effect of vitamin D in the development of NMSC.⁵⁶ In a mouse model, Ellison et al⁵⁶ found that mice without vitamin D receptors developed skin tumors more rapidly than those with vitamin D receptors.

Unfortunately, these findings have not been demonstrated in humans, and studies have even reported an increased risk for development of NMSC in patients with normal or increased vitamin D levels compared with those with low levels of vitamin D.^57-60 Eide et al⁵⁷ studied 3223 patients seeking advice for low bone density by recording their vitamin D levels at the time of presentation and monitoring development of NMSC. Vitamin D levels greater than 15 ng/mL were positively associated with the development of NMSC (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.04-2.7). This association held true for both SCC and BCC, with a higher risk estimated for SCC (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 0.4-24.0 for SCC; OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 0.5-5.8 for BCC).⁵⁷ An increased vitamin D serum level also was found to be significantly associated with a higher risk for BCC and melanoma by van der Pols et al.⁵⁸ This prospective study looked at the incidence of skin cancer over 11 years. Study participants with vitamin D levels over 75 nmol/L more frequently developed BCC (P=.01) and melanoma (P=.05). In contrast, SCC was less frequently observed in participants with these high levels of vitamin D (P=.07).⁵⁸ Furthermore, Park et al⁶⁰ looked at vitamin D and skin cancer risk for men and women in the United States and found no association with risk for SCC or melanoma but a positive association with BCC (P=.05 for total vitamin D; P<.01 for dietary vitamin D). Additional studies have been performed with inconsistent results, and multiple authors suggest the possible confounding relationship between vitamin D levels and UV radiation exposure.^59-62 Furthermore, some studies have even demonstrated a negative association between vitamin D and NMSC. Tang et al⁶³ performed a retrospective case-control study in elderly males, investigating serum levels of vitamin D and patients’ self-reported history of NMSC, which demonstrated that higher levels of vitamin D were associated with a decreased risk for NMSC. Overall, the relationship between vitamin D and skin cancer development remains unclear for both melanoma and NMSC.

Vitamin E—Vitamin E is a fat-soluble vitamin that is found in plant-based oils, nuts, seeds, fruits, and vegetables.⁶⁴ It works as an antioxidant to protect against free radicals and heighten immune function, and it also serves as a pro-oxidant.^65,66 Vitamin E naturally exists in 8 chemical forms, of which gamma-tocopherol is the most frequently obtained form in the diet, and alpha-tocopherol is the most abundant form found in the body.^64,65

Early animal studies demonstrated the inhibition of UV-induced damage in mice receiving vitamin E supplementation.^67,68 Human studies have not consistently shown these effects. Vural et al⁵⁰ investigated plasma samples and blood cells of patients with AKs and BCCs and reported a significant decrease in alpha-tocopherol levels in both the AK (P<.05) and BCC (P<.001) groups compared with controls. However, studies also have demonstrated a positive association between vitamin E intake and the development of BCC, including one by Fung et al,⁴² which found a significant association in women (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26).

Vitamin E has been found to inhibit melanin synthesis in the laboratory, suggesting a potentially protective effect in melanoma.^69,70 However, in the study performed by Feskanich et al²³ examining vitamin intake and melanoma incidence via food-frequency questionnaires, vitamin E was not associated with a lower risk for melanoma. Despite promising laboratory studies, the data surrounding the use of a vitamin E supplement for prevention of melanoma and NMSC in humans remains unclear.

Selenium—Selenium is a trace mineral found in plants, meat, and fish. It plays a key role in reproduction, hormone metabolism, DNA synthesis, and protection from oxidative damage.⁷¹ In mice studies, lack of selenium-containing proteins resulted in skin abnormalities, including the development of a hyperplastic epidermis and aberrant hair follicle morphogenesis with alopecia after birth, and numerous experimental studies have demonstrated a negative association between selenium intake and cancer.^72,73 However, human studies have yielded alternative results. 

The Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Study Group analyzed 1312 dermatology patients with a history of NMSC.⁷⁴ The study population was obtained from 7 dermatology clinics with randomization to control for confounding variables. Study participants received either 200 μg of selenium daily or placebo.⁷⁴ Baseline characteristics of each study group were overall balanced. Selenium intake was found to have no effect on the development of BCC (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94-1.26) but an increased risk for developing SCC (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.03-1.51) and total NMSC (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.34).^74,75 Similarly, Reid et al⁷⁶ performed an RCT comparing patients treated with 400 μg/d of selenium to those treated with 200 μg/d of selenium. When compared with placebo, those treated with 200 μg/d of selenium had a statistically significantly increased incidence of NMSC (P=.006); however, those treated with 400 μg/d of selenium had no significant change in total incidence of NMSC (P=.51).⁷⁶ Furthermore, Vinceti et al⁷⁷ performed a review of 83 studies from the literature investigating the effect of dietary selenium, and from the RCTs, there was no beneficial effect of selenium in reducing cancer risk in general; however, some studies demonstrated an increased incidence of other types of cancer, including melanoma. Of the RCTs included in the study investigating NMSC incidence specifically, it was found that the incidence was not affected by selenium administration (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.30-4.42; 2 studies, 2027 participants).⁷⁷ Despite data from several studies demonstrating an increased risk for NMSC, the effects of selenium on the risk for NMSC and melanoma remain unclear. 

Combination Antioxidant Studies

In addition to investigating the use of single antioxidants in skin cancer prevention, studies utilizing the combination of various antioxidants or other dietary minerals have been conducted. Hercberg et al⁷⁸ performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 13,017 adults (7876 women and 5141 men) receiving a combination of 120 mg vitamin C, 30 mg vitamin E, 100 μg selenium, 6 mg beta carotene, and 20 mg zinc. Study participants were followed for an average of 7.5 years, and the development of skin cancers were recorded. Overall, the incidence rate of skin cancer did not differ between the 2 treatment groups; however, when segregated by gender, the study found that there was an increased risk for developing skin cancer in women taking the antioxidant supplement combination compared with placebo (P=.03). This difference was not observed in the 2 treatment groups of male patients (P=.11). When looking specifically at NMSC, there was no difference between treatment groups for male or female patients (P=.39 for males; P=.15 for females). In contrast, there was a higher incidence of melanoma identified in female patients taking the combination antioxidant supplement (P=.01), but this was not seen within the male study population (P=.51).⁷⁸ In addition, Chang et al⁷⁹ performed a meta-analysis of 10 previously published RCTs. Analysis revealed that treatment with a variety of supplements, including vitamins A, C, E, and beta carotene, were found to have no preventative effects on the incidence of skin cancer development (RR, 0.98; CI, 0.98-1.03). Notable limitations to this study included the variability in protocols of the studies included in this meta-analysis, the limited number of RCTs investigating vitamin supplementation and the risk for skin cancer development, and the influence of dietary intake on study outcomes.⁷⁹

Other Dietary Agents

Furocoumarins—Furocoumarins are botanical substances found in various fruits and plants, including many citrus products. Furocoumarins are activated by UV light radiation and can lead to development of a phototoxic eruption. Several studies have suggested a pharmacogenetic effect of furocoumarins.⁸⁰ Sun et al⁸⁰ collected dietary data from 47,453 men and 75,291 women on furocoumarin intake and correlation with the development of NMSC. Overall, the study suggested that the intake of furocoumarins may lead to an increase in the development of BCC (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21; P=.002); however, there was no significant association identified between total intake of furocoumarins in the risk for SCC or melanoma.⁸⁰ Furthermore, Sakaki et al⁸¹ conducted a survey study looking at the consumption of citrus products and the development of NMSC. The group found that there was an increased risk for NMSC in those consuming an increased amount of citrus products (P=.007).⁸¹

Conclusion

Dietary antioxidants have been investigated for their potential role in the prevention of tumorigenesis. Specific antioxidant vitamins, such as vitamin A derivatives and niacinamide, have demonstrated clinical utility in the prevention of NMSC in high-risk populations. Retinol also has been associated with a reduced incidence of melanoma. Numerous antioxidants have demonstrated promising data within the laboratory setting; however, inconsistent results have been appreciated in humans. Furthermore, several research studies suggest that folate, vitamin D, and furocoumarins may be associated with an increased risk for skin cancer development; however, these studies are inconclusive, and dietary studies are challenging to conduct. Overall, RCTs investigating the role of antioxidants for chemoprevention are limited. Moreover, the study of dietary antioxidants and vitamins may be affected by various confounding variables that can be difficult to account for because of patients’ potentially poor recall of dietary intake and the effect of dietary intake in supplemental studies. Given the increasing prevalence of skin cancer worldwide, further research into the clinical utility of antioxidants in skin cancer prevention is warranted. 

Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is the most common cancer in the United States, and cutaneous melanoma is projected to be the fifth most common form of cancer in 2022, with increasing incidence and high potential for mortality.^1-3 Estimates indicate that 35% to 45% of all cancers in White patients are cutaneous, with 4% to 5% occurring in Hispanic patients, 2% to 4% in Asian patients, and 1% to 2% in Black patients.⁴ Of the keratinocyte carcinomas, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most prevalent, projected to affect approximately 33% to 39% of White males and 23% to 28% of White females in the United States during their lifetimes. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the second most common skin malignancy, with a lifetime risk of 9% to 14% for White males and 4% to 9% for White females in the United States.⁵ The incidence of melanoma continues to increase, with approximately 99,780 new cases expected in the United States in 2022.¹

UV-induced DNA damage plays a key role in the pathogenesis and development of various skin malignancies.⁶ UV radiation from sunlight or tanning devices causes photocarcinogenesis due to molecular and cellular effects, including the generation of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage due to the formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and pyrimidine-pyrimidone, melanogenesis, apoptosis, and the increased expression of harmful genes and proteins.⁶ The summation of this damage can result in skin malignancies, including NMSC and melanoma.^6,7 Dietary antioxidants theoretically help prevent oxidative reactions from occurring within the body, and it has been suggested that intake of dietary antioxidants may decrease DNA damage and prevent tumorigenesis secondary to UV radiation.⁸ Antioxidants exist naturally in the body but can be acquired exogenously. Investigators have studied dietary antioxidants in preventing skin cancer formation with promising results in the laboratory setting.^8-11 Recently, more robust human studies have been initiated to further delineate this relationship. We present clinical evidence of several frequently utilized antioxidant vitamins and their effects on melanoma and NMSC.

Antioxidants

Vitamin A—Vitamin A is a fat-soluble vitamin found in animal sources, including fish, liver, and eggs. Carotenoids, such as beta carotene, are provitamin A plant derivatives found in fruits and vegetables that are converted into biologically active retinol and retinoic acid.¹² Retinols play a key role in cellular growth and differentiation and are thought to be protective against skin cancer via the inactivation of free radicals and immunologic enhancement due to their antiproliferative, antioxidative, and antiapoptotic effects.^13-16 Animal studies have demonstrated this protective effect and the ability of retinoids to suppress carcinogenesis; however, human studies reveal conflicting results.^17,18

Greenberg et al¹⁹ investigated the use of beta carotene in preventing the formation of NMSC. Patients (N=1805) were randomized to receive 50 mg of beta carotene daily or placebo. Over a 5-year period, there was no significant reduction in the occurrence of NMSC (relative risk [RR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.91-1.22).¹⁹ Frieling et al²⁰ conducted a similar randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating beta carotene for primary prevention of NMSC in 22,071 healthy male physicians. The study group received 50 mg of beta carotene every other day for 12 years’ duration, and there was no significant effect on the incidence of first NMSC development (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.05).²⁰

A case-control study by Naldi et al²¹ found an inverse association between vitamin A intake and development of melanoma. Study participants were stratified into quartiles based on level of dietary intake and found an odds ratio (OR) of 0.71 for beta carotene (95% CI, 0.50-1.02), 0.57 for retinol (95% CI, 0.39-0.83), and 0.51 for total vitamin A (95% CI, 0.35-0.75) when comparing the upper quartile of vitamin A intake to the lower quartile. Upper-quartile cutoff values of vitamin A intake were 214 µg/d for beta carotene, 149 µg/d for retinol, and 359 µg/d for total vitamin A.²¹ More recently, a meta-analysis by Zhang et al²² pooled data from 8 case-control studies and 2 prospective studies. Intake of retinol but not total vitamin A or beta carotene was associated with a reduced risk for development of melanoma (retinol: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92; total vitamin A: OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.59-1.25; beta carotene: OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62-1.20).²² Feskanich et al²³ demonstrated similar findings with use of food-frequency questionnaires in White women, suggesting that retinol intake from food combined with supplements may be protective for women who were otherwise at a low risk for melanoma based on nondietary factors. These factors included painful or blistering sunburns during childhood, history of more than 6 sunburns, more than 3 moles on the left arm, having red or blonde hair, and having a parent or sibling with melanoma (P=.01). However, this relationship did not hold true when looking at women at an intermediate or high risk for melanoma (P=.16 and P=.46).²³

When looking at high-risk patients, such as transplant patients, oral retinoids have been beneficial in preventing NMSC.^24-27 Bavinck et al²⁴ investigated 44 renal transplant patients with a history of more than 10 NMSCs treated with 30 mg of acitretin daily vs placebo. Patients receiving oral retinoid supplementation developed fewer NMSCs over a 6-month treatment period (P=.01).²⁴ Similarly, George et al²⁵ investigated acitretin in renal transplant patients and found a statistically significant decrease in number of SCCs in patients on supplementation (P=.002). Solomon-Cohen et al²⁶ performed a retrospective case-crossover study in solid organ transplant recipients and found that those treated with 10 mg of acitretin daily for 2 years had a significant reduction in the number of new keratinocyte carcinomas (P=.002). Other investigators have demonstrated similar results, and in 2006, Otley et al²⁷ proposed standardized dosing of acitretin for chemoprevention in high-risk patients, including patients developing 5 to 10 NMSCs per year, solid organ transplant recipients, and those with syndromes associated with the development of NMSC.^28,29 Overall, in the general population, vitamin A and related compounds have not demonstrated a significant association with decreased development of NMSC; however, oral retinoids have proven useful for high-risk patients. Furthermore, several studies have suggested a negative association between vitamin A levels and the incidence of melanoma, specifically in the retinol formulation. 

Vitamin B₃—Nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) is a water-soluble form of vitamin B₃ and is obtained from animal-based and plant-based foods, such as meat, fish, and legumes.³⁰ Nicotinamide plays a key role in cellular metabolism, cellular signaling, and DNA repair, including protection from UV damage within keratinocytes.^31,32 Early mouse models demonstrated decreased formation of skin tumors in mice treated with topical or oral nicotinamide.^32,33 A number of human studies have revealed similar results.^34-36

Chen et al³⁴ conducted the ONTRAC study, a phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) looking at 386 participants with a history of at least 2 NMSCs in the preceding 5 years. At 12 months, those treated with 500 mg of nicotinamide twice daily demonstrated a statistically significant decreased rate of SCC formation (P=.05). A decreased incidence of BCC development was noted; however, this trend did not reach statistical significance (P=.12). Precancerous skin lesions also were found to be decreased in the treatment group, with 20% lower incidence of actinic keratoses (AKs) after 9 months of treatment (P<.001).³⁴ Drago et al³⁵ specifically studied the incidence of AKs in 38 transplant recipients—8 liver and 30 kidney—and found that previously noted AKs had decreased in size for 18 of 19 patients taking 500 mg of nicotinamide daily when originally photographed AKs were remeasured at 6-month follow-up, with 7 of these 18 patients demonstrating complete clinical regression. Of those on nicotinamide supplementation, no new AKs developed compared to the control group, which demonstrated increased size of AKs or development of new AKs in 91% of patients, with 7 AKs progressing into SCC.³⁵

Nicotinamide has been demonstrated to be useful in preventing skin cancer in high-risk populations, such as transplant patients or those with a high incidence of NMSC.^34,36 Despite promising results within the laboratory setting, nicotinamide’s effects on melanoma in humans remains less clear.^31,37 Studies suggest that nicotinamide enhances tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and DNA repair mechanisms in melanocytes, which may translate into nicotinamide, providing chemoprevention for melanoma, but research in human patients is limited.^31,37

Vitamin B₉—Folate, the natural form of vitamin B₉, is a water-soluble compound that is found in many foods, especially green leafy vegetables, and often is supplemented because of its health benefits.^38,39 In the skin, folic acid plays a key role in cellular replication and proliferation.³⁸ Controversy exists regarding folate’s effects on cellular growth and turnover with respect to cancer incidence.^38,40 Donnenfeld et al⁴¹ conducted a prospective study assessing dietary folic acid intake and development of NMSC. A total of 5880 participants completed dietary records throughout the first 2 years of the study. After an average follow-up period of 12.6 years, there was an overall increased incidence of skin cancer in those with increased dietary folate (P=.03). Furthermore, when striating by skin cancer type, there was an increased incidence of NMSC overall as well as BCC when analyzing by type of NMSC (P=.03 for NMSC; P=.05 for BCC). However, when stratifying by gender, these findings only held true for women.⁴¹ Similar effects were observed by Fung et al,⁴² who prospectively studied the intake of various vitamins in relationship to the development of BCC in women. During 12 years of follow-up, a positive association was observed between folate intake and BCC development (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.10-1.31).⁴² Fung et al⁴³ also investigated the role of several vitamins in the development of SCC and found that folate showed a negative association, which did not reach statistical significance (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.56-1.11). Furthermore, Vollset et al⁴⁰ conducted a meta-analysis comparing folic acid to placebo in the incidence of various types of cancer. The study excluded NMSC but reported no significant association between the development of melanoma and folic acid supplementation.⁴⁰ In summary, the effects of folate have diverse consequences, potentially promoting the formation of NMSC, but studies suggest that an individual’s gender and other genetic and environmental factors also may play a role.

Vitamin C—Vitamin C (also known as ascorbic acid) is a water-soluble vitamin with antioxidant immune-mediating effects. It is found in various fruits and vegetables and serves as a cofactor for enzymes within the body playing a key role in immune function and collagen formation.^44,45 It has been postulated that ascorbic acid can provide protection from UV radiation damage via its intracellular activity but conversely can contribute to oxidative damage.⁴⁴ Multiple in vitro laboratory studies and animal models have demonstrated photoprotective effects of ascorbic acid.^46-48 Despite these findings, minimal photoprotective effects have been found in the human population.

Kune et al⁴⁹ performed a case-control study of 88 males with previously diagnosed NMSC undergoing surgical removal and investigated patients’ prior dietary habits. Patients with NMSC had a statistically significantly lower level of vitamin C–containing food in their diet than those without NMSC (P=.004).⁴⁹ In addition, Vural et al⁵⁰ analyzed plasma samples and blood cells of patients with AK and BCC and found a significant decrease in ascorbic acid levels in both the AK (P<.001) and BCC (P<.001) groups compared with controls. However, studies have found that consumption of certain dietary compounds can rapidly increase plasma concentration levels, which may serve as a major confounding variable in this study. Plasma concentrations of ascorbic acid and beta carotene were found to be significantly increased following consumption of a high-antioxidant diet for as short a duration as 2 weeks (P<.05).⁵¹ More recently, Heinen et al⁵² performed a prospective study on 1001 adults. In patients without a history of skin cancer, they found that vitamin C from food sources plus dietary supplements was positively associated with the development of BCC (P=.03).⁵² Similarly, Fung et al⁴² performed a study in women and found a positive association between vitamin C intake and the development of BCC (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.23).

The relationship between vitamin C intake—either in dietary or supplemental form—and melanoma remains controversial. Mice-based studies found that high concentrations of orally administered vitamin C induce cytotoxicity in melanoma cell lines, but at low concentrations they promote tumor growth of malignant melanoma.⁵³ Feskanich et al²³ examined the relationship between vitamin C intake and melanoma development via food frequency questionnaires in White women and found that vitamin C was associated with a higher risk for melanoma (P=.05), and furthermore, a positive dose response with frequency of orange juice intake was observed (P=.008). Overall, despite promising laboratory studies, there is a lack of RCTs investigating the use of vitamin C supplementation for prevention of NMSC and melanoma in humans, and the oral benefits of vitamin C for chemoprevention remain unclear.

Vitamin D—Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that is found in fish, liver, egg, and cheese, and is endogenously produced when UV radiation from sun exposure interacts with the skin, triggering the synthesis of vitamin D.⁵⁴ Vitamin D is biologically inactive and must be converted to its active form 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D after entering the body. Vitamin D modulates many genes involved in cellular proliferation and differentiation.⁵⁴ Vitamin D receptors are expressed on keratinocytes and melanocytes.⁵⁵ Animal studies have demonstrated a potentially protective effect of vitamin D in the development of NMSC.⁵⁶ In a mouse model, Ellison et al⁵⁶ found that mice without vitamin D receptors developed skin tumors more rapidly than those with vitamin D receptors.

Unfortunately, these findings have not been demonstrated in humans, and studies have even reported an increased risk for development of NMSC in patients with normal or increased vitamin D levels compared with those with low levels of vitamin D.^57-60 Eide et al⁵⁷ studied 3223 patients seeking advice for low bone density by recording their vitamin D levels at the time of presentation and monitoring development of NMSC. Vitamin D levels greater than 15 ng/mL were positively associated with the development of NMSC (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.04-2.7). This association held true for both SCC and BCC, with a higher risk estimated for SCC (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 0.4-24.0 for SCC; OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 0.5-5.8 for BCC).⁵⁷ An increased vitamin D serum level also was found to be significantly associated with a higher risk for BCC and melanoma by van der Pols et al.⁵⁸ This prospective study looked at the incidence of skin cancer over 11 years. Study participants with vitamin D levels over 75 nmol/L more frequently developed BCC (P=.01) and melanoma (P=.05). In contrast, SCC was less frequently observed in participants with these high levels of vitamin D (P=.07).⁵⁸ Furthermore, Park et al⁶⁰ looked at vitamin D and skin cancer risk for men and women in the United States and found no association with risk for SCC or melanoma but a positive association with BCC (P=.05 for total vitamin D; P<.01 for dietary vitamin D). Additional studies have been performed with inconsistent results, and multiple authors suggest the possible confounding relationship between vitamin D levels and UV radiation exposure.^59-62 Furthermore, some studies have even demonstrated a negative association between vitamin D and NMSC. Tang et al⁶³ performed a retrospective case-control study in elderly males, investigating serum levels of vitamin D and patients’ self-reported history of NMSC, which demonstrated that higher levels of vitamin D were associated with a decreased risk for NMSC. Overall, the relationship between vitamin D and skin cancer development remains unclear for both melanoma and NMSC.

Vitamin E—Vitamin E is a fat-soluble vitamin that is found in plant-based oils, nuts, seeds, fruits, and vegetables.⁶⁴ It works as an antioxidant to protect against free radicals and heighten immune function, and it also serves as a pro-oxidant.^65,66 Vitamin E naturally exists in 8 chemical forms, of which gamma-tocopherol is the most frequently obtained form in the diet, and alpha-tocopherol is the most abundant form found in the body.^64,65

Early animal studies demonstrated the inhibition of UV-induced damage in mice receiving vitamin E supplementation.^67,68 Human studies have not consistently shown these effects. Vural et al⁵⁰ investigated plasma samples and blood cells of patients with AKs and BCCs and reported a significant decrease in alpha-tocopherol levels in both the AK (P<.05) and BCC (P<.001) groups compared with controls. However, studies also have demonstrated a positive association between vitamin E intake and the development of BCC, including one by Fung et al,⁴² which found a significant association in women (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26).

Vitamin E has been found to inhibit melanin synthesis in the laboratory, suggesting a potentially protective effect in melanoma.^69,70 However, in the study performed by Feskanich et al²³ examining vitamin intake and melanoma incidence via food-frequency questionnaires, vitamin E was not associated with a lower risk for melanoma. Despite promising laboratory studies, the data surrounding the use of a vitamin E supplement for prevention of melanoma and NMSC in humans remains unclear.

Selenium—Selenium is a trace mineral found in plants, meat, and fish. It plays a key role in reproduction, hormone metabolism, DNA synthesis, and protection from oxidative damage.⁷¹ In mice studies, lack of selenium-containing proteins resulted in skin abnormalities, including the development of a hyperplastic epidermis and aberrant hair follicle morphogenesis with alopecia after birth, and numerous experimental studies have demonstrated a negative association between selenium intake and cancer.^72,73 However, human studies have yielded alternative results. 

The Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Study Group analyzed 1312 dermatology patients with a history of NMSC.⁷⁴ The study population was obtained from 7 dermatology clinics with randomization to control for confounding variables. Study participants received either 200 μg of selenium daily or placebo.⁷⁴ Baseline characteristics of each study group were overall balanced. Selenium intake was found to have no effect on the development of BCC (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94-1.26) but an increased risk for developing SCC (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.03-1.51) and total NMSC (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.34).^74,75 Similarly, Reid et al⁷⁶ performed an RCT comparing patients treated with 400 μg/d of selenium to those treated with 200 μg/d of selenium. When compared with placebo, those treated with 200 μg/d of selenium had a statistically significantly increased incidence of NMSC (P=.006); however, those treated with 400 μg/d of selenium had no significant change in total incidence of NMSC (P=.51).⁷⁶ Furthermore, Vinceti et al⁷⁷ performed a review of 83 studies from the literature investigating the effect of dietary selenium, and from the RCTs, there was no beneficial effect of selenium in reducing cancer risk in general; however, some studies demonstrated an increased incidence of other types of cancer, including melanoma. Of the RCTs included in the study investigating NMSC incidence specifically, it was found that the incidence was not affected by selenium administration (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.30-4.42; 2 studies, 2027 participants).⁷⁷ Despite data from several studies demonstrating an increased risk for NMSC, the effects of selenium on the risk for NMSC and melanoma remain unclear. 

Combination Antioxidant Studies

In addition to investigating the use of single antioxidants in skin cancer prevention, studies utilizing the combination of various antioxidants or other dietary minerals have been conducted. Hercberg et al⁷⁸ performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 13,017 adults (7876 women and 5141 men) receiving a combination of 120 mg vitamin C, 30 mg vitamin E, 100 μg selenium, 6 mg beta carotene, and 20 mg zinc. Study participants were followed for an average of 7.5 years, and the development of skin cancers were recorded. Overall, the incidence rate of skin cancer did not differ between the 2 treatment groups; however, when segregated by gender, the study found that there was an increased risk for developing skin cancer in women taking the antioxidant supplement combination compared with placebo (P=.03). This difference was not observed in the 2 treatment groups of male patients (P=.11). When looking specifically at NMSC, there was no difference between treatment groups for male or female patients (P=.39 for males; P=.15 for females). In contrast, there was a higher incidence of melanoma identified in female patients taking the combination antioxidant supplement (P=.01), but this was not seen within the male study population (P=.51).⁷⁸ In addition, Chang et al⁷⁹ performed a meta-analysis of 10 previously published RCTs. Analysis revealed that treatment with a variety of supplements, including vitamins A, C, E, and beta carotene, were found to have no preventative effects on the incidence of skin cancer development (RR, 0.98; CI, 0.98-1.03). Notable limitations to this study included the variability in protocols of the studies included in this meta-analysis, the limited number of RCTs investigating vitamin supplementation and the risk for skin cancer development, and the influence of dietary intake on study outcomes.⁷⁹

Other Dietary Agents

Furocoumarins—Furocoumarins are botanical substances found in various fruits and plants, including many citrus products. Furocoumarins are activated by UV light radiation and can lead to development of a phototoxic eruption. Several studies have suggested a pharmacogenetic effect of furocoumarins.⁸⁰ Sun et al⁸⁰ collected dietary data from 47,453 men and 75,291 women on furocoumarin intake and correlation with the development of NMSC. Overall, the study suggested that the intake of furocoumarins may lead to an increase in the development of BCC (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21; P=.002); however, there was no significant association identified between total intake of furocoumarins in the risk for SCC or melanoma.⁸⁰ Furthermore, Sakaki et al⁸¹ conducted a survey study looking at the consumption of citrus products and the development of NMSC. The group found that there was an increased risk for NMSC in those consuming an increased amount of citrus products (P=.007).⁸¹

Conclusion

Dietary antioxidants have been investigated for their potential role in the prevention of tumorigenesis. Specific antioxidant vitamins, such as vitamin A derivatives and niacinamide, have demonstrated clinical utility in the prevention of NMSC in high-risk populations. Retinol also has been associated with a reduced incidence of melanoma. Numerous antioxidants have demonstrated promising data within the laboratory setting; however, inconsistent results have been appreciated in humans. Furthermore, several research studies suggest that folate, vitamin D, and furocoumarins may be associated with an increased risk for skin cancer development; however, these studies are inconclusive, and dietary studies are challenging to conduct. Overall, RCTs investigating the role of antioxidants for chemoprevention are limited. Moreover, the study of dietary antioxidants and vitamins may be affected by various confounding variables that can be difficult to account for because of patients’ potentially poor recall of dietary intake and the effect of dietary intake in supplemental studies. Given the increasing prevalence of skin cancer worldwide, further research into the clinical utility of antioxidants in skin cancer prevention is warranted. 

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors cause numerous cutaneous adverse events (AEs), including papulopustular eruptions, paronychia, acral fissures, xerosis, alopecia, and trichomegaly.¹ Symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE) is an uncommon type IV hypersensitivity reaction reported most commonly in association with β-lactam antibiotics and other medications.² Treatment of SDRIFE generally involves withdrawing the inciting medication; however, in SDRIFE secondary to oncologic therapies, medication withdrawal may not be feasible or desirable. We present 2 cases of SDRIFE secondary to EGFR inhibitors in which treatment was continued alongside supportive skin-directed therapies. We also review the literature.

Case Reports

Patient 1—A 65-year-old man with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer presented to the dermatology clinic with an eruption of 2 months’ duration that began in the periumbilical area and spread to the perianal area within 2 weeks of starting treatment with lazertinib and amivantamab. Physical examination was notable for Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 2 periumbilical erythema and erosions as well as symmetric red-brown patches with linear erosions in the gluteal cleft (Figure 1) and Grade 2 facial papulopustular rash. Herpes simplex virus polymerase chain reaction and bacterial culture were negative. A skin biopsy from the left buttock revealed dermal edema and a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate compatible with SDRIFE. Triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily was initiated, then uptitrated to betamethasone ointment 0.05% twice daily with moderate improvement. The patient had a treatment interruption due to malignancy complications, at which time his skin improved, with recurrence of the eruption after treatment re-initiation. He resumed skin-directed treatment and was maintained on betamethasone ointment 0.05% and tacrolimus ointment 0.1% twice daily on alternating days. This treatment was continued for 4 months before the patient died from complications of the malignancy.

Patient 2—A 68-year-old woman with stage IV lung adenocarcinoma presented to the dermatology clinic with a rash of 3 weeks’ duration. Treatment with osimertinib was initiated 8 months prior to presentation, and there were no recent medication changes. Physical examination revealed CTCAE Grade 2 erythematous patches in the inguinal folds (Figure 2A), inframammary folds (Figure 2B), and on the nasal tip, as well as Grade 2 paronychia. The patient was managed with hydrocortisone cream 1% twice daily, and osimertinib was continued. At follow-up 4 weeks later, the erythema had faded to hyperpigmentation in affected areas with resolution of symptoms. No further treatment was required.

Comment

Supportive oncodermatologists and dermatology hospitalists should be aware of SDRIFE as an uncommon but increasingly recognized cutaneous AE of EGFR inhibitors. Other cases of SDRIFE secondary to EGFR inhibition are described in the Table.^2-5 Although SDRIFE typically is treated by discontinuation of the offending agent, in all reported cases of EGFR inhibitor–associated SDRIFE the rash was CTCAE Grade 2, meaning that it did not interfere with instrumental activities of daily living. In 5 of 6 cases, EGFR therapy was continued while skin-directed therapies were used for symptom management.

Presentation of SDRIFE—Symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema is characterized by a symmetric, sharply demarcated erythema in the inguinal, gluteal, or perianal area with at least 1 other flexural localization involved in the absence of systemic signs. It is observed most frequently at initial exposure or re-exposure to a medication. Onset typically is within a few hours to a few days after exposure to a medication.⁶ Interestingly, in this case series, half of reported SDRIFE cases developed 8 months or more after EGFR inhibitor initiation.

Pathophysiology of SDRIFE—The mechanism of SDRIFE has not been clearly elucidated; it generally is accepted to be a delayed-type hypersensitivity drug reaction, though other proposed pathophysiologic mechanisms for the distribution of SDRIFE include recall phenomenon or predisposing anatomic factors such as temperature, humidity, and apocrine or eccrine gland density.^6,7 Epidermal growth factor receptor plays a critical role in regulating differentiation and proliferation of epidermal keratinocytes, hair follicles, and the sweat gland apparatus. Additionally, it has been hypothesized that EGFR inhibitor use may affect the microflora of the skin and that EGFR inhibitors directly affect the immune system, as demonstrated in an experiment showing EGFR inhibitor–treated mice had enhanced skin inflammation and contact hypersensitivity responses.⁸ How these disparate mechanisms may interact to produce SDRIFE and the reason for the notably delayed presentation of SDRIFE in half of the cases we reviewed is not known. Other delayed cutaneous AEs of EGFR inhibitor therapy, such as paronychia, are thought to be secondary to development of skin fragility and decreased keratinocyte proliferation with secondary infection.¹ It is conceivable that a combination of proliferative, immunologic, and microbiome-related factors may each be playing a role in EGFR inhibitor–related SDRIFE.

Dermatology Inpatient Considerations—As seen in our cases, dermatologists can play a valuable role in diagnosing, grading, and managing cutaneous AEs associated with the administration of oncologic therapies. The array of cutaneous AEs has grown as cancer treatment options have expanded from conventional antimetabolite agents to kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Dermatologists may play an important role in differentiating the etiology of a skin finding (eg, infectious vs inflammatory) and can identify serious or dose-limiting reactions, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome or drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). If cutaneous AEs appear to occur secondary to administration of a chemotherapeutic agent, use of the National Cancer Institute CTCAE should be employed. For certain AEs (eg, alopecia, acneiform rashes, bullous dermatitis), specific grading has been developed based on a combination of body surface area involved, psychosocial impact, symptoms, and other associated morbidity.⁹

In management of chemotherapy-associated cutaneous AEs, dermatologists are likely to be the members of the health care team most comfortable with prescribing high-potency anti-inflammatory topical medications. Dermatologic consultation for management of cutaneous AEs has been shown to both reduce the need for systemic immunosuppression and limit interruptions in oncologic treatment.¹⁰

Conclusion

Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors commonly are prescribed for colorectal cancer, non–small cell lung cancer, and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. They are associated with a variety of cutaneous AEs, including acneiform eruptions, paronychia, and xerosis, which rarely necessitate stopping EGFR inhibitor therapy. Our cases support an approach to managing EGFR inhibitor–related SDRIFE that does not involve discontinuation of the offending agent. Further studies are needed on the best supportive topical and systemic regimens for EGFR inhibitor–associated SDRIFE.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors cause numerous cutaneous adverse events (AEs), including papulopustular eruptions, paronychia, acral fissures, xerosis, alopecia, and trichomegaly.¹ Symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE) is an uncommon type IV hypersensitivity reaction reported most commonly in association with β-lactam antibiotics and other medications.² Treatment of SDRIFE generally involves withdrawing the inciting medication; however, in SDRIFE secondary to oncologic therapies, medication withdrawal may not be feasible or desirable. We present 2 cases of SDRIFE secondary to EGFR inhibitors in which treatment was continued alongside supportive skin-directed therapies. We also review the literature.

Case Reports

Patient 1—A 65-year-old man with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer presented to the dermatology clinic with an eruption of 2 months’ duration that began in the periumbilical area and spread to the perianal area within 2 weeks of starting treatment with lazertinib and amivantamab. Physical examination was notable for Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 2 periumbilical erythema and erosions as well as symmetric red-brown patches with linear erosions in the gluteal cleft (Figure 1) and Grade 2 facial papulopustular rash. Herpes simplex virus polymerase chain reaction and bacterial culture were negative. A skin biopsy from the left buttock revealed dermal edema and a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate compatible with SDRIFE. Triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily was initiated, then uptitrated to betamethasone ointment 0.05% twice daily with moderate improvement. The patient had a treatment interruption due to malignancy complications, at which time his skin improved, with recurrence of the eruption after treatment re-initiation. He resumed skin-directed treatment and was maintained on betamethasone ointment 0.05% and tacrolimus ointment 0.1% twice daily on alternating days. This treatment was continued for 4 months before the patient died from complications of the malignancy.

Patient 2—A 68-year-old woman with stage IV lung adenocarcinoma presented to the dermatology clinic with a rash of 3 weeks’ duration. Treatment with osimertinib was initiated 8 months prior to presentation, and there were no recent medication changes. Physical examination revealed CTCAE Grade 2 erythematous patches in the inguinal folds (Figure 2A), inframammary folds (Figure 2B), and on the nasal tip, as well as Grade 2 paronychia. The patient was managed with hydrocortisone cream 1% twice daily, and osimertinib was continued. At follow-up 4 weeks later, the erythema had faded to hyperpigmentation in affected areas with resolution of symptoms. No further treatment was required.

Comment

Supportive oncodermatologists and dermatology hospitalists should be aware of SDRIFE as an uncommon but increasingly recognized cutaneous AE of EGFR inhibitors. Other cases of SDRIFE secondary to EGFR inhibition are described in the Table.^2-5 Although SDRIFE typically is treated by discontinuation of the offending agent, in all reported cases of EGFR inhibitor–associated SDRIFE the rash was CTCAE Grade 2, meaning that it did not interfere with instrumental activities of daily living. In 5 of 6 cases, EGFR therapy was continued while skin-directed therapies were used for symptom management.

Presentation of SDRIFE—Symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema is characterized by a symmetric, sharply demarcated erythema in the inguinal, gluteal, or perianal area with at least 1 other flexural localization involved in the absence of systemic signs. It is observed most frequently at initial exposure or re-exposure to a medication. Onset typically is within a few hours to a few days after exposure to a medication.⁶ Interestingly, in this case series, half of reported SDRIFE cases developed 8 months or more after EGFR inhibitor initiation.

Pathophysiology of SDRIFE—The mechanism of SDRIFE has not been clearly elucidated; it generally is accepted to be a delayed-type hypersensitivity drug reaction, though other proposed pathophysiologic mechanisms for the distribution of SDRIFE include recall phenomenon or predisposing anatomic factors such as temperature, humidity, and apocrine or eccrine gland density.^6,7 Epidermal growth factor receptor plays a critical role in regulating differentiation and proliferation of epidermal keratinocytes, hair follicles, and the sweat gland apparatus. Additionally, it has been hypothesized that EGFR inhibitor use may affect the microflora of the skin and that EGFR inhibitors directly affect the immune system, as demonstrated in an experiment showing EGFR inhibitor–treated mice had enhanced skin inflammation and contact hypersensitivity responses.⁸ How these disparate mechanisms may interact to produce SDRIFE and the reason for the notably delayed presentation of SDRIFE in half of the cases we reviewed is not known. Other delayed cutaneous AEs of EGFR inhibitor therapy, such as paronychia, are thought to be secondary to development of skin fragility and decreased keratinocyte proliferation with secondary infection.¹ It is conceivable that a combination of proliferative, immunologic, and microbiome-related factors may each be playing a role in EGFR inhibitor–related SDRIFE.

Dermatology Inpatient Considerations—As seen in our cases, dermatologists can play a valuable role in diagnosing, grading, and managing cutaneous AEs associated with the administration of oncologic therapies. The array of cutaneous AEs has grown as cancer treatment options have expanded from conventional antimetabolite agents to kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Dermatologists may play an important role in differentiating the etiology of a skin finding (eg, infectious vs inflammatory) and can identify serious or dose-limiting reactions, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome or drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). If cutaneous AEs appear to occur secondary to administration of a chemotherapeutic agent, use of the National Cancer Institute CTCAE should be employed. For certain AEs (eg, alopecia, acneiform rashes, bullous dermatitis), specific grading has been developed based on a combination of body surface area involved, psychosocial impact, symptoms, and other associated morbidity.⁹

In management of chemotherapy-associated cutaneous AEs, dermatologists are likely to be the members of the health care team most comfortable with prescribing high-potency anti-inflammatory topical medications. Dermatologic consultation for management of cutaneous AEs has been shown to both reduce the need for systemic immunosuppression and limit interruptions in oncologic treatment.¹⁰

Conclusion

Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors commonly are prescribed for colorectal cancer, non–small cell lung cancer, and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. They are associated with a variety of cutaneous AEs, including acneiform eruptions, paronychia, and xerosis, which rarely necessitate stopping EGFR inhibitor therapy. Our cases support an approach to managing EGFR inhibitor–related SDRIFE that does not involve discontinuation of the offending agent. Further studies are needed on the best supportive topical and systemic regimens for EGFR inhibitor–associated SDRIFE.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors cause numerous cutaneous adverse events (AEs), including papulopustular eruptions, paronychia, acral fissures, xerosis, alopecia, and trichomegaly.¹ Symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE) is an uncommon type IV hypersensitivity reaction reported most commonly in association with β-lactam antibiotics and other medications.² Treatment of SDRIFE generally involves withdrawing the inciting medication; however, in SDRIFE secondary to oncologic therapies, medication withdrawal may not be feasible or desirable. We present 2 cases of SDRIFE secondary to EGFR inhibitors in which treatment was continued alongside supportive skin-directed therapies. We also review the literature.

Case Reports

Patient 1—A 65-year-old man with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer presented to the dermatology clinic with an eruption of 2 months’ duration that began in the periumbilical area and spread to the perianal area within 2 weeks of starting treatment with lazertinib and amivantamab. Physical examination was notable for Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 2 periumbilical erythema and erosions as well as symmetric red-brown patches with linear erosions in the gluteal cleft (Figure 1) and Grade 2 facial papulopustular rash. Herpes simplex virus polymerase chain reaction and bacterial culture were negative. A skin biopsy from the left buttock revealed dermal edema and a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate compatible with SDRIFE. Triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily was initiated, then uptitrated to betamethasone ointment 0.05% twice daily with moderate improvement. The patient had a treatment interruption due to malignancy complications, at which time his skin improved, with recurrence of the eruption after treatment re-initiation. He resumed skin-directed treatment and was maintained on betamethasone ointment 0.05% and tacrolimus ointment 0.1% twice daily on alternating days. This treatment was continued for 4 months before the patient died from complications of the malignancy.

Patient 2—A 68-year-old woman with stage IV lung adenocarcinoma presented to the dermatology clinic with a rash of 3 weeks’ duration. Treatment with osimertinib was initiated 8 months prior to presentation, and there were no recent medication changes. Physical examination revealed CTCAE Grade 2 erythematous patches in the inguinal folds (Figure 2A), inframammary folds (Figure 2B), and on the nasal tip, as well as Grade 2 paronychia. The patient was managed with hydrocortisone cream 1% twice daily, and osimertinib was continued. At follow-up 4 weeks later, the erythema had faded to hyperpigmentation in affected areas with resolution of symptoms. No further treatment was required.

Comment

Supportive oncodermatologists and dermatology hospitalists should be aware of SDRIFE as an uncommon but increasingly recognized cutaneous AE of EGFR inhibitors. Other cases of SDRIFE secondary to EGFR inhibition are described in the Table.^2-5 Although SDRIFE typically is treated by discontinuation of the offending agent, in all reported cases of EGFR inhibitor–associated SDRIFE the rash was CTCAE Grade 2, meaning that it did not interfere with instrumental activities of daily living. In 5 of 6 cases, EGFR therapy was continued while skin-directed therapies were used for symptom management.

Presentation of SDRIFE—Symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema is characterized by a symmetric, sharply demarcated erythema in the inguinal, gluteal, or perianal area with at least 1 other flexural localization involved in the absence of systemic signs. It is observed most frequently at initial exposure or re-exposure to a medication. Onset typically is within a few hours to a few days after exposure to a medication.⁶ Interestingly, in this case series, half of reported SDRIFE cases developed 8 months or more after EGFR inhibitor initiation.

Pathophysiology of SDRIFE—The mechanism of SDRIFE has not been clearly elucidated; it generally is accepted to be a delayed-type hypersensitivity drug reaction, though other proposed pathophysiologic mechanisms for the distribution of SDRIFE include recall phenomenon or predisposing anatomic factors such as temperature, humidity, and apocrine or eccrine gland density.^6,7 Epidermal growth factor receptor plays a critical role in regulating differentiation and proliferation of epidermal keratinocytes, hair follicles, and the sweat gland apparatus. Additionally, it has been hypothesized that EGFR inhibitor use may affect the microflora of the skin and that EGFR inhibitors directly affect the immune system, as demonstrated in an experiment showing EGFR inhibitor–treated mice had enhanced skin inflammation and contact hypersensitivity responses.⁸ How these disparate mechanisms may interact to produce SDRIFE and the reason for the notably delayed presentation of SDRIFE in half of the cases we reviewed is not known. Other delayed cutaneous AEs of EGFR inhibitor therapy, such as paronychia, are thought to be secondary to development of skin fragility and decreased keratinocyte proliferation with secondary infection.¹ It is conceivable that a combination of proliferative, immunologic, and microbiome-related factors may each be playing a role in EGFR inhibitor–related SDRIFE.

Dermatology Inpatient Considerations—As seen in our cases, dermatologists can play a valuable role in diagnosing, grading, and managing cutaneous AEs associated with the administration of oncologic therapies. The array of cutaneous AEs has grown as cancer treatment options have expanded from conventional antimetabolite agents to kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Dermatologists may play an important role in differentiating the etiology of a skin finding (eg, infectious vs inflammatory) and can identify serious or dose-limiting reactions, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome or drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). If cutaneous AEs appear to occur secondary to administration of a chemotherapeutic agent, use of the National Cancer Institute CTCAE should be employed. For certain AEs (eg, alopecia, acneiform rashes, bullous dermatitis), specific grading has been developed based on a combination of body surface area involved, psychosocial impact, symptoms, and other associated morbidity.⁹

In management of chemotherapy-associated cutaneous AEs, dermatologists are likely to be the members of the health care team most comfortable with prescribing high-potency anti-inflammatory topical medications. Dermatologic consultation for management of cutaneous AEs has been shown to both reduce the need for systemic immunosuppression and limit interruptions in oncologic treatment.¹⁰

Conclusion

Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors commonly are prescribed for colorectal cancer, non–small cell lung cancer, and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. They are associated with a variety of cutaneous AEs, including acneiform eruptions, paronychia, and xerosis, which rarely necessitate stopping EGFR inhibitor therapy. Our cases support an approach to managing EGFR inhibitor–related SDRIFE that does not involve discontinuation of the offending agent. Further studies are needed on the best supportive topical and systemic regimens for EGFR inhibitor–associated SDRIFE.

The Diagnosis: Atypical Mycobacterial Infection

The history of rapid growth followed by shrinkage as well as the craterlike clinical appearance of our patient’s lesion were suspicious for the keratoacanthoma variant of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Periodic acid–Schiff green staining was negative for fungal or bacterial organisms, and the biopsy findings of keratinocyte atypia and irregular epidermal proliferation seemed to confirm our suspicion for well-differentiated SCC (Figure 1). Our patient subsequently was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery. Fortunately, a sample of tissue had been sent for panculture—bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial—to rule out infectious etiologies, given the history of possible traumatic inoculation, and returned positive for Mycobacterium marinum infection prior to the surgery. Mohs surgery was canceled, and he was referred to an infectious disease specialist who started antibiotic treatment with azithromycin, ethambutol, and rifabutin. After 1 month of treatment the lesion substantially improved (Figure 2), further supporting the diagnosis of M marinum infection over SCC.

The differential diagnosis also included sporotrichosis, leishmaniasis, and chromoblastomycosis. Sporotrichosis lesions typically develop as multiple nodules and ulcers along a path of lymphatic drainage and can exhibit asteroid bodies and cigar-shaped yeast forms on histology. Chromoblastomycosis may display pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia and granulomatous inflammation; however, pathognomonic pigmented Medlar bodies also likely would be present.¹ Leishmaniasis has a wide variety of presentations; however, it typically occurs in patients with exposure to endemic areas outside of the United States. Although leishmaniasis may demonstrate pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, ulceration, and mixed inflammation on histology, it also likely would show amastigotes within dermal macrophages.²

Atypical mycobacterial infections initially may be misdiagnosed as SCC due to their tendency to induce irregular acanthosis in the form of pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia as well as mild keratinocyte atypia secondary to inflammation.^3,4 Our case is unique because it occurred with M marinum infection specifically. The histopathologic findings of M marinum infections are variable and may additionally include granulomas, most commonly suppurative; intraepithelial abscesses; small vessel proliferation; dermal fibrosis; multinucleated giant cells; and transepidermal elimination.^4,5 Periodic acid–Schiff, Ziehl-Neelsen (acid-fast bacilli), and Fite staining may be used to distinguish M marinum infection from SCC but have low sensitivities (approximately 30%). Culture remains the most reliable test, with a sensitivity of nearly 80%.^5-7 In our patient, a Periodic acid–Schiff stain was obtained prior to receiving culture results, and acid-fast bacilli and Fite staining were added after the culture returned positive; however, all 3 stains failed to highlight any mycobacteria.

The primary risk factor for infection with M marinum is contact with aquatic environments or marine animals, and most cases involve the fingers or the hand.⁶ After we reached the diagnosis and further discussed the patient’s history, he recalled fishing for and cleaning raw shrimp around the time that he had a splinter. The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends a treatment course extending 1 to 2 months after clinical symptoms resolve with ethambutol in addition to clarithromycin or azithromycin.⁸ If the infection is near a joint, rifampin should be empirically added to account for a potentially deeper infection. Imaging should be obtained to evaluate for joint space involvement, with magnetic resonance imaging being the preferred modality. If joint space involvement is confirmed, surgical debridement is indicated. Surgical debridement also is indicated for infections that fail to respond to antibiotic therapy.⁸

This case highlights M marinum infection as a potential mimicker of SCC, particularly if the biopsy is relatively superficial, as often occurs when obtained via the common shave technique. The distinction is critical, as M marinum infection is highly treatable and inappropriate surgery on the typical hand and finger locations may subject patients to substantial morbidity, such as the need for a skin graft, reduced mobility from scarring, or risk for serious wound infection.⁹ For superficial biopsies of an atypical squamous process, pathologists also may consider routinely recommending tissue culture, especially for hand and finger locations or when a history of local trauma is reported, instead of recommending complete excision or repeat biopsy alone.

The Diagnosis: Atypical Mycobacterial Infection

The history of rapid growth followed by shrinkage as well as the craterlike clinical appearance of our patient’s lesion were suspicious for the keratoacanthoma variant of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Periodic acid–Schiff green staining was negative for fungal or bacterial organisms, and the biopsy findings of keratinocyte atypia and irregular epidermal proliferation seemed to confirm our suspicion for well-differentiated SCC (Figure 1). Our patient subsequently was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery. Fortunately, a sample of tissue had been sent for panculture—bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial—to rule out infectious etiologies, given the history of possible traumatic inoculation, and returned positive for Mycobacterium marinum infection prior to the surgery. Mohs surgery was canceled, and he was referred to an infectious disease specialist who started antibiotic treatment with azithromycin, ethambutol, and rifabutin. After 1 month of treatment the lesion substantially improved (Figure 2), further supporting the diagnosis of M marinum infection over SCC.

The differential diagnosis also included sporotrichosis, leishmaniasis, and chromoblastomycosis. Sporotrichosis lesions typically develop as multiple nodules and ulcers along a path of lymphatic drainage and can exhibit asteroid bodies and cigar-shaped yeast forms on histology. Chromoblastomycosis may display pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia and granulomatous inflammation; however, pathognomonic pigmented Medlar bodies also likely would be present.¹ Leishmaniasis has a wide variety of presentations; however, it typically occurs in patients with exposure to endemic areas outside of the United States. Although leishmaniasis may demonstrate pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, ulceration, and mixed inflammation on histology, it also likely would show amastigotes within dermal macrophages.²

Atypical mycobacterial infections initially may be misdiagnosed as SCC due to their tendency to induce irregular acanthosis in the form of pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia as well as mild keratinocyte atypia secondary to inflammation.^3,4 Our case is unique because it occurred with M marinum infection specifically. The histopathologic findings of M marinum infections are variable and may additionally include granulomas, most commonly suppurative; intraepithelial abscesses; small vessel proliferation; dermal fibrosis; multinucleated giant cells; and transepidermal elimination.^4,5 Periodic acid–Schiff, Ziehl-Neelsen (acid-fast bacilli), and Fite staining may be used to distinguish M marinum infection from SCC but have low sensitivities (approximately 30%). Culture remains the most reliable test, with a sensitivity of nearly 80%.^5-7 In our patient, a Periodic acid–Schiff stain was obtained prior to receiving culture results, and acid-fast bacilli and Fite staining were added after the culture returned positive; however, all 3 stains failed to highlight any mycobacteria.

The primary risk factor for infection with M marinum is contact with aquatic environments or marine animals, and most cases involve the fingers or the hand.⁶ After we reached the diagnosis and further discussed the patient’s history, he recalled fishing for and cleaning raw shrimp around the time that he had a splinter. The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends a treatment course extending 1 to 2 months after clinical symptoms resolve with ethambutol in addition to clarithromycin or azithromycin.⁸ If the infection is near a joint, rifampin should be empirically added to account for a potentially deeper infection. Imaging should be obtained to evaluate for joint space involvement, with magnetic resonance imaging being the preferred modality. If joint space involvement is confirmed, surgical debridement is indicated. Surgical debridement also is indicated for infections that fail to respond to antibiotic therapy.⁸

This case highlights M marinum infection as a potential mimicker of SCC, particularly if the biopsy is relatively superficial, as often occurs when obtained via the common shave technique. The distinction is critical, as M marinum infection is highly treatable and inappropriate surgery on the typical hand and finger locations may subject patients to substantial morbidity, such as the need for a skin graft, reduced mobility from scarring, or risk for serious wound infection.⁹ For superficial biopsies of an atypical squamous process, pathologists also may consider routinely recommending tissue culture, especially for hand and finger locations or when a history of local trauma is reported, instead of recommending complete excision or repeat biopsy alone.

The Diagnosis: Atypical Mycobacterial Infection

The history of rapid growth followed by shrinkage as well as the craterlike clinical appearance of our patient’s lesion were suspicious for the keratoacanthoma variant of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Periodic acid–Schiff green staining was negative for fungal or bacterial organisms, and the biopsy findings of keratinocyte atypia and irregular epidermal proliferation seemed to confirm our suspicion for well-differentiated SCC (Figure 1). Our patient subsequently was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery. Fortunately, a sample of tissue had been sent for panculture—bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial—to rule out infectious etiologies, given the history of possible traumatic inoculation, and returned positive for Mycobacterium marinum infection prior to the surgery. Mohs surgery was canceled, and he was referred to an infectious disease specialist who started antibiotic treatment with azithromycin, ethambutol, and rifabutin. After 1 month of treatment the lesion substantially improved (Figure 2), further supporting the diagnosis of M marinum infection over SCC.

The differential diagnosis also included sporotrichosis, leishmaniasis, and chromoblastomycosis. Sporotrichosis lesions typically develop as multiple nodules and ulcers along a path of lymphatic drainage and can exhibit asteroid bodies and cigar-shaped yeast forms on histology. Chromoblastomycosis may display pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia and granulomatous inflammation; however, pathognomonic pigmented Medlar bodies also likely would be present.¹ Leishmaniasis has a wide variety of presentations; however, it typically occurs in patients with exposure to endemic areas outside of the United States. Although leishmaniasis may demonstrate pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, ulceration, and mixed inflammation on histology, it also likely would show amastigotes within dermal macrophages.²

Atypical mycobacterial infections initially may be misdiagnosed as SCC due to their tendency to induce irregular acanthosis in the form of pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia as well as mild keratinocyte atypia secondary to inflammation.^3,4 Our case is unique because it occurred with M marinum infection specifically. The histopathologic findings of M marinum infections are variable and may additionally include granulomas, most commonly suppurative; intraepithelial abscesses; small vessel proliferation; dermal fibrosis; multinucleated giant cells; and transepidermal elimination.^4,5 Periodic acid–Schiff, Ziehl-Neelsen (acid-fast bacilli), and Fite staining may be used to distinguish M marinum infection from SCC but have low sensitivities (approximately 30%). Culture remains the most reliable test, with a sensitivity of nearly 80%.^5-7 In our patient, a Periodic acid–Schiff stain was obtained prior to receiving culture results, and acid-fast bacilli and Fite staining were added after the culture returned positive; however, all 3 stains failed to highlight any mycobacteria.

The primary risk factor for infection with M marinum is contact with aquatic environments or marine animals, and most cases involve the fingers or the hand.⁶ After we reached the diagnosis and further discussed the patient’s history, he recalled fishing for and cleaning raw shrimp around the time that he had a splinter. The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends a treatment course extending 1 to 2 months after clinical symptoms resolve with ethambutol in addition to clarithromycin or azithromycin.⁸ If the infection is near a joint, rifampin should be empirically added to account for a potentially deeper infection. Imaging should be obtained to evaluate for joint space involvement, with magnetic resonance imaging being the preferred modality. If joint space involvement is confirmed, surgical debridement is indicated. Surgical debridement also is indicated for infections that fail to respond to antibiotic therapy.⁸

This case highlights M marinum infection as a potential mimicker of SCC, particularly if the biopsy is relatively superficial, as often occurs when obtained via the common shave technique. The distinction is critical, as M marinum infection is highly treatable and inappropriate surgery on the typical hand and finger locations may subject patients to substantial morbidity, such as the need for a skin graft, reduced mobility from scarring, or risk for serious wound infection.⁹ For superficial biopsies of an atypical squamous process, pathologists also may consider routinely recommending tissue culture, especially for hand and finger locations or when a history of local trauma is reported, instead of recommending complete excision or repeat biopsy alone.

Sunscreens marketed to individuals with skin of color are generally more expensive than products broadly marketed to consumers, and more than 40% contain a UV blocker that may create a white cast.

Ridofranz / iStock / Getty Images

Those are among the findings from a study by Michelle Xiong, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, of the department of dermatology at Park Nicollet/Health Partners Health Services, Minneapolis, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“There is increasing awareness of the negative effects of ultraviolet (UV) light in individuals with skin of color (SOC), especially in regards to pigmentation disorders induced and/or exacerbated by UV exposure,” the authors wrote. “As a result, there has been a surge in sunscreens marketed to this population. We aimed to characterize cost, marketing claims, and potential allergenic ingredients in sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC.”

Between December 2021 and October 2022, the researchers used the following search terms on Google: “sunscreen” plus “skin of 36 color,” “dark skin,” “brown skin,” “LatinX skin,” and/or “Black skin.” They extracted price, marketing claims, and ingredients from manufacturers’ websites and used 90 allergens contained in the American Contact Dermatitis Society 2020 Core series to identify potential allergens. Next, they combined cross-reactors/synonyms into allergen categories based on ACDS Contact Allergen Management Plan (CAMP) cross-reactor classification. If multiple ingredients in a sunscreen were represented by a single allergen category, it was counted only once. A similar approach was utilized for marketing categories.

A total of 12 sunscreens were included in the analysis: Absolute Joi, Black Girl Sunscreen, Black Girl Sunscreen Make It Matte, Bolden SPF Brightening Moisturizer, Eleven on the Defense Unrivaled Sun Serum, Kinlo Golden Rays Sunscreen, Live Tinted Hueguard 3-in-1 Mineral Sunscreen, Mele Dew The Most Sheer Moisturizer SPF30 Broad Spectrum Sunscreen, Mele No Shade Sunscreen Oil, Specific Beauty Active Radiance Day Moi, Unsun Mineral Sunscreen, and Urban Skin Rx Complexion Protection. Their average cost was $19.30 per ounce (range, $6.33-$50.00) and common marketing claims for these products were “no white cast” (91.7%), being free of an ingredient (83.3%), and “moisturizing” (75%).

Of the 12 sunscreens, 7 (58.3%) contained a chemical sunscreen agent, 5 (41.7%) contained a physical UV blocker, and all contained at least one allergen. The average number of allergens per product was 4.7, most commonly fragrance/botanicals (83.3%), tocopherol (83.3%), sodium benzoates/derivatives (58.3%), and sorbitan sesquiolate/derivatives (58.3%).

“Average cost of sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC was $19.30/oz, much higher than the median price of $3.32/oz reported in a separate study of 65 popular sunscreens,” the study authors wrote. “As many of the sunscreens in our study were sold by smaller businesses, higher prices may be due to higher production costs or a perceived smaller market.”

The authors expressed surprise that five sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC contained a physical UV blocker which may create a white cast. They contacted the manufacturers of these five sunscreens and confirmed that three used micronized formulations. “While ingested/inhaled nanoparticles of titanium dioxide may cause tissue effects, most studies of topical products show excellent safety,” they wrote.

They also noted that the average of 4.7 allergens per product observed in the analysis was similar to the average of 4.9 seen in a separate study of 52 popular sunscreens. “However, that study only included 34 allergens while this study evaluated 90 allergens,” the authors wrote. “Consumers and providers should be aware sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC may cause allergic contact dermatitis,” they commented.

“It is interesting to see how costly these products are now compared to store bought and general commercially available sunscreens several years ago,” said Lawrence J. Green, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study. “However, to me that is not surprising as products marketed and targeted to specific populations are often priced at a premium. It wasn’t clear to me how many of these specialized online SOC sunscreens are tinted. I wish the authors had compared the cost of tinted sunscreens in general to nontinted sunscreens because tinted ones are more useful for SOC, because when rubbed in, they can readily match SOC and can also offer protection in the visible light spectrum.”

The authors reported having no financial disclosures; the study had no funding source. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

Sunscreens marketed to individuals with skin of color are generally more expensive than products broadly marketed to consumers, and more than 40% contain a UV blocker that may create a white cast.

Ridofranz / iStock / Getty Images

Those are among the findings from a study by Michelle Xiong, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, of the department of dermatology at Park Nicollet/Health Partners Health Services, Minneapolis, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“There is increasing awareness of the negative effects of ultraviolet (UV) light in individuals with skin of color (SOC), especially in regards to pigmentation disorders induced and/or exacerbated by UV exposure,” the authors wrote. “As a result, there has been a surge in sunscreens marketed to this population. We aimed to characterize cost, marketing claims, and potential allergenic ingredients in sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC.”

Between December 2021 and October 2022, the researchers used the following search terms on Google: “sunscreen” plus “skin of 36 color,” “dark skin,” “brown skin,” “LatinX skin,” and/or “Black skin.” They extracted price, marketing claims, and ingredients from manufacturers’ websites and used 90 allergens contained in the American Contact Dermatitis Society 2020 Core series to identify potential allergens. Next, they combined cross-reactors/synonyms into allergen categories based on ACDS Contact Allergen Management Plan (CAMP) cross-reactor classification. If multiple ingredients in a sunscreen were represented by a single allergen category, it was counted only once. A similar approach was utilized for marketing categories.

A total of 12 sunscreens were included in the analysis: Absolute Joi, Black Girl Sunscreen, Black Girl Sunscreen Make It Matte, Bolden SPF Brightening Moisturizer, Eleven on the Defense Unrivaled Sun Serum, Kinlo Golden Rays Sunscreen, Live Tinted Hueguard 3-in-1 Mineral Sunscreen, Mele Dew The Most Sheer Moisturizer SPF30 Broad Spectrum Sunscreen, Mele No Shade Sunscreen Oil, Specific Beauty Active Radiance Day Moi, Unsun Mineral Sunscreen, and Urban Skin Rx Complexion Protection. Their average cost was $19.30 per ounce (range, $6.33-$50.00) and common marketing claims for these products were “no white cast” (91.7%), being free of an ingredient (83.3%), and “moisturizing” (75%).

Of the 12 sunscreens, 7 (58.3%) contained a chemical sunscreen agent, 5 (41.7%) contained a physical UV blocker, and all contained at least one allergen. The average number of allergens per product was 4.7, most commonly fragrance/botanicals (83.3%), tocopherol (83.3%), sodium benzoates/derivatives (58.3%), and sorbitan sesquiolate/derivatives (58.3%).

“Average cost of sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC was $19.30/oz, much higher than the median price of $3.32/oz reported in a separate study of 65 popular sunscreens,” the study authors wrote. “As many of the sunscreens in our study were sold by smaller businesses, higher prices may be due to higher production costs or a perceived smaller market.”

The authors expressed surprise that five sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC contained a physical UV blocker which may create a white cast. They contacted the manufacturers of these five sunscreens and confirmed that three used micronized formulations. “While ingested/inhaled nanoparticles of titanium dioxide may cause tissue effects, most studies of topical products show excellent safety,” they wrote.

They also noted that the average of 4.7 allergens per product observed in the analysis was similar to the average of 4.9 seen in a separate study of 52 popular sunscreens. “However, that study only included 34 allergens while this study evaluated 90 allergens,” the authors wrote. “Consumers and providers should be aware sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC may cause allergic contact dermatitis,” they commented.

“It is interesting to see how costly these products are now compared to store bought and general commercially available sunscreens several years ago,” said Lawrence J. Green, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study. “However, to me that is not surprising as products marketed and targeted to specific populations are often priced at a premium. It wasn’t clear to me how many of these specialized online SOC sunscreens are tinted. I wish the authors had compared the cost of tinted sunscreens in general to nontinted sunscreens because tinted ones are more useful for SOC, because when rubbed in, they can readily match SOC and can also offer protection in the visible light spectrum.”

The authors reported having no financial disclosures; the study had no funding source. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

Sunscreens marketed to individuals with skin of color are generally more expensive than products broadly marketed to consumers, and more than 40% contain a UV blocker that may create a white cast.

Ridofranz / iStock / Getty Images

Those are among the findings from a study by Michelle Xiong, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, of the department of dermatology at Park Nicollet/Health Partners Health Services, Minneapolis, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“There is increasing awareness of the negative effects of ultraviolet (UV) light in individuals with skin of color (SOC), especially in regards to pigmentation disorders induced and/or exacerbated by UV exposure,” the authors wrote. “As a result, there has been a surge in sunscreens marketed to this population. We aimed to characterize cost, marketing claims, and potential allergenic ingredients in sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC.”

Between December 2021 and October 2022, the researchers used the following search terms on Google: “sunscreen” plus “skin of 36 color,” “dark skin,” “brown skin,” “LatinX skin,” and/or “Black skin.” They extracted price, marketing claims, and ingredients from manufacturers’ websites and used 90 allergens contained in the American Contact Dermatitis Society 2020 Core series to identify potential allergens. Next, they combined cross-reactors/synonyms into allergen categories based on ACDS Contact Allergen Management Plan (CAMP) cross-reactor classification. If multiple ingredients in a sunscreen were represented by a single allergen category, it was counted only once. A similar approach was utilized for marketing categories.

A total of 12 sunscreens were included in the analysis: Absolute Joi, Black Girl Sunscreen, Black Girl Sunscreen Make It Matte, Bolden SPF Brightening Moisturizer, Eleven on the Defense Unrivaled Sun Serum, Kinlo Golden Rays Sunscreen, Live Tinted Hueguard 3-in-1 Mineral Sunscreen, Mele Dew The Most Sheer Moisturizer SPF30 Broad Spectrum Sunscreen, Mele No Shade Sunscreen Oil, Specific Beauty Active Radiance Day Moi, Unsun Mineral Sunscreen, and Urban Skin Rx Complexion Protection. Their average cost was $19.30 per ounce (range, $6.33-$50.00) and common marketing claims for these products were “no white cast” (91.7%), being free of an ingredient (83.3%), and “moisturizing” (75%).

Of the 12 sunscreens, 7 (58.3%) contained a chemical sunscreen agent, 5 (41.7%) contained a physical UV blocker, and all contained at least one allergen. The average number of allergens per product was 4.7, most commonly fragrance/botanicals (83.3%), tocopherol (83.3%), sodium benzoates/derivatives (58.3%), and sorbitan sesquiolate/derivatives (58.3%).

“Average cost of sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC was $19.30/oz, much higher than the median price of $3.32/oz reported in a separate study of 65 popular sunscreens,” the study authors wrote. “As many of the sunscreens in our study were sold by smaller businesses, higher prices may be due to higher production costs or a perceived smaller market.”

The authors expressed surprise that five sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC contained a physical UV blocker which may create a white cast. They contacted the manufacturers of these five sunscreens and confirmed that three used micronized formulations. “While ingested/inhaled nanoparticles of titanium dioxide may cause tissue effects, most studies of topical products show excellent safety,” they wrote.

They also noted that the average of 4.7 allergens per product observed in the analysis was similar to the average of 4.9 seen in a separate study of 52 popular sunscreens. “However, that study only included 34 allergens while this study evaluated 90 allergens,” the authors wrote. “Consumers and providers should be aware sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC may cause allergic contact dermatitis,” they commented.

“It is interesting to see how costly these products are now compared to store bought and general commercially available sunscreens several years ago,” said Lawrence J. Green, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study. “However, to me that is not surprising as products marketed and targeted to specific populations are often priced at a premium. It wasn’t clear to me how many of these specialized online SOC sunscreens are tinted. I wish the authors had compared the cost of tinted sunscreens in general to nontinted sunscreens because tinted ones are more useful for SOC, because when rubbed in, they can readily match SOC and can also offer protection in the visible light spectrum.”

The authors reported having no financial disclosures; the study had no funding source. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

Among adults undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery, individuals most prone to preprocedural anxiety were younger, female, and those with a history of anxiety confirmed by a health care provider (HCP), results from a single-center survey demonstrated.

“Higher patient-reported anxiety in hospital settings is significantly linked to lower patient satisfaction with the quality of care and higher patient-reported postoperative pain,” corresponding author Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in Dermatologic Surgery. “Identifying factors associated with perioperative patient anxiety could improve outcomes and patient satisfaction.”

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at the University of Indiana, Indianapolis, and coauthors surveyed 145 patients who underwent Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) at the university from February 2018 to March 2020. They collected patient self-reported demographics, medical history, and administered a 10-point visual analog scale assessment of anxiety at multiple stages. They also sought HCP-perceived assessments of anxiety and used a stepwise regression mode to explore factors that potentially contributed to anxiety outcomes. The mean age of the 145 patients was 63 years, 60% were female, and 77% had no self-reported anxiety confirmed by a prior HCP’s diagnosis.

Two-thirds of patients (66%) received a pre-MMS consultation with the surgeon, 59% had a history of skin cancer removal surgery, and 86% had 1-2 layers removed during the current MMS.

Prior to MMS, the researchers found that significant risk factors for increased anxiety included younger age, female sex, and self-reported history of anxiety confirmed by an HCP (P < .05), while intraoperatively, HCP-perceived patient anxiety increased with younger patient age and more layers removed. Following MMS, patient anxiety increased significantly with more layers removed and higher self-reported preoperative anxiety levels. “Although existing research is divided regarding the efficacy of pre-MMS consultation for anxiety reduction, these findings suggest that patient-reported and HCP-perceived anxiety were not significantly affected by in-person pre-MMS consultation with the surgeon,” Dr. Somani and colleagues wrote. “Thus, routinely recommending consultations may not be the best approach for improving anxiety outcomes.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including its single-center design, enrollment of demographically similar patients, and the fact that no objective measurements of anxiety such as heart rate or blood pressure were taken.

“One of the main benefits of Mohs surgery is that we are able to operate under local anesthesia, but this also means that our patients are acutely aware of everything going on around them,” said Patricia M. Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the study.

“I think it is so important that this study is primarily focusing on the patient experience,” she said. “While this study did not find that a pre-op consult impacted patient anxiety levels, I do think we can infer that it is critical to connect with your patients on some level prior to surgery, as it helps you tailor your process to make the day more tolerable for them [such as] playing music, determining the need for an oral anxiolytic, etc.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having financial disclosures.

Among adults undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery, individuals most prone to preprocedural anxiety were younger, female, and those with a history of anxiety confirmed by a health care provider (HCP), results from a single-center survey demonstrated.

“Higher patient-reported anxiety in hospital settings is significantly linked to lower patient satisfaction with the quality of care and higher patient-reported postoperative pain,” corresponding author Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in Dermatologic Surgery. “Identifying factors associated with perioperative patient anxiety could improve outcomes and patient satisfaction.”

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at the University of Indiana, Indianapolis, and coauthors surveyed 145 patients who underwent Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) at the university from February 2018 to March 2020. They collected patient self-reported demographics, medical history, and administered a 10-point visual analog scale assessment of anxiety at multiple stages. They also sought HCP-perceived assessments of anxiety and used a stepwise regression mode to explore factors that potentially contributed to anxiety outcomes. The mean age of the 145 patients was 63 years, 60% were female, and 77% had no self-reported anxiety confirmed by a prior HCP’s diagnosis.

Two-thirds of patients (66%) received a pre-MMS consultation with the surgeon, 59% had a history of skin cancer removal surgery, and 86% had 1-2 layers removed during the current MMS.

Prior to MMS, the researchers found that significant risk factors for increased anxiety included younger age, female sex, and self-reported history of anxiety confirmed by an HCP (P < .05), while intraoperatively, HCP-perceived patient anxiety increased with younger patient age and more layers removed. Following MMS, patient anxiety increased significantly with more layers removed and higher self-reported preoperative anxiety levels. “Although existing research is divided regarding the efficacy of pre-MMS consultation for anxiety reduction, these findings suggest that patient-reported and HCP-perceived anxiety were not significantly affected by in-person pre-MMS consultation with the surgeon,” Dr. Somani and colleagues wrote. “Thus, routinely recommending consultations may not be the best approach for improving anxiety outcomes.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including its single-center design, enrollment of demographically similar patients, and the fact that no objective measurements of anxiety such as heart rate or blood pressure were taken.

“One of the main benefits of Mohs surgery is that we are able to operate under local anesthesia, but this also means that our patients are acutely aware of everything going on around them,” said Patricia M. Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the study.

“I think it is so important that this study is primarily focusing on the patient experience,” she said. “While this study did not find that a pre-op consult impacted patient anxiety levels, I do think we can infer that it is critical to connect with your patients on some level prior to surgery, as it helps you tailor your process to make the day more tolerable for them [such as] playing music, determining the need for an oral anxiolytic, etc.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having financial disclosures.

Among adults undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery, individuals most prone to preprocedural anxiety were younger, female, and those with a history of anxiety confirmed by a health care provider (HCP), results from a single-center survey demonstrated.

“Higher patient-reported anxiety in hospital settings is significantly linked to lower patient satisfaction with the quality of care and higher patient-reported postoperative pain,” corresponding author Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in Dermatologic Surgery. “Identifying factors associated with perioperative patient anxiety could improve outcomes and patient satisfaction.”

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at the University of Indiana, Indianapolis, and coauthors surveyed 145 patients who underwent Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) at the university from February 2018 to March 2020. They collected patient self-reported demographics, medical history, and administered a 10-point visual analog scale assessment of anxiety at multiple stages. They also sought HCP-perceived assessments of anxiety and used a stepwise regression mode to explore factors that potentially contributed to anxiety outcomes. The mean age of the 145 patients was 63 years, 60% were female, and 77% had no self-reported anxiety confirmed by a prior HCP’s diagnosis.

Two-thirds of patients (66%) received a pre-MMS consultation with the surgeon, 59% had a history of skin cancer removal surgery, and 86% had 1-2 layers removed during the current MMS.

Prior to MMS, the researchers found that significant risk factors for increased anxiety included younger age, female sex, and self-reported history of anxiety confirmed by an HCP (P < .05), while intraoperatively, HCP-perceived patient anxiety increased with younger patient age and more layers removed. Following MMS, patient anxiety increased significantly with more layers removed and higher self-reported preoperative anxiety levels. “Although existing research is divided regarding the efficacy of pre-MMS consultation for anxiety reduction, these findings suggest that patient-reported and HCP-perceived anxiety were not significantly affected by in-person pre-MMS consultation with the surgeon,” Dr. Somani and colleagues wrote. “Thus, routinely recommending consultations may not be the best approach for improving anxiety outcomes.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including its single-center design, enrollment of demographically similar patients, and the fact that no objective measurements of anxiety such as heart rate or blood pressure were taken.

“One of the main benefits of Mohs surgery is that we are able to operate under local anesthesia, but this also means that our patients are acutely aware of everything going on around them,” said Patricia M. Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the study.

“I think it is so important that this study is primarily focusing on the patient experience,” she said. “While this study did not find that a pre-op consult impacted patient anxiety levels, I do think we can infer that it is critical to connect with your patients on some level prior to surgery, as it helps you tailor your process to make the day more tolerable for them [such as] playing music, determining the need for an oral anxiolytic, etc.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having financial disclosures.

DENVER – As best practices for screening and surveillance of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) continue to evolve, mounting evidence supports the use of radiologic imaging.

In a study published in 2020, Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, and colleagues identified 87 CSCC tumors in 83 patients who underwent baseline or surveillance imaging primary at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Mohs Surgery Clinic and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic, both in Boston, from Jan. 1, 2017, to June 1, 2019. Of the 87 primary CSCCs, 48 (58%) underwent surveillance imaging. The researchers found that imaging detected additional disease in 26 patients, or 30% of cases, “whether that be nodal metastasis, local invasion beyond what was clinically accepted, or in-transit disease,” Dr. Ruiz, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s, said during the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But if you look at the 16 nodal metastases in this cohort, all were picked up on imaging and not on clinical exam.”

Since publication of these results, Dr. Ruiz routinely considers baseline radiologic imaging in T2b and T3 tumors; borderline T2a tumors (which she said they are now calling “T2a high,” for those who have one risk factor plus another intermediate risk factor),” and T2a tumors in patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed.

“My preference is to always do [the imaging] before treatment unless I’m up-staging them during surgery,” said Dr. Ruiz, who also directs the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana Farber. “We have picked up nodal metastases before surgery, which enables us to create a good therapeutic plan for our patients before we start operating. Then we image them every 6 months or so for about 2 years. Sometimes we will extend that out to 3 years.”

Some clinicians use sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a diagnostic test, but there are mixed results about its prognostic significance. A retrospective observational study of 720 patients with CSCC found that SLNB provided no benefit regarding further metastasis or tumor-specific survival, compared with those who received routine observation and follow-up, “but head and neck surgeons in the U.S. are putting together some prospective data from multiple centers,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I think in the coming years, you will have more multicenter data to inform us as to whether to do SLNB or not.”

Surgery may be the mainstay of treatment for resectable SCC, but the emerging role of neoadjuvant therapeutics is changing the way oncologists treat these tumors. For example, in a phase 2 trial recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 79 patients with stage II-IV CSCC received up to four doses of immunotherapy with the programmed death receptor–1 (PD-1) blocker cemiplimab administered every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was a pathologic complete response, defined as the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen at a central laboratory. The researchers observed that 68% of patients had an objective response.

“These were patients with localized tumors that were either very aggressive or had nodal metastases,” said Dr, Ruiz, who was the site primary investigator at Dana Farber and a coauthor of the NEJM study. “This has altered the way we approach treating our larger tumors that could be resectable but have a lot of disease either locally or in the nodal basin. We think that we can shrink down the tumor and make it easier to resect, but also there is the possibility or improving outcomes.”

At Brigham and Women’s and the Dana Farber, she and her colleagues consider immunotherapy for multiple recurrent tumors that have been previously irradiated; cases of large tumor burden locally or in the nodal basin; tumors that have a complex surgical plan; cases where there is a low likelihood of achieving clear surgical margins; and cases of in-transit disease.

“We use two to four doses of immunotherapy prior to surgery and assess the tumor response after two doses both clinically and radiologically,” she said. “If the tumor continues to grow, we would do surgery sooner.”

The side-effect profile of immunotherapy is another consideration. “Some patients are not appropriate for a neoadjuvant immunotherapy approach, such as transplant patients,” she said.

According to the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, surgery with or without adjuvant radiation is the current standard of care for treating CSCC. These guidelines were developed without much data to support the use of radiation, but a 20-year retrospective cohort study at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation found that adjuvant radiation following margin resection in high T-stage CSCC cut the risk of local and locoregional recurrence in half.

“This is something that radiation oncologists have told us for years, but there was no data to support it, so it was nice to see that borne out in clinical data,” said Dr. Ruiz, the study’s lead author. The 10% risk of local recurrence observed in the study “may not be high enough for some of our older patients, so we wanted to see if we could identify a group of high tumors that had higher risk of local recurrence,” she said. They found that patients who had a greater than 20% risk of poor outcome were those with recurrent tumors, those with tumors 6 cm or greater in size, and those with all four BWH risk factors (tumor diameter ≥ 2 cm, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion ≥ 0.1 mm, or tumor invasion beyond fat excluding bone invasion).

“Those risks were also cut in half if you added radiation,” she said. “So, the way I now approach counseling patients is, I try to estimate their baseline risk as best I can based on the tumor itself. I tell them that if they want to do adjuvant radiation it would cut the risk in half. Some patients are too frail and want to pass on it, while others are very interested.”

Of patients who did not receive radiation but had a disease recurrence, just under half of tumors were salvageable, about 25% died of their disease, and 23% had persistent disease. “I think this does support using radiation earlier on for the appropriate patient,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I consider the baseline risks [and] balance that with the patient’s comorbidities.”

Limited data exists on adjuvant immunotherapy for CSCC, but two ongoing randomized prospective clinical trials underway are studying the PD-1 inhibitors cemiplimab and pembrolizumab versus placebo. “We don’t have data yet, but prior to randomization, patients undergo surgery with macroscopic gross resection of all disease,” Dr. Ruiz said. “All tumors receive ART [adjuvant radiation therapy] prior to randomization”

Dr. Ruiz disclosed that she is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Jaunce Therapeutics. She is also a member of the advisory board for Checkpoint Therapeutics and is an investigator for Merck, Sanofi, and Regeneron.

DENVER – As best practices for screening and surveillance of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) continue to evolve, mounting evidence supports the use of radiologic imaging.

In a study published in 2020, Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, and colleagues identified 87 CSCC tumors in 83 patients who underwent baseline or surveillance imaging primary at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Mohs Surgery Clinic and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic, both in Boston, from Jan. 1, 2017, to June 1, 2019. Of the 87 primary CSCCs, 48 (58%) underwent surveillance imaging. The researchers found that imaging detected additional disease in 26 patients, or 30% of cases, “whether that be nodal metastasis, local invasion beyond what was clinically accepted, or in-transit disease,” Dr. Ruiz, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s, said during the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But if you look at the 16 nodal metastases in this cohort, all were picked up on imaging and not on clinical exam.”

Since publication of these results, Dr. Ruiz routinely considers baseline radiologic imaging in T2b and T3 tumors; borderline T2a tumors (which she said they are now calling “T2a high,” for those who have one risk factor plus another intermediate risk factor),” and T2a tumors in patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed.

“My preference is to always do [the imaging] before treatment unless I’m up-staging them during surgery,” said Dr. Ruiz, who also directs the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana Farber. “We have picked up nodal metastases before surgery, which enables us to create a good therapeutic plan for our patients before we start operating. Then we image them every 6 months or so for about 2 years. Sometimes we will extend that out to 3 years.”

Some clinicians use sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a diagnostic test, but there are mixed results about its prognostic significance. A retrospective observational study of 720 patients with CSCC found that SLNB provided no benefit regarding further metastasis or tumor-specific survival, compared with those who received routine observation and follow-up, “but head and neck surgeons in the U.S. are putting together some prospective data from multiple centers,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I think in the coming years, you will have more multicenter data to inform us as to whether to do SLNB or not.”

Surgery may be the mainstay of treatment for resectable SCC, but the emerging role of neoadjuvant therapeutics is changing the way oncologists treat these tumors. For example, in a phase 2 trial recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 79 patients with stage II-IV CSCC received up to four doses of immunotherapy with the programmed death receptor–1 (PD-1) blocker cemiplimab administered every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was a pathologic complete response, defined as the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen at a central laboratory. The researchers observed that 68% of patients had an objective response.

“These were patients with localized tumors that were either very aggressive or had nodal metastases,” said Dr, Ruiz, who was the site primary investigator at Dana Farber and a coauthor of the NEJM study. “This has altered the way we approach treating our larger tumors that could be resectable but have a lot of disease either locally or in the nodal basin. We think that we can shrink down the tumor and make it easier to resect, but also there is the possibility or improving outcomes.”

At Brigham and Women’s and the Dana Farber, she and her colleagues consider immunotherapy for multiple recurrent tumors that have been previously irradiated; cases of large tumor burden locally or in the nodal basin; tumors that have a complex surgical plan; cases where there is a low likelihood of achieving clear surgical margins; and cases of in-transit disease.

“We use two to four doses of immunotherapy prior to surgery and assess the tumor response after two doses both clinically and radiologically,” she said. “If the tumor continues to grow, we would do surgery sooner.”

The side-effect profile of immunotherapy is another consideration. “Some patients are not appropriate for a neoadjuvant immunotherapy approach, such as transplant patients,” she said.

According to the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, surgery with or without adjuvant radiation is the current standard of care for treating CSCC. These guidelines were developed without much data to support the use of radiation, but a 20-year retrospective cohort study at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation found that adjuvant radiation following margin resection in high T-stage CSCC cut the risk of local and locoregional recurrence in half.

“This is something that radiation oncologists have told us for years, but there was no data to support it, so it was nice to see that borne out in clinical data,” said Dr. Ruiz, the study’s lead author. The 10% risk of local recurrence observed in the study “may not be high enough for some of our older patients, so we wanted to see if we could identify a group of high tumors that had higher risk of local recurrence,” she said. They found that patients who had a greater than 20% risk of poor outcome were those with recurrent tumors, those with tumors 6 cm or greater in size, and those with all four BWH risk factors (tumor diameter ≥ 2 cm, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion ≥ 0.1 mm, or tumor invasion beyond fat excluding bone invasion).

“Those risks were also cut in half if you added radiation,” she said. “So, the way I now approach counseling patients is, I try to estimate their baseline risk as best I can based on the tumor itself. I tell them that if they want to do adjuvant radiation it would cut the risk in half. Some patients are too frail and want to pass on it, while others are very interested.”

Of patients who did not receive radiation but had a disease recurrence, just under half of tumors were salvageable, about 25% died of their disease, and 23% had persistent disease. “I think this does support using radiation earlier on for the appropriate patient,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I consider the baseline risks [and] balance that with the patient’s comorbidities.”

Limited data exists on adjuvant immunotherapy for CSCC, but two ongoing randomized prospective clinical trials underway are studying the PD-1 inhibitors cemiplimab and pembrolizumab versus placebo. “We don’t have data yet, but prior to randomization, patients undergo surgery with macroscopic gross resection of all disease,” Dr. Ruiz said. “All tumors receive ART [adjuvant radiation therapy] prior to randomization”

Dr. Ruiz disclosed that she is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Jaunce Therapeutics. She is also a member of the advisory board for Checkpoint Therapeutics and is an investigator for Merck, Sanofi, and Regeneron.

DENVER – As best practices for screening and surveillance of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) continue to evolve, mounting evidence supports the use of radiologic imaging.

In a study published in 2020, Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, and colleagues identified 87 CSCC tumors in 83 patients who underwent baseline or surveillance imaging primary at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Mohs Surgery Clinic and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic, both in Boston, from Jan. 1, 2017, to June 1, 2019. Of the 87 primary CSCCs, 48 (58%) underwent surveillance imaging. The researchers found that imaging detected additional disease in 26 patients, or 30% of cases, “whether that be nodal metastasis, local invasion beyond what was clinically accepted, or in-transit disease,” Dr. Ruiz, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s, said during the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But if you look at the 16 nodal metastases in this cohort, all were picked up on imaging and not on clinical exam.”

Since publication of these results, Dr. Ruiz routinely considers baseline radiologic imaging in T2b and T3 tumors; borderline T2a tumors (which she said they are now calling “T2a high,” for those who have one risk factor plus another intermediate risk factor),” and T2a tumors in patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed.

“My preference is to always do [the imaging] before treatment unless I’m up-staging them during surgery,” said Dr. Ruiz, who also directs the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana Farber. “We have picked up nodal metastases before surgery, which enables us to create a good therapeutic plan for our patients before we start operating. Then we image them every 6 months or so for about 2 years. Sometimes we will extend that out to 3 years.”

Some clinicians use sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a diagnostic test, but there are mixed results about its prognostic significance. A retrospective observational study of 720 patients with CSCC found that SLNB provided no benefit regarding further metastasis or tumor-specific survival, compared with those who received routine observation and follow-up, “but head and neck surgeons in the U.S. are putting together some prospective data from multiple centers,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I think in the coming years, you will have more multicenter data to inform us as to whether to do SLNB or not.”

Surgery may be the mainstay of treatment for resectable SCC, but the emerging role of neoadjuvant therapeutics is changing the way oncologists treat these tumors. For example, in a phase 2 trial recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 79 patients with stage II-IV CSCC received up to four doses of immunotherapy with the programmed death receptor–1 (PD-1) blocker cemiplimab administered every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was a pathologic complete response, defined as the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen at a central laboratory. The researchers observed that 68% of patients had an objective response.

“These were patients with localized tumors that were either very aggressive or had nodal metastases,” said Dr, Ruiz, who was the site primary investigator at Dana Farber and a coauthor of the NEJM study. “This has altered the way we approach treating our larger tumors that could be resectable but have a lot of disease either locally or in the nodal basin. We think that we can shrink down the tumor and make it easier to resect, but also there is the possibility or improving outcomes.”

At Brigham and Women’s and the Dana Farber, she and her colleagues consider immunotherapy for multiple recurrent tumors that have been previously irradiated; cases of large tumor burden locally or in the nodal basin; tumors that have a complex surgical plan; cases where there is a low likelihood of achieving clear surgical margins; and cases of in-transit disease.

“We use two to four doses of immunotherapy prior to surgery and assess the tumor response after two doses both clinically and radiologically,” she said. “If the tumor continues to grow, we would do surgery sooner.”

The side-effect profile of immunotherapy is another consideration. “Some patients are not appropriate for a neoadjuvant immunotherapy approach, such as transplant patients,” she said.

According to the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, surgery with or without adjuvant radiation is the current standard of care for treating CSCC. These guidelines were developed without much data to support the use of radiation, but a 20-year retrospective cohort study at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation found that adjuvant radiation following margin resection in high T-stage CSCC cut the risk of local and locoregional recurrence in half.

“This is something that radiation oncologists have told us for years, but there was no data to support it, so it was nice to see that borne out in clinical data,” said Dr. Ruiz, the study’s lead author. The 10% risk of local recurrence observed in the study “may not be high enough for some of our older patients, so we wanted to see if we could identify a group of high tumors that had higher risk of local recurrence,” she said. They found that patients who had a greater than 20% risk of poor outcome were those with recurrent tumors, those with tumors 6 cm or greater in size, and those with all four BWH risk factors (tumor diameter ≥ 2 cm, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion ≥ 0.1 mm, or tumor invasion beyond fat excluding bone invasion).

“Those risks were also cut in half if you added radiation,” she said. “So, the way I now approach counseling patients is, I try to estimate their baseline risk as best I can based on the tumor itself. I tell them that if they want to do adjuvant radiation it would cut the risk in half. Some patients are too frail and want to pass on it, while others are very interested.”

Of patients who did not receive radiation but had a disease recurrence, just under half of tumors were salvageable, about 25% died of their disease, and 23% had persistent disease. “I think this does support using radiation earlier on for the appropriate patient,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I consider the baseline risks [and] balance that with the patient’s comorbidities.”

Limited data exists on adjuvant immunotherapy for CSCC, but two ongoing randomized prospective clinical trials underway are studying the PD-1 inhibitors cemiplimab and pembrolizumab versus placebo. “We don’t have data yet, but prior to randomization, patients undergo surgery with macroscopic gross resection of all disease,” Dr. Ruiz said. “All tumors receive ART [adjuvant radiation therapy] prior to randomization”

Dr. Ruiz disclosed that she is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Jaunce Therapeutics. She is also a member of the advisory board for Checkpoint Therapeutics and is an investigator for Merck, Sanofi, and Regeneron.

Vulvar squamous cell carcinomas (VSCC) comprise approximately 90% of all vulvar malignancies. Unlike cervical SCC, which are predominantly human papilloma virus (HPV) positive, only a minority of VSCC are HPV positive – on the order of 15%-25% of cases. Most cases occur in the setting of lichen sclerosus and are HPV negative.

Lichen sclerosus is a chronic inflammatory dermatitis typically involving the anogenital area, which in some cases can become seriously distorted (e.g. atrophy of the labia minora, clitoral phimosis, and introital stenosis). Although most cases are diagnosed in postmenopausal women, LS can affect women of any age. The true prevalence of lichen sclerosus is unknown. Recent studies have shown a prevalence of 1 in 60; among older women, it can even be as high as 1 in 30. While lichen sclerosus is a pruriginous condition, it is often asymptomatic. It is not considered a premalignant condition. The diagnosis is clinical; however, suspicious lesions (erosions/ulcerations, hyperkeratosis, pigmented areas, ecchymosis, warty or papular lesions), particularly when recalcitrant to adequate first-line therapy, should be biopsied.

VSCC arises from precursor lesions or high-grade vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN). The 2015 International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease nomenclature classifies high-grade VIN into high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and differentiated VIN (dVIN). Most patients with high-grade VIN are diagnosed with HSIL or usual type VIN. A preponderance of these lesions (75%-85%) are HPV positive, predominantly HPV 16. Vulvar HSIL (vHSIL) lesions affect younger women. The lesions tend to be multifocal and extensive. On the other hand, dVIN typically affects older women and commonly develops as a solitary lesion. While dVIN accounts for only a small subset of patients with high-grade VIN, these lesions are HPV negative and associated with lichen sclerosus.

Both disease entities, vHSIL and dVIN, are increasing in incidence. There is a higher risk and shortened period of progression to cancer in patients with dVIN compared to HSIL. The cancer risk of vHSIL is relatively low. The 10-year cumulative VSCC risk reported in the literature is 10.3%; 9.7% for vHSIL and 50% for dVIN. Patients with vHSIL could benefit from less aggressive treatment modalities.

Dr. Jackson-Moore is associate professor in gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the university.
 

References

Cendejas BR et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;212(3):291-7.

Lebreton M et al. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2020 Nov;49(9):101801.

Thuijs NB et al. Int J Cancer. 2021 Jan 1;148(1):90-8. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33198. .

Trutnovsky G et al. Lancet. 2022 May 7;399(10337):1790-8. Erratum in: Lancet. 2022 Oct 8;400(10359):1194.

Vulvar squamous cell carcinomas (VSCC) comprise approximately 90% of all vulvar malignancies. Unlike cervical SCC, which are predominantly human papilloma virus (HPV) positive, only a minority of VSCC are HPV positive – on the order of 15%-25% of cases. Most cases occur in the setting of lichen sclerosus and are HPV negative.

Lichen sclerosus is a chronic inflammatory dermatitis typically involving the anogenital area, which in some cases can become seriously distorted (e.g. atrophy of the labia minora, clitoral phimosis, and introital stenosis). Although most cases are diagnosed in postmenopausal women, LS can affect women of any age. The true prevalence of lichen sclerosus is unknown. Recent studies have shown a prevalence of 1 in 60; among older women, it can even be as high as 1 in 30. While lichen sclerosus is a pruriginous condition, it is often asymptomatic. It is not considered a premalignant condition. The diagnosis is clinical; however, suspicious lesions (erosions/ulcerations, hyperkeratosis, pigmented areas, ecchymosis, warty or papular lesions), particularly when recalcitrant to adequate first-line therapy, should be biopsied.

VSCC arises from precursor lesions or high-grade vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN). The 2015 International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease nomenclature classifies high-grade VIN into high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and differentiated VIN (dVIN). Most patients with high-grade VIN are diagnosed with HSIL or usual type VIN. A preponderance of these lesions (75%-85%) are HPV positive, predominantly HPV 16. Vulvar HSIL (vHSIL) lesions affect younger women. The lesions tend to be multifocal and extensive. On the other hand, dVIN typically affects older women and commonly develops as a solitary lesion. While dVIN accounts for only a small subset of patients with high-grade VIN, these lesions are HPV negative and associated with lichen sclerosus.

Both disease entities, vHSIL and dVIN, are increasing in incidence. There is a higher risk and shortened period of progression to cancer in patients with dVIN compared to HSIL. The cancer risk of vHSIL is relatively low. The 10-year cumulative VSCC risk reported in the literature is 10.3%; 9.7% for vHSIL and 50% for dVIN. Patients with vHSIL could benefit from less aggressive treatment modalities.

Dr. Jackson-Moore is associate professor in gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the university.
 

References

Cendejas BR et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;212(3):291-7.

Lebreton M et al. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2020 Nov;49(9):101801.

Thuijs NB et al. Int J Cancer. 2021 Jan 1;148(1):90-8. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33198. .

Trutnovsky G et al. Lancet. 2022 May 7;399(10337):1790-8. Erratum in: Lancet. 2022 Oct 8;400(10359):1194.

Vulvar squamous cell carcinomas (VSCC) comprise approximately 90% of all vulvar malignancies. Unlike cervical SCC, which are predominantly human papilloma virus (HPV) positive, only a minority of VSCC are HPV positive – on the order of 15%-25% of cases. Most cases occur in the setting of lichen sclerosus and are HPV negative.

Lichen sclerosus is a chronic inflammatory dermatitis typically involving the anogenital area, which in some cases can become seriously distorted (e.g. atrophy of the labia minora, clitoral phimosis, and introital stenosis). Although most cases are diagnosed in postmenopausal women, LS can affect women of any age. The true prevalence of lichen sclerosus is unknown. Recent studies have shown a prevalence of 1 in 60; among older women, it can even be as high as 1 in 30. While lichen sclerosus is a pruriginous condition, it is often asymptomatic. It is not considered a premalignant condition. The diagnosis is clinical; however, suspicious lesions (erosions/ulcerations, hyperkeratosis, pigmented areas, ecchymosis, warty or papular lesions), particularly when recalcitrant to adequate first-line therapy, should be biopsied.

VSCC arises from precursor lesions or high-grade vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN). The 2015 International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease nomenclature classifies high-grade VIN into high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and differentiated VIN (dVIN). Most patients with high-grade VIN are diagnosed with HSIL or usual type VIN. A preponderance of these lesions (75%-85%) are HPV positive, predominantly HPV 16. Vulvar HSIL (vHSIL) lesions affect younger women. The lesions tend to be multifocal and extensive. On the other hand, dVIN typically affects older women and commonly develops as a solitary lesion. While dVIN accounts for only a small subset of patients with high-grade VIN, these lesions are HPV negative and associated with lichen sclerosus.

Both disease entities, vHSIL and dVIN, are increasing in incidence. There is a higher risk and shortened period of progression to cancer in patients with dVIN compared to HSIL. The cancer risk of vHSIL is relatively low. The 10-year cumulative VSCC risk reported in the literature is 10.3%; 9.7% for vHSIL and 50% for dVIN. Patients with vHSIL could benefit from less aggressive treatment modalities.

Dr. Jackson-Moore is associate professor in gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the university.
 

References

Cendejas BR et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;212(3):291-7.

Lebreton M et al. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2020 Nov;49(9):101801.

Thuijs NB et al. Int J Cancer. 2021 Jan 1;148(1):90-8. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33198. .

Trutnovsky G et al. Lancet. 2022 May 7;399(10337):1790-8. Erratum in: Lancet. 2022 Oct 8;400(10359):1194.

Practice Gap

A male patient presented with 2 concerning lesions, which histopathology revealed were invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the right medial chest and SCC in situ on the right upper scapular region. Both were treated with wide local excision; margins were clear in our office the same day.

This case highlighted a practice gap in postoperative care. Two factors posed a challenge to proper postoperative wound care for our patient:

• Because of the high risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the patient hoped to limit exposure by avoiding an office visit to remove the bandage.

• The patient did not have someone at home to serve as an immediate support system, which made it impossible for him to rely on others for postoperative wound care.

Previously, the patient had to ask a friend to remove a bandage for melanoma in situ on the inner aspect of the left upper arm. Therefore, after this procedure, the patient asked if the bandage could be fashioned in a manner that would allow him to remove it without assistance (Figure 1).

Technique

In constructing a bandage that is easier to remove, some necessary pressure that is provided by the bandage often is sacrificed by making it looser. Considering that our patient had moderate bleeding during the procedure—in part because he took low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d)—it was important to maintain firm pressure under the bandage postoperatively to help prevent untoward bleeding. Furthermore, because of the location of the treated site and the patient’s limited range of motion, it was not feasible for him to reach the area on the scapula and remove the bandage.¹

For easy self-removal, we designed a bandage with a pull tab that was within the patient’s reach. Suitable materials for the pull tab bandage included surgical tape, bandaging tape with adequate stretch, sterile nonadhesive gauze, fenestrated surgical gauze, and a topical emollient such as petroleum jelly or antibacterial ointment.

To clean the site and decrease the amount of oil that would reduce the effectiveness of the adhesive, the wound was prepared with 70% alcohol. The site was then treated with petroleum jelly.

Next, we designed 2 pull tab bandage prototypes that allowed easy self-removal. For both prototypes, sterile nonadhesive gauze was applied to the wound along with folded and fenestrated gauze, which provided pressure. We used prototype #1 in our patient, and prototype #2 was demonstrated as an option.

Prototype #1—We created 2 tabs—each 2-feet long—using bandaging tape that was folded on itself once horizontally (Figure 2). The tabs were aligned on either side of the wound, the tops of which sat approximately 2 inches above the top of the first layer of adhesive bandage. An initial layer of adhesive surgical dressing was applied to cover the wound; 1 inch of the dressing was left exposed on the top of each tab. In addition, there were 2 “feet” running on the bottom.

The tops of the tabs were folded back over the adhesive tape, creating a type of “hook.” An additional final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure on the surgical site.

The patient was instructed to remove the bandage 2 days after the procedure. The outcome was qualified through a 3-day postoperative telephone call. The patient was asked about postoperative pain and his level of satisfaction with treatment. He was asked if he had any changes such as bleeding, swelling, signs of infection, or increased pain in the days after surgery or perceived postoperative complications, such as irritation. We asked the patient about the relative ease of removing the bandage and if removal was painful. He reported that the bandage was easy to remove, and that doing so was not painful; furthermore, he did not have problems with the bandage or healing and did not experience any medical changes. He found the bandage to be comfortable. The patient stated that the hanging feet of the prototype #1 bandage were not bothersome and were sturdy for the time that the bandage was on.

Prototype #2—We prepared a bandage using surgical packing as the tab (Figure 3). The packing was slowly placed around the site, which was already covered with nonadhesive gauze and fenestrated surgical gauze, with adequate spacing between each loop (for a total of 3 loops), 1 of which crossed over the third loop so that the adhesive bandaging tape could be removed easily. This allowed for a single tab that could be removed by a single pull. A final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure, similar to prototype #1. The same postoperative protocol was employed to provide a consistent standard of care. We recommend use of this prototype when surgical tape is not available, and surgical packing can be used as a substitute.

Practice Implications

Patients have a better appreciation for avoiding excess visits to medical offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection is greater when patients who lack a support system must return to the office for aftercare or to have a bandage removed. Although protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccine alleviates concern, many patients have realized the benefits of only visiting medical offices in person when necessary.

The concept of pull tab bandages that can be removed by the patient at home has other applications. For example, patients who travel a long distance to see their physician will benefit from easier aftercare and avoid additional follow-up visits when provided with a self-removable bandage.

Practice Gap

A male patient presented with 2 concerning lesions, which histopathology revealed were invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the right medial chest and SCC in situ on the right upper scapular region. Both were treated with wide local excision; margins were clear in our office the same day.

This case highlighted a practice gap in postoperative care. Two factors posed a challenge to proper postoperative wound care for our patient:

• Because of the high risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the patient hoped to limit exposure by avoiding an office visit to remove the bandage.

• The patient did not have someone at home to serve as an immediate support system, which made it impossible for him to rely on others for postoperative wound care.

Previously, the patient had to ask a friend to remove a bandage for melanoma in situ on the inner aspect of the left upper arm. Therefore, after this procedure, the patient asked if the bandage could be fashioned in a manner that would allow him to remove it without assistance (Figure 1).

Technique

In constructing a bandage that is easier to remove, some necessary pressure that is provided by the bandage often is sacrificed by making it looser. Considering that our patient had moderate bleeding during the procedure—in part because he took low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d)—it was important to maintain firm pressure under the bandage postoperatively to help prevent untoward bleeding. Furthermore, because of the location of the treated site and the patient’s limited range of motion, it was not feasible for him to reach the area on the scapula and remove the bandage.¹

For easy self-removal, we designed a bandage with a pull tab that was within the patient’s reach. Suitable materials for the pull tab bandage included surgical tape, bandaging tape with adequate stretch, sterile nonadhesive gauze, fenestrated surgical gauze, and a topical emollient such as petroleum jelly or antibacterial ointment.

To clean the site and decrease the amount of oil that would reduce the effectiveness of the adhesive, the wound was prepared with 70% alcohol. The site was then treated with petroleum jelly.

Next, we designed 2 pull tab bandage prototypes that allowed easy self-removal. For both prototypes, sterile nonadhesive gauze was applied to the wound along with folded and fenestrated gauze, which provided pressure. We used prototype #1 in our patient, and prototype #2 was demonstrated as an option.

Prototype #1—We created 2 tabs—each 2-feet long—using bandaging tape that was folded on itself once horizontally (Figure 2). The tabs were aligned on either side of the wound, the tops of which sat approximately 2 inches above the top of the first layer of adhesive bandage. An initial layer of adhesive surgical dressing was applied to cover the wound; 1 inch of the dressing was left exposed on the top of each tab. In addition, there were 2 “feet” running on the bottom.

The tops of the tabs were folded back over the adhesive tape, creating a type of “hook.” An additional final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure on the surgical site.

The patient was instructed to remove the bandage 2 days after the procedure. The outcome was qualified through a 3-day postoperative telephone call. The patient was asked about postoperative pain and his level of satisfaction with treatment. He was asked if he had any changes such as bleeding, swelling, signs of infection, or increased pain in the days after surgery or perceived postoperative complications, such as irritation. We asked the patient about the relative ease of removing the bandage and if removal was painful. He reported that the bandage was easy to remove, and that doing so was not painful; furthermore, he did not have problems with the bandage or healing and did not experience any medical changes. He found the bandage to be comfortable. The patient stated that the hanging feet of the prototype #1 bandage were not bothersome and were sturdy for the time that the bandage was on.

Prototype #2—We prepared a bandage using surgical packing as the tab (Figure 3). The packing was slowly placed around the site, which was already covered with nonadhesive gauze and fenestrated surgical gauze, with adequate spacing between each loop (for a total of 3 loops), 1 of which crossed over the third loop so that the adhesive bandaging tape could be removed easily. This allowed for a single tab that could be removed by a single pull. A final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure, similar to prototype #1. The same postoperative protocol was employed to provide a consistent standard of care. We recommend use of this prototype when surgical tape is not available, and surgical packing can be used as a substitute.

Practice Implications

Patients have a better appreciation for avoiding excess visits to medical offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection is greater when patients who lack a support system must return to the office for aftercare or to have a bandage removed. Although protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccine alleviates concern, many patients have realized the benefits of only visiting medical offices in person when necessary.

The concept of pull tab bandages that can be removed by the patient at home has other applications. For example, patients who travel a long distance to see their physician will benefit from easier aftercare and avoid additional follow-up visits when provided with a self-removable bandage.

Practice Gap

A male patient presented with 2 concerning lesions, which histopathology revealed were invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the right medial chest and SCC in situ on the right upper scapular region. Both were treated with wide local excision; margins were clear in our office the same day.

This case highlighted a practice gap in postoperative care. Two factors posed a challenge to proper postoperative wound care for our patient:

• Because of the high risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the patient hoped to limit exposure by avoiding an office visit to remove the bandage.

• The patient did not have someone at home to serve as an immediate support system, which made it impossible for him to rely on others for postoperative wound care.

Previously, the patient had to ask a friend to remove a bandage for melanoma in situ on the inner aspect of the left upper arm. Therefore, after this procedure, the patient asked if the bandage could be fashioned in a manner that would allow him to remove it without assistance (Figure 1).

Technique

In constructing a bandage that is easier to remove, some necessary pressure that is provided by the bandage often is sacrificed by making it looser. Considering that our patient had moderate bleeding during the procedure—in part because he took low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d)—it was important to maintain firm pressure under the bandage postoperatively to help prevent untoward bleeding. Furthermore, because of the location of the treated site and the patient’s limited range of motion, it was not feasible for him to reach the area on the scapula and remove the bandage.¹

For easy self-removal, we designed a bandage with a pull tab that was within the patient’s reach. Suitable materials for the pull tab bandage included surgical tape, bandaging tape with adequate stretch, sterile nonadhesive gauze, fenestrated surgical gauze, and a topical emollient such as petroleum jelly or antibacterial ointment.

To clean the site and decrease the amount of oil that would reduce the effectiveness of the adhesive, the wound was prepared with 70% alcohol. The site was then treated with petroleum jelly.

Next, we designed 2 pull tab bandage prototypes that allowed easy self-removal. For both prototypes, sterile nonadhesive gauze was applied to the wound along with folded and fenestrated gauze, which provided pressure. We used prototype #1 in our patient, and prototype #2 was demonstrated as an option.

Prototype #1—We created 2 tabs—each 2-feet long—using bandaging tape that was folded on itself once horizontally (Figure 2). The tabs were aligned on either side of the wound, the tops of which sat approximately 2 inches above the top of the first layer of adhesive bandage. An initial layer of adhesive surgical dressing was applied to cover the wound; 1 inch of the dressing was left exposed on the top of each tab. In addition, there were 2 “feet” running on the bottom.

The tops of the tabs were folded back over the adhesive tape, creating a type of “hook.” An additional final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure on the surgical site.

The patient was instructed to remove the bandage 2 days after the procedure. The outcome was qualified through a 3-day postoperative telephone call. The patient was asked about postoperative pain and his level of satisfaction with treatment. He was asked if he had any changes such as bleeding, swelling, signs of infection, or increased pain in the days after surgery or perceived postoperative complications, such as irritation. We asked the patient about the relative ease of removing the bandage and if removal was painful. He reported that the bandage was easy to remove, and that doing so was not painful; furthermore, he did not have problems with the bandage or healing and did not experience any medical changes. He found the bandage to be comfortable. The patient stated that the hanging feet of the prototype #1 bandage were not bothersome and were sturdy for the time that the bandage was on.

Prototype #2—We prepared a bandage using surgical packing as the tab (Figure 3). The packing was slowly placed around the site, which was already covered with nonadhesive gauze and fenestrated surgical gauze, with adequate spacing between each loop (for a total of 3 loops), 1 of which crossed over the third loop so that the adhesive bandaging tape could be removed easily. This allowed for a single tab that could be removed by a single pull. A final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure, similar to prototype #1. The same postoperative protocol was employed to provide a consistent standard of care. We recommend use of this prototype when surgical tape is not available, and surgical packing can be used as a substitute.

Practice Implications

Patients have a better appreciation for avoiding excess visits to medical offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection is greater when patients who lack a support system must return to the office for aftercare or to have a bandage removed. Although protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccine alleviates concern, many patients have realized the benefits of only visiting medical offices in person when necessary.

The concept of pull tab bandages that can be removed by the patient at home has other applications. For example, patients who travel a long distance to see their physician will benefit from easier aftercare and avoid additional follow-up visits when provided with a self-removable bandage.

The Diagnosis: Sister Mary Joseph Nodule

Histopathologic analysis of the biopsy specimen revealed a dense infiltrate of large, hyperchromatic, mucin-producing cells exhibiting varying degrees of nuclear pleomorphism (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining was negative for cytokeratin (CK) 20; however, CK7 was found positive (Figure 2), which confirmed the presence of a metastatic adenocarcinoma, consistent with the clinical diagnosis of a Sister Mary Joseph nodule (SMJN). Subsequent IHC workup to determine the site of origin revealed densely positive expression of both cancer antigen 125 and paired homeobox gene 8 (PAX-8)(Figure 3), consistent with primary ovarian disease. Furthermore, expression of estrogen receptor and p53 both were positive within the nuclei, illustrating an aberrant expression pattern. On the other hand, cancer antigen 19-9, caudal-type homeobox 2, gross cystic disease fluid protein 15, and mammaglobin were all determined negative, thus leading to the pathologic diagnosis of a metastatic ovarian adenocarcinoma. Additional workup with computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis highlighted a large left ovarian mass with multiple omental nodules as well as enlarged retroperitoneal and pelvic lymph nodes.

The SMJN is a rare presentation of internal malignancy that appears as a nodule that metastasizes to the umbilicus. It may be ulcerated or necrotic and is seen in up to 10% of patients with cutaneous metastases from internal malignancy.¹ These nodules are named after Sister Mary Joseph, the surgical assistant of Dr. William Mayo who first described the relationship between umbilical nodules seen in patients with gastrointestinal and genitourinary cancer. The most common underlying malignancies include primary gastrointestinal and gynecologic adenocarcinomas. In a retrospective study of 34 patients by Chalya et al,² the stomach was found to be the most common primary site (41.1%). The presence of an SMJN affords a poor prognosis, with a mean overall survival of 11 months from the time of diagnosis.³ The mechanism of disease dissemination remains unknown but is thought to occur through lymphovascular invasion of tumor cells and spread via the umbilical ligament.^1,4

Merkel cell carcinoma is a cutaneous neuroendocrine tumor that most commonly presents in elderly patients as red-violet nodules or plaques. Although Merkel cell carcinoma most frequently is encountered on sun-exposed skin, they also can arise on the trunk and abdomen. Positive IHC staining for CK20 would be expected; however, it was negative in our case.⁵

Cutaneous endometriosis is a rare disease presentation and most commonly occurs as a secondary process due to surgical inoculation of the abdominal wall. Primary cutaneous endometriosis in which there is no history of abdominal surgery less frequently is encountered. Patients typically will report pain and cyclical bleeding with menses. Pathology demonstrates ectopic endometrial tissue with glands and uterine myxoid stroma.⁶

Amelanotic melanoma is an uncommon subtype of malignant melanoma that presents as nonpigmented nodules that have a propensity to ulcerate and bleed. Furthermore, the umbilicus is an exceedingly rare location for primary melanoma. However, one report does exist, and amelanotic melanoma should be considered in the differential for patients with umbilical nodules.⁷

Dermoid cysts are benign congenital lesions that typically present as a painless, slow-growing, and wellcircumscribed nodule, as similarly experienced by our patient. They most commonly are found on the testicles and ovaries but also are known to arise in embryologic fusion planes, and reports of umbilical lesions exist.⁸ Dermoid cysts are diagnosed based on histopathology, supporting the need for a biopsy to distinguish a malignant process from benign lesions.⁹ 

The Diagnosis: Sister Mary Joseph Nodule

Histopathologic analysis of the biopsy specimen revealed a dense infiltrate of large, hyperchromatic, mucin-producing cells exhibiting varying degrees of nuclear pleomorphism (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining was negative for cytokeratin (CK) 20; however, CK7 was found positive (Figure 2), which confirmed the presence of a metastatic adenocarcinoma, consistent with the clinical diagnosis of a Sister Mary Joseph nodule (SMJN). Subsequent IHC workup to determine the site of origin revealed densely positive expression of both cancer antigen 125 and paired homeobox gene 8 (PAX-8)(Figure 3), consistent with primary ovarian disease. Furthermore, expression of estrogen receptor and p53 both were positive within the nuclei, illustrating an aberrant expression pattern. On the other hand, cancer antigen 19-9, caudal-type homeobox 2, gross cystic disease fluid protein 15, and mammaglobin were all determined negative, thus leading to the pathologic diagnosis of a metastatic ovarian adenocarcinoma. Additional workup with computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis highlighted a large left ovarian mass with multiple omental nodules as well as enlarged retroperitoneal and pelvic lymph nodes.

The SMJN is a rare presentation of internal malignancy that appears as a nodule that metastasizes to the umbilicus. It may be ulcerated or necrotic and is seen in up to 10% of patients with cutaneous metastases from internal malignancy.¹ These nodules are named after Sister Mary Joseph, the surgical assistant of Dr. William Mayo who first described the relationship between umbilical nodules seen in patients with gastrointestinal and genitourinary cancer. The most common underlying malignancies include primary gastrointestinal and gynecologic adenocarcinomas. In a retrospective study of 34 patients by Chalya et al,² the stomach was found to be the most common primary site (41.1%). The presence of an SMJN affords a poor prognosis, with a mean overall survival of 11 months from the time of diagnosis.³ The mechanism of disease dissemination remains unknown but is thought to occur through lymphovascular invasion of tumor cells and spread via the umbilical ligament.^1,4

Merkel cell carcinoma is a cutaneous neuroendocrine tumor that most commonly presents in elderly patients as red-violet nodules or plaques. Although Merkel cell carcinoma most frequently is encountered on sun-exposed skin, they also can arise on the trunk and abdomen. Positive IHC staining for CK20 would be expected; however, it was negative in our case.⁵

Cutaneous endometriosis is a rare disease presentation and most commonly occurs as a secondary process due to surgical inoculation of the abdominal wall. Primary cutaneous endometriosis in which there is no history of abdominal surgery less frequently is encountered. Patients typically will report pain and cyclical bleeding with menses. Pathology demonstrates ectopic endometrial tissue with glands and uterine myxoid stroma.⁶

Amelanotic melanoma is an uncommon subtype of malignant melanoma that presents as nonpigmented nodules that have a propensity to ulcerate and bleed. Furthermore, the umbilicus is an exceedingly rare location for primary melanoma. However, one report does exist, and amelanotic melanoma should be considered in the differential for patients with umbilical nodules.⁷

Dermoid cysts are benign congenital lesions that typically present as a painless, slow-growing, and wellcircumscribed nodule, as similarly experienced by our patient. They most commonly are found on the testicles and ovaries but also are known to arise in embryologic fusion planes, and reports of umbilical lesions exist.⁸ Dermoid cysts are diagnosed based on histopathology, supporting the need for a biopsy to distinguish a malignant process from benign lesions.⁹ 

The Diagnosis: Sister Mary Joseph Nodule

Histopathologic analysis of the biopsy specimen revealed a dense infiltrate of large, hyperchromatic, mucin-producing cells exhibiting varying degrees of nuclear pleomorphism (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining was negative for cytokeratin (CK) 20; however, CK7 was found positive (Figure 2), which confirmed the presence of a metastatic adenocarcinoma, consistent with the clinical diagnosis of a Sister Mary Joseph nodule (SMJN). Subsequent IHC workup to determine the site of origin revealed densely positive expression of both cancer antigen 125 and paired homeobox gene 8 (PAX-8)(Figure 3), consistent with primary ovarian disease. Furthermore, expression of estrogen receptor and p53 both were positive within the nuclei, illustrating an aberrant expression pattern. On the other hand, cancer antigen 19-9, caudal-type homeobox 2, gross cystic disease fluid protein 15, and mammaglobin were all determined negative, thus leading to the pathologic diagnosis of a metastatic ovarian adenocarcinoma. Additional workup with computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis highlighted a large left ovarian mass with multiple omental nodules as well as enlarged retroperitoneal and pelvic lymph nodes.

The SMJN is a rare presentation of internal malignancy that appears as a nodule that metastasizes to the umbilicus. It may be ulcerated or necrotic and is seen in up to 10% of patients with cutaneous metastases from internal malignancy.¹ These nodules are named after Sister Mary Joseph, the surgical assistant of Dr. William Mayo who first described the relationship between umbilical nodules seen in patients with gastrointestinal and genitourinary cancer. The most common underlying malignancies include primary gastrointestinal and gynecologic adenocarcinomas. In a retrospective study of 34 patients by Chalya et al,² the stomach was found to be the most common primary site (41.1%). The presence of an SMJN affords a poor prognosis, with a mean overall survival of 11 months from the time of diagnosis.³ The mechanism of disease dissemination remains unknown but is thought to occur through lymphovascular invasion of tumor cells and spread via the umbilical ligament.^1,4

Merkel cell carcinoma is a cutaneous neuroendocrine tumor that most commonly presents in elderly patients as red-violet nodules or plaques. Although Merkel cell carcinoma most frequently is encountered on sun-exposed skin, they also can arise on the trunk and abdomen. Positive IHC staining for CK20 would be expected; however, it was negative in our case.⁵

Cutaneous endometriosis is a rare disease presentation and most commonly occurs as a secondary process due to surgical inoculation of the abdominal wall. Primary cutaneous endometriosis in which there is no history of abdominal surgery less frequently is encountered. Patients typically will report pain and cyclical bleeding with menses. Pathology demonstrates ectopic endometrial tissue with glands and uterine myxoid stroma.⁶

Amelanotic melanoma is an uncommon subtype of malignant melanoma that presents as nonpigmented nodules that have a propensity to ulcerate and bleed. Furthermore, the umbilicus is an exceedingly rare location for primary melanoma. However, one report does exist, and amelanotic melanoma should be considered in the differential for patients with umbilical nodules.⁷

Dermoid cysts are benign congenital lesions that typically present as a painless, slow-growing, and wellcircumscribed nodule, as similarly experienced by our patient. They most commonly are found on the testicles and ovaries but also are known to arise in embryologic fusion planes, and reports of umbilical lesions exist.⁸ Dermoid cysts are diagnosed based on histopathology, supporting the need for a biopsy to distinguish a malignant process from benign lesions.⁹ 

To the Editor:

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti–programmed cell death protein 1 (anti–PD-1) and anticytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated protein 4 therapies are a promising class of cancer therapeutics. However, they are associated with a variety of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including cutaneous toxicity.¹ The PD-1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathway is important for the maintenance of immune tolerance, and a blockade has been shown to lead to development of various autoimmune diseases.² We present the case of a patient who developed new-onset localized scleroderma during treatment with the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab.

A 65-year-old woman presented with a rash on the left thigh that was associated with pruritus, pain, and a pulling sensation. She had a history of stage IV lung adenocarcinoma, with a mass in the right upper lobe with metastatic foci to the left femur, right humerus, right hilar, and pretracheal lymph nodes. She received palliative radiation to the left femur and was started on carboplatin and pemetrexed. Metastasis to the liver was noted after completion of 6 cycles of therapy, and the patient’s treatment was changed to nivolumab. After 17 months on nivolumab therapy (2 years after initial diagnosis and 20 months after radiation therapy), she presented to our dermatology clinic with a cutaneous eruption on the buttocks that spread to the left thigh. The rash failed to improve after 1 month of treatment with emollients and triamcinolone cream 0.1%.

At the current presentation, which was 2 months after she initially presented to our clinic, dermatologic examination revealed erythematous and sclerotic plaques on the left lateral thigh (Figure 1A). Betamethasone cream 0.05% was prescribed, and nivolumab was discontinued due to progression of cutaneous symptoms. A punch biopsy from the left thigh demonstrated superficial dermal sclerosis that was suggestive of chronic radiation dermatitis; direct immunofluorescence testing was negative. The patient was started on prednisone 50 mg daily, which resulted in mild improvement in symptoms.

Within 6 months, new sclerotic plaques developed on the patient’s back and right thigh (Figure 1B). Because the lesions were located outside the radiation field of the left femur, a second biopsy was obtained from the right thigh. Histopathology revealed extensive dermal sclerosis and a perivascular lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate (Figure 2). An antinuclear antibody test was weakly positive (1:40, nucleolar pattern) with a negative extractable nuclear antigen panel result. Anti–double-stranded DNA, anti–topoisomerase 1, anti-Smith, antiribonucleoprotein, anti–Sjögren syndrome type A, anti–Sjögren syndrome type B, and anticentromere serology test results were negative. The patient denied decreased oral aperture, difficulty swallowing, or Raynaud phenomenon. Due to the atypical clinical presentation in the setting of PD-1 inhibitor therapy, the etiology of the eruption was potentially attributable to nivolumab. She was started on treatment with methotrexate 20 mg weekly and clobetasol cream 0.05% twice daily; she continued taking prednisone 5 mg daily. The cutaneous manifestations on the patient’s back completely resolved, and the legs continued to gradually improve on this regimen. Immunotherapy continued to be held due to skin toxicity.

Localized scleroderma is an autoimmune disorder characterized by inflammation and skin thickening. Overactive fibroblasts produce excess collagen, leading to the clinical symptoms of skin thickening, hardening, and discoloration.³ Lesions frequently develop on the arms, face, or legs and can present as patches or linear bands. Unlike systemic sclerosis, the internal organs typically are uninvolved; however, sclerotic lesions can be disfiguring and cause notable disability if they impede joint movement.

The PD-1/PD-L1 pathway is a negative regulator of the immune response that inactivates T cells and helps maintain self-tolerance. Modulation of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway and overexpression of PD-L1 are seen in various cancers as a mechanism to help malignant cells avoid immune destruction.⁴ Conversely, inhibition of this pathway can be used to stimulate an antitumor immune response. This checkpoint inhibition strategy has been highly successful for the treatment of various cancers including melanoma and non–small cell lung carcinoma. There are several checkpoint inhibitors approved in the United States that are used for cancer therapy and target the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, such as nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab.⁴ A downside of checkpoint inhibitor treatment is that uncontrolled T-cell activation can lead to irAEs, including cutaneous eruptions, pruritus, diarrhea, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, pneumonitis, and renal insufficiency.⁵ These toxicities are reversible if treated appropriately but can cause notable morbidity and mortality if left unrecognized. Cutaneous eruption is one of the most common irAEs associated with anti–PD-1 and anti–PD-L1 therapies and can limit therapeutic efficacy, as the drug may need to be held or discontinued due to the severity of the eruption.⁶ Mid-potency to high-potency topical corticosteroids and systemic antihistamines are first-line treatments of grades 1 and 2 skin toxicities associated with PD-1 inhibitor therapy. For eruptions classified as grades 3 or 4 or refractory grade 2, discontinuation of the drug and systemic corticosteroids is recommended.⁷

The cutaneous eruption in immunotherapy-mediated dermatitis is thought to be largely mediated by activated T cells infiltrating the dermis.⁸ In localized scleroderma, increased tumor necrosis factor α, IFN-γ, IFN-γ–induced protein 10, and granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor activity have been shown to correlate with disease activity.^9,10 Interestingly, increased tumor necrosis factor α and IFN-γ correlate with better response and increased overall survival in PD-1 inhibition therapy, suggesting a correlation between PD-1 inhibition and T helper activation as noted by the etiology of sclerosis in our patient.¹¹ Additionally, history of radiation was a confounding factor in the diagnosis of our patient, as both sclerodermoid reactions and chronic radiation dermatitis can present with dermal sclerosis. However, the progression of disease outside of the radiation field excluded this etiology. Although new-onset sclerodermoid reactions have been reported with PD-1 inhibitors, they have been described secondary to sclerodermoid reactions from treatment with pembrolizumab.^12,13 One case series reported a case of diffuse sclerodermoid reaction and a limited reaction in response to pembrolizumab treatment, while another case report described a relapse of generalized morphea in response to pembrolizumab treatment.^12,13 One case of relapsing morphea in response to nivolumab treatment for stage IV lung adenocarcinoma also has been reported.¹⁴

Cutaneous toxicities are one of the most common irAEs associated with checkpoint inhibitors and are seen in more than one-third of treated patients. Most frequently, these irAEs manifest as spongiotic dermatitis on histopathology, but a broad spectrum of cutaneous reactions have been observed.¹⁵ Although sclerodermoid reactions have been reported with PD-1 inhibitors, most are described secondary to sclerodermoid reactions with pembrolizumab and involve relapse of previously diagnosed morphea rather than new-onset disease.^12-14

Our case highlights new-onset localized scleroderma in the setting of nivolumab therapy that showed clinical improvement with methotrexate and topical and systemic steroids. This reaction pattern should be considered in all patients who develop cutaneous eruptions when treated with a PD-1 inhibitor. There should be a high index of suspicion for the potential occurrence of irAEs to ensure early recognition and treatment to minimize morbidity and maximize adherence to therapy for the underlying malignancy.

To the Editor:

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti–programmed cell death protein 1 (anti–PD-1) and anticytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated protein 4 therapies are a promising class of cancer therapeutics. However, they are associated with a variety of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including cutaneous toxicity.¹ The PD-1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathway is important for the maintenance of immune tolerance, and a blockade has been shown to lead to development of various autoimmune diseases.² We present the case of a patient who developed new-onset localized scleroderma during treatment with the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab.

A 65-year-old woman presented with a rash on the left thigh that was associated with pruritus, pain, and a pulling sensation. She had a history of stage IV lung adenocarcinoma, with a mass in the right upper lobe with metastatic foci to the left femur, right humerus, right hilar, and pretracheal lymph nodes. She received palliative radiation to the left femur and was started on carboplatin and pemetrexed. Metastasis to the liver was noted after completion of 6 cycles of therapy, and the patient’s treatment was changed to nivolumab. After 17 months on nivolumab therapy (2 years after initial diagnosis and 20 months after radiation therapy), she presented to our dermatology clinic with a cutaneous eruption on the buttocks that spread to the left thigh. The rash failed to improve after 1 month of treatment with emollients and triamcinolone cream 0.1%.

At the current presentation, which was 2 months after she initially presented to our clinic, dermatologic examination revealed erythematous and sclerotic plaques on the left lateral thigh (Figure 1A). Betamethasone cream 0.05% was prescribed, and nivolumab was discontinued due to progression of cutaneous symptoms. A punch biopsy from the left thigh demonstrated superficial dermal sclerosis that was suggestive of chronic radiation dermatitis; direct immunofluorescence testing was negative. The patient was started on prednisone 50 mg daily, which resulted in mild improvement in symptoms.

Within 6 months, new sclerotic plaques developed on the patient’s back and right thigh (Figure 1B). Because the lesions were located outside the radiation field of the left femur, a second biopsy was obtained from the right thigh. Histopathology revealed extensive dermal sclerosis and a perivascular lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate (Figure 2). An antinuclear antibody test was weakly positive (1:40, nucleolar pattern) with a negative extractable nuclear antigen panel result. Anti–double-stranded DNA, anti–topoisomerase 1, anti-Smith, antiribonucleoprotein, anti–Sjögren syndrome type A, anti–Sjögren syndrome type B, and anticentromere serology test results were negative. The patient denied decreased oral aperture, difficulty swallowing, or Raynaud phenomenon. Due to the atypical clinical presentation in the setting of PD-1 inhibitor therapy, the etiology of the eruption was potentially attributable to nivolumab. She was started on treatment with methotrexate 20 mg weekly and clobetasol cream 0.05% twice daily; she continued taking prednisone 5 mg daily. The cutaneous manifestations on the patient’s back completely resolved, and the legs continued to gradually improve on this regimen. Immunotherapy continued to be held due to skin toxicity.

Localized scleroderma is an autoimmune disorder characterized by inflammation and skin thickening. Overactive fibroblasts produce excess collagen, leading to the clinical symptoms of skin thickening, hardening, and discoloration.³ Lesions frequently develop on the arms, face, or legs and can present as patches or linear bands. Unlike systemic sclerosis, the internal organs typically are uninvolved; however, sclerotic lesions can be disfiguring and cause notable disability if they impede joint movement.

The PD-1/PD-L1 pathway is a negative regulator of the immune response that inactivates T cells and helps maintain self-tolerance. Modulation of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway and overexpression of PD-L1 are seen in various cancers as a mechanism to help malignant cells avoid immune destruction.⁴ Conversely, inhibition of this pathway can be used to stimulate an antitumor immune response. This checkpoint inhibition strategy has been highly successful for the treatment of various cancers including melanoma and non–small cell lung carcinoma. There are several checkpoint inhibitors approved in the United States that are used for cancer therapy and target the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, such as nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab.⁴ A downside of checkpoint inhibitor treatment is that uncontrolled T-cell activation can lead to irAEs, including cutaneous eruptions, pruritus, diarrhea, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, pneumonitis, and renal insufficiency.⁵ These toxicities are reversible if treated appropriately but can cause notable morbidity and mortality if left unrecognized. Cutaneous eruption is one of the most common irAEs associated with anti–PD-1 and anti–PD-L1 therapies and can limit therapeutic efficacy, as the drug may need to be held or discontinued due to the severity of the eruption.⁶ Mid-potency to high-potency topical corticosteroids and systemic antihistamines are first-line treatments of grades 1 and 2 skin toxicities associated with PD-1 inhibitor therapy. For eruptions classified as grades 3 or 4 or refractory grade 2, discontinuation of the drug and systemic corticosteroids is recommended.⁷

The cutaneous eruption in immunotherapy-mediated dermatitis is thought to be largely mediated by activated T cells infiltrating the dermis.⁸ In localized scleroderma, increased tumor necrosis factor α, IFN-γ, IFN-γ–induced protein 10, and granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor activity have been shown to correlate with disease activity.^9,10 Interestingly, increased tumor necrosis factor α and IFN-γ correlate with better response and increased overall survival in PD-1 inhibition therapy, suggesting a correlation between PD-1 inhibition and T helper activation as noted by the etiology of sclerosis in our patient.¹¹ Additionally, history of radiation was a confounding factor in the diagnosis of our patient, as both sclerodermoid reactions and chronic radiation dermatitis can present with dermal sclerosis. However, the progression of disease outside of the radiation field excluded this etiology. Although new-onset sclerodermoid reactions have been reported with PD-1 inhibitors, they have been described secondary to sclerodermoid reactions from treatment with pembrolizumab.^12,13 One case series reported a case of diffuse sclerodermoid reaction and a limited reaction in response to pembrolizumab treatment, while another case report described a relapse of generalized morphea in response to pembrolizumab treatment.^12,13 One case of relapsing morphea in response to nivolumab treatment for stage IV lung adenocarcinoma also has been reported.¹⁴

Cutaneous toxicities are one of the most common irAEs associated with checkpoint inhibitors and are seen in more than one-third of treated patients. Most frequently, these irAEs manifest as spongiotic dermatitis on histopathology, but a broad spectrum of cutaneous reactions have been observed.¹⁵ Although sclerodermoid reactions have been reported with PD-1 inhibitors, most are described secondary to sclerodermoid reactions with pembrolizumab and involve relapse of previously diagnosed morphea rather than new-onset disease.^12-14

Our case highlights new-onset localized scleroderma in the setting of nivolumab therapy that showed clinical improvement with methotrexate and topical and systemic steroids. This reaction pattern should be considered in all patients who develop cutaneous eruptions when treated with a PD-1 inhibitor. There should be a high index of suspicion for the potential occurrence of irAEs to ensure early recognition and treatment to minimize morbidity and maximize adherence to therapy for the underlying malignancy.

To the Editor:

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti–programmed cell death protein 1 (anti–PD-1) and anticytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated protein 4 therapies are a promising class of cancer therapeutics. However, they are associated with a variety of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including cutaneous toxicity.¹ The PD-1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathway is important for the maintenance of immune tolerance, and a blockade has been shown to lead to development of various autoimmune diseases.² We present the case of a patient who developed new-onset localized scleroderma during treatment with the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab.

A 65-year-old woman presented with a rash on the left thigh that was associated with pruritus, pain, and a pulling sensation. She had a history of stage IV lung adenocarcinoma, with a mass in the right upper lobe with metastatic foci to the left femur, right humerus, right hilar, and pretracheal lymph nodes. She received palliative radiation to the left femur and was started on carboplatin and pemetrexed. Metastasis to the liver was noted after completion of 6 cycles of therapy, and the patient’s treatment was changed to nivolumab. After 17 months on nivolumab therapy (2 years after initial diagnosis and 20 months after radiation therapy), she presented to our dermatology clinic with a cutaneous eruption on the buttocks that spread to the left thigh. The rash failed to improve after 1 month of treatment with emollients and triamcinolone cream 0.1%.

At the current presentation, which was 2 months after she initially presented to our clinic, dermatologic examination revealed erythematous and sclerotic plaques on the left lateral thigh (Figure 1A). Betamethasone cream 0.05% was prescribed, and nivolumab was discontinued due to progression of cutaneous symptoms. A punch biopsy from the left thigh demonstrated superficial dermal sclerosis that was suggestive of chronic radiation dermatitis; direct immunofluorescence testing was negative. The patient was started on prednisone 50 mg daily, which resulted in mild improvement in symptoms.

Within 6 months, new sclerotic plaques developed on the patient’s back and right thigh (Figure 1B). Because the lesions were located outside the radiation field of the left femur, a second biopsy was obtained from the right thigh. Histopathology revealed extensive dermal sclerosis and a perivascular lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate (Figure 2). An antinuclear antibody test was weakly positive (1:40, nucleolar pattern) with a negative extractable nuclear antigen panel result. Anti–double-stranded DNA, anti–topoisomerase 1, anti-Smith, antiribonucleoprotein, anti–Sjögren syndrome type A, anti–Sjögren syndrome type B, and anticentromere serology test results were negative. The patient denied decreased oral aperture, difficulty swallowing, or Raynaud phenomenon. Due to the atypical clinical presentation in the setting of PD-1 inhibitor therapy, the etiology of the eruption was potentially attributable to nivolumab. She was started on treatment with methotrexate 20 mg weekly and clobetasol cream 0.05% twice daily; she continued taking prednisone 5 mg daily. The cutaneous manifestations on the patient’s back completely resolved, and the legs continued to gradually improve on this regimen. Immunotherapy continued to be held due to skin toxicity.

Localized scleroderma is an autoimmune disorder characterized by inflammation and skin thickening. Overactive fibroblasts produce excess collagen, leading to the clinical symptoms of skin thickening, hardening, and discoloration.³ Lesions frequently develop on the arms, face, or legs and can present as patches or linear bands. Unlike systemic sclerosis, the internal organs typically are uninvolved; however, sclerotic lesions can be disfiguring and cause notable disability if they impede joint movement.

The PD-1/PD-L1 pathway is a negative regulator of the immune response that inactivates T cells and helps maintain self-tolerance. Modulation of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway and overexpression of PD-L1 are seen in various cancers as a mechanism to help malignant cells avoid immune destruction.⁴ Conversely, inhibition of this pathway can be used to stimulate an antitumor immune response. This checkpoint inhibition strategy has been highly successful for the treatment of various cancers including melanoma and non–small cell lung carcinoma. There are several checkpoint inhibitors approved in the United States that are used for cancer therapy and target the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, such as nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab.⁴ A downside of checkpoint inhibitor treatment is that uncontrolled T-cell activation can lead to irAEs, including cutaneous eruptions, pruritus, diarrhea, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, pneumonitis, and renal insufficiency.⁵ These toxicities are reversible if treated appropriately but can cause notable morbidity and mortality if left unrecognized. Cutaneous eruption is one of the most common irAEs associated with anti–PD-1 and anti–PD-L1 therapies and can limit therapeutic efficacy, as the drug may need to be held or discontinued due to the severity of the eruption.⁶ Mid-potency to high-potency topical corticosteroids and systemic antihistamines are first-line treatments of grades 1 and 2 skin toxicities associated with PD-1 inhibitor therapy. For eruptions classified as grades 3 or 4 or refractory grade 2, discontinuation of the drug and systemic corticosteroids is recommended.⁷

The cutaneous eruption in immunotherapy-mediated dermatitis is thought to be largely mediated by activated T cells infiltrating the dermis.⁸ In localized scleroderma, increased tumor necrosis factor α, IFN-γ, IFN-γ–induced protein 10, and granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor activity have been shown to correlate with disease activity.^9,10 Interestingly, increased tumor necrosis factor α and IFN-γ correlate with better response and increased overall survival in PD-1 inhibition therapy, suggesting a correlation between PD-1 inhibition and T helper activation as noted by the etiology of sclerosis in our patient.¹¹ Additionally, history of radiation was a confounding factor in the diagnosis of our patient, as both sclerodermoid reactions and chronic radiation dermatitis can present with dermal sclerosis. However, the progression of disease outside of the radiation field excluded this etiology. Although new-onset sclerodermoid reactions have been reported with PD-1 inhibitors, they have been described secondary to sclerodermoid reactions from treatment with pembrolizumab.^12,13 One case series reported a case of diffuse sclerodermoid reaction and a limited reaction in response to pembrolizumab treatment, while another case report described a relapse of generalized morphea in response to pembrolizumab treatment.^12,13 One case of relapsing morphea in response to nivolumab treatment for stage IV lung adenocarcinoma also has been reported.¹⁴

Cutaneous toxicities are one of the most common irAEs associated with checkpoint inhibitors and are seen in more than one-third of treated patients. Most frequently, these irAEs manifest as spongiotic dermatitis on histopathology, but a broad spectrum of cutaneous reactions have been observed.¹⁵ Although sclerodermoid reactions have been reported with PD-1 inhibitors, most are described secondary to sclerodermoid reactions with pembrolizumab and involve relapse of previously diagnosed morphea rather than new-onset disease.^12-14

Our case highlights new-onset localized scleroderma in the setting of nivolumab therapy that showed clinical improvement with methotrexate and topical and systemic steroids. This reaction pattern should be considered in all patients who develop cutaneous eruptions when treated with a PD-1 inhibitor. There should be a high index of suspicion for the potential occurrence of irAEs to ensure early recognition and treatment to minimize morbidity and maximize adherence to therapy for the underlying malignancy.