Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

Edgewell Personal Care Co., the maker of Banana Boat sunscreen, is recalling a scalp spray because it contains trace levels of benzene, a chemical that can cause cancer at high levels.

The company announced a voluntary recall for three batches of the Banana Boat Hair & Scalp Spray SPF 30, which came in 6-ounce bottles and was sold across the U.S. through various retailers and online, according to a recall alert by the Food and Drug Administration.

The three batches have a UPC label of 0-79656-04041-8 and fall under the lot codes 20016AF, 20084BF, and 21139AF, with the expiration dates of December 2022, February 2023, and April 2024, respectively.

“An internal review found that some samples of the product contained trace levels of benzene. While benzene is not an ingredient in any Banana Boat products, the review showed the unexpected levels of benzene came from the propellant that sprays the product out of the can,” according to the recall notice.

“Importantly, no other batches of Hair & Scalp (either before or after these batch codes) and no other Banana Boat products are in the scope of this recall and may continue to be used by consumers safely and as intended,” the company wrote.

Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen, the FDA wrote. Exposure to benzene can occur through the nose, mouth, and skin, and it can result in serious conditions such as leukemia, bone marrow cancer, and blood disorders.

“Benzene is ubiquitous in the environment. Humans around the world have daily exposures to it indoors and outdoors from multiple sources,” the company said. “Daily exposure to benzene in the recalled products would not be expected to cause adverse health consequences according to an independent health assessment using established exposure modeling guidelines.”

Edgewell said it hasn’t received any reports of bad events related to the recall. The company has told retailers to remove the affected batches from shelves.

Banana Boat will reimburse consumers who purchased a product with one of the affected lot codes, which are on the bottom of the can. In the meantime, consumers should stop using the affected product right away and discard it.

The recall comes a little over a year after Johnson & Johnson recalled five sunscreens due to low levels of benzene, according to The Associated Press. That recall included Aveeno and Neutrogena products in spray cans.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Edgewell Personal Care at 888-686-3988 Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET. People can also read more at the Banana Boat FAQ page or file for a refund directly on the Banana Boat Recall page.

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

Edgewell Personal Care Co., the maker of Banana Boat sunscreen, is recalling a scalp spray because it contains trace levels of benzene, a chemical that can cause cancer at high levels.

The company announced a voluntary recall for three batches of the Banana Boat Hair & Scalp Spray SPF 30, which came in 6-ounce bottles and was sold across the U.S. through various retailers and online, according to a recall alert by the Food and Drug Administration.

The three batches have a UPC label of 0-79656-04041-8 and fall under the lot codes 20016AF, 20084BF, and 21139AF, with the expiration dates of December 2022, February 2023, and April 2024, respectively.

“An internal review found that some samples of the product contained trace levels of benzene. While benzene is not an ingredient in any Banana Boat products, the review showed the unexpected levels of benzene came from the propellant that sprays the product out of the can,” according to the recall notice.

“Importantly, no other batches of Hair & Scalp (either before or after these batch codes) and no other Banana Boat products are in the scope of this recall and may continue to be used by consumers safely and as intended,” the company wrote.

Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen, the FDA wrote. Exposure to benzene can occur through the nose, mouth, and skin, and it can result in serious conditions such as leukemia, bone marrow cancer, and blood disorders.

“Benzene is ubiquitous in the environment. Humans around the world have daily exposures to it indoors and outdoors from multiple sources,” the company said. “Daily exposure to benzene in the recalled products would not be expected to cause adverse health consequences according to an independent health assessment using established exposure modeling guidelines.”

Edgewell said it hasn’t received any reports of bad events related to the recall. The company has told retailers to remove the affected batches from shelves.

Banana Boat will reimburse consumers who purchased a product with one of the affected lot codes, which are on the bottom of the can. In the meantime, consumers should stop using the affected product right away and discard it.

The recall comes a little over a year after Johnson & Johnson recalled five sunscreens due to low levels of benzene, according to The Associated Press. That recall included Aveeno and Neutrogena products in spray cans.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Edgewell Personal Care at 888-686-3988 Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET. People can also read more at the Banana Boat FAQ page or file for a refund directly on the Banana Boat Recall page.

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

Edgewell Personal Care Co., the maker of Banana Boat sunscreen, is recalling a scalp spray because it contains trace levels of benzene, a chemical that can cause cancer at high levels.

The company announced a voluntary recall for three batches of the Banana Boat Hair & Scalp Spray SPF 30, which came in 6-ounce bottles and was sold across the U.S. through various retailers and online, according to a recall alert by the Food and Drug Administration.

The three batches have a UPC label of 0-79656-04041-8 and fall under the lot codes 20016AF, 20084BF, and 21139AF, with the expiration dates of December 2022, February 2023, and April 2024, respectively.

“An internal review found that some samples of the product contained trace levels of benzene. While benzene is not an ingredient in any Banana Boat products, the review showed the unexpected levels of benzene came from the propellant that sprays the product out of the can,” according to the recall notice.

“Importantly, no other batches of Hair & Scalp (either before or after these batch codes) and no other Banana Boat products are in the scope of this recall and may continue to be used by consumers safely and as intended,” the company wrote.

Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen, the FDA wrote. Exposure to benzene can occur through the nose, mouth, and skin, and it can result in serious conditions such as leukemia, bone marrow cancer, and blood disorders.

“Benzene is ubiquitous in the environment. Humans around the world have daily exposures to it indoors and outdoors from multiple sources,” the company said. “Daily exposure to benzene in the recalled products would not be expected to cause adverse health consequences according to an independent health assessment using established exposure modeling guidelines.”

Edgewell said it hasn’t received any reports of bad events related to the recall. The company has told retailers to remove the affected batches from shelves.

Banana Boat will reimburse consumers who purchased a product with one of the affected lot codes, which are on the bottom of the can. In the meantime, consumers should stop using the affected product right away and discard it.

The recall comes a little over a year after Johnson & Johnson recalled five sunscreens due to low levels of benzene, according to The Associated Press. That recall included Aveeno and Neutrogena products in spray cans.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Edgewell Personal Care at 888-686-3988 Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET. People can also read more at the Banana Boat FAQ page or file for a refund directly on the Banana Boat Recall page.

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

A federal advisory panel stressed the need for further research about potential expanded use of devices in detection of skin cancer, with U.S. regulators readying for challenges in determining how well these tools need to work and how to address longstanding issues of racial equity in this field of medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration has scheduled two meetings to gather expert feedback about managing an expected expansion in the use of skin lesion apps and devices. Outside of the United States, there are apps promoted as being able to help spot skin lesions that should trigger a medical visit.

AGA Institute

The general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee began work on this topic on July 28, with a wide-ranging discussion about potential expanded use of computer-aided, skin lesion analyzer (SLA) devices. On Friday, the panel is considering an FDA proposal to shift the designation for an approved device for aiding dermatologists in skin cancer diagnoses from the most stringent regulatory category, class III, to the less restrictive class II.

The FDA called the meeting amid growing interest in using technology to aid in finding cancers, with some of these products already marketed to consumers outside of the United States. There are presently no legally marketed, FDA-cleared or FDA-approved SLA devices indicated for use by clinicians other than dermatologists or the lay public, the agency said in a briefing memo for the meeting. There are two devices with FDA approval, though, for aiding dermatologists. The FDA approved SciBase’s Nevisense in 2017 and Mela Sciences’ MelaFind, which has fallen out of use, in 2012. Both are class III devices.

But some companies intend to offer products for consumers in the United States. The company SkinVision, for example, has developed an app of the same name, which is intended to detect suspicious-looking skin spots via smartphone photos. SkinVision’s website says the product has been offered to consumers in Australia for remote skin checks since 2015. People in the Netherlands and United Kingdom also can use SkinVision, according to the company’s website. SkinVision says the company is working on providing the app for U.S. customers, “but we are not quite there yet.”

During the meeting, FDA panelists repeatedly emphasized the potential risks of these devices in terms of sensitivity (how often a test correctly generates a positive result) and of specificity (how often a test correctly generates a negative result).

New tools intended to aid in detection of skin cancer might produce too many false positives and thus trigger floods of worried patients seeking care and often facing unnecessary biopsies, the FDA panelists said. But more worrisome would be FDA clearance of tools that delivered too many false negative results, leaving people unaware of their cancers.

The standards would have to be set very high for new products, especially those intended for consumers, said FDA panelist Murad Alam, MD, a dermatologist and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Current technologies for analyzing skin lesions are not yet up to that task. Dr. Alam likened the situation to the hopes for self-driving cars.

“It sounds great in principle. If you read the predictions from 20 years ago, it should already have happened,” Dr. Alam said. “But we’re still struggling with that because there are serious points of failure.”

FDA panelist Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, also argued for well-designed studies to understand how consumers and clinicians would react to new tools.

“We have to define what prospective information, in the intended use setting, we need to feel comfortable saying that these tools could be in a layperson’s hand or a primary care person’s hand,” Dr. Rotemberg said.

The studies would not need to be large, especially in the case of nonmelanoma skin cancer, which is common, she added.

“There’s too much nuance here for us to be able to say: ‘This is what would happen,’ without testing it,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “I do not think these prospective studies would be very burdensome, but they would help us understand what the burden would be and what the costs would be and what the potential harms would be.”

Because of rules against disclosing corporate information, the FDA cannot tell the public about the kinds of inquiries it already may have fielded from companies interested in selling skin cancer detection tools.

But in response to a question during the FDA meeting, Binita Ashar, MD, a top official in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said there is interest in having these kinds of products sold in the United States as well.

“I can tell you that this a very timely discussion and questions that we’re posing to you are the questions that we’re encountering or that we have been grappling with,” Dr. Ashar said.

FDA panelists noted that many patients cannot get access easily to dermatology visits.

Companies seeking to develop SLA devices likely will market their tools as attempts to fill a gap that now exists in medical care.

But there will be challenges ahead in explaining to patients how to interpret readings from these tools, the FDA panelists said. Consumers should know these tools are meant to assist in diagnosis, and not to make it.

“I’m not sure the layperson will hear that,” said FDA panelist Paula E. Bourelly, MD, a dermatologist from Olney, Md.

As a result, use of SLA tools could create tension between physicians and patients, with consumers demanding biopsies after seeing readings they don’t understand.

“I do have great concerns about the layperson feeling overly confident and reducing the provider to a technician,” she said.

The FDA panelists were not asked to cast formal votes on any issues discussed during the meeting They instead engaged in broad discussions around questions posed by the FDA in three key areas:

• What standards should be used to confirm lesion diagnosis in clinical testing of the accuracy of SLA devices?
• What would be acceptable true false-positive and false-negative results (sensitivity and specificity) for different diagnoses and users?
• How can the FDA address health equity considerations based on variable incidence of skin lesions?

Developing standards

The FDA asked the panel to consider several scenarios for SLA devices and to discuss how standards might vary depending on the user of the device, whether it would be dermatologists, other clinicians, or consumers.

The agency sought comments in particular about using histological diagnosis (core specimen processing with a consensus diagnosis from an expert dermatopathologist panel). In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA argued that this approach provides the greatest certainty in the diagnosis.

“Device developers, however, cite concerns, both practical and ethical, in requiring biopsy of all lesions, particularly those that appear benign,” the FDA said. “They have proposed alternate means of defining ground truth, including consensus opinion of experts (of visual or dermoscopic examination of the lesion[s]), opinion of one expert (visual or dermoscopic examination), or other methods.”

In summarizing the discussion on this question, the FDA panel chairman, Hobart W. Harris, MD, MPH, a surgeon from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that there was broad support for histological data in clinical trials of SLA devices, with some allowance for cases where more hybrid approaches would be used.

There were also suggestions offered about designing trials and the need for biopsies of lesions that are clearly benign, as this would help gather data to help in developing algorithms.

Dr. Alam said care should be taken in explaining to study participants that they might have to undergo biopsies that they didn’t need, as part of the larger effort to gather data. This should be detailed in the consent form, he said.

“But I also think this is a relatively minor risk,” Dr. Alam said, comparing these biopsies to the blood samples that patients in many clinical studies routinely give.

“Are all of those blood draws necessary to track the change in whatever parameters that are being tracked? Probably not,” Dr. Alam said. “I think it would be possible to explain to a reasonable patient what this entails.”

Dr. Alam noted that companies might face extra hurdles in enrolling study participants and keeping them in the trials if the FDA seeks this kind of biopsy data. “But I don’t think inconvenience to the study sponsor is a good argument” for not seeking this kind of data, he added.

Leaving a loophole where certain kinds of clearly benign lesions don’t require a biopsy would eventually erode the quality of the research done on these devices. “That bar will be moved to accommodate the convenience of the sponsor, to make the study feasible,” Dr. Alam said. “And pretty soon, you’ll be missing a lot of patients that really should have biopsies.”
 

Acceptable rates of false positives, false negatives

The FDA panel chair noted that his colleagues had strongly urged review standards that would require that the devices improve on the rates of successful catches of suspicious lesions and lower false positives. But they did not endorse specific targets regarding the sensitivity and specificity rates.

“No one seems to be comfortable with providing or preordaining” these targets, Dr. Harris said.

Panelist Deneen Hesser, MSHSA, RN, urged a deep recognition of the power of a FDA clearance in the view of consumers.

“We need to be cognizant of what the term ‘FDA approved’ means to the lay individual,” said Ms. Hesser, who served as the patient representative on the panel. “A patient who sees that those tools are FDA approved will assume that each of those is the gold standard” in terms of expectations for delivering accurate results.

Like many of the panelists, Dr. Rotemberg urged the FDA to gather data about how patients would react to different messages encoded in consumer-oriented products.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“If the device says: ‘You should see a dermatologist for this’ and no other information, that’s very different from [saying]: ‘That lesion is suspicious for melanoma,’ ” Dr. Rotemberg said.

Despite the likely difficulties in conducting trials, the FDA needs to have the data to answer key questions about patient and physician reactions to readings from new tools, Dr. Rotemberg said.

“We don’t know how many additional biopsies we would cause with a specificity of 80%” for a new SLA tool, Dr. Rotemberg said, giving an example. “We don’t know how confident a dermatologist might be to say: ‘Actually, I’m not suspicious about that lesion and we can just fudge it or not biopsy it.’ We don’t know any of that until we study it in real life.”

The panelists also urged the FDA to seek to ensure that new tools used in analyzing skin lesions improve the quality of diagnosis.
 

Addressing equity

The FDA also asked the panel to weigh in on whether the agency should clear SLA tools in cases where the existing study data is drawn heavily from people considered to be at higher risk for skin cancer.

No credit needed per U.S. gov work.

“To ensure generalizability across the entire U.S. population, should FDA require SLAs indicated for use beyond cancerous lesions be tested in a representative U.S. population?” the FDA asked.

The three most common skin cancers – melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma – are more prevalent in people with Fitzpatrick I and II skin types, who tend to get sunburns, not tans. But people of color are more likely to develop melanoma in areas that are not sun exposed, such as the sole of the foot or under fingernails or toenails.

“Due in part to lower expected risk and screening, these melanomas are often detected late,” the FDA said in the briefing document.

There was broad consensus among panelists that the FDA should encourage companies to enroll people with all skin types and tones.

But they also looked for ways that the FDA could clear devices based on initial studies conducted largely with people considered to be at higher risk, with the agency then requiring follow-up trials to see how these products would work for the general U.S. population.

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

A federal advisory panel stressed the need for further research about potential expanded use of devices in detection of skin cancer, with U.S. regulators readying for challenges in determining how well these tools need to work and how to address longstanding issues of racial equity in this field of medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration has scheduled two meetings to gather expert feedback about managing an expected expansion in the use of skin lesion apps and devices. Outside of the United States, there are apps promoted as being able to help spot skin lesions that should trigger a medical visit.

AGA Institute

The general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee began work on this topic on July 28, with a wide-ranging discussion about potential expanded use of computer-aided, skin lesion analyzer (SLA) devices. On Friday, the panel is considering an FDA proposal to shift the designation for an approved device for aiding dermatologists in skin cancer diagnoses from the most stringent regulatory category, class III, to the less restrictive class II.

The FDA called the meeting amid growing interest in using technology to aid in finding cancers, with some of these products already marketed to consumers outside of the United States. There are presently no legally marketed, FDA-cleared or FDA-approved SLA devices indicated for use by clinicians other than dermatologists or the lay public, the agency said in a briefing memo for the meeting. There are two devices with FDA approval, though, for aiding dermatologists. The FDA approved SciBase’s Nevisense in 2017 and Mela Sciences’ MelaFind, which has fallen out of use, in 2012. Both are class III devices.

But some companies intend to offer products for consumers in the United States. The company SkinVision, for example, has developed an app of the same name, which is intended to detect suspicious-looking skin spots via smartphone photos. SkinVision’s website says the product has been offered to consumers in Australia for remote skin checks since 2015. People in the Netherlands and United Kingdom also can use SkinVision, according to the company’s website. SkinVision says the company is working on providing the app for U.S. customers, “but we are not quite there yet.”

During the meeting, FDA panelists repeatedly emphasized the potential risks of these devices in terms of sensitivity (how often a test correctly generates a positive result) and of specificity (how often a test correctly generates a negative result).

New tools intended to aid in detection of skin cancer might produce too many false positives and thus trigger floods of worried patients seeking care and often facing unnecessary biopsies, the FDA panelists said. But more worrisome would be FDA clearance of tools that delivered too many false negative results, leaving people unaware of their cancers.

The standards would have to be set very high for new products, especially those intended for consumers, said FDA panelist Murad Alam, MD, a dermatologist and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Current technologies for analyzing skin lesions are not yet up to that task. Dr. Alam likened the situation to the hopes for self-driving cars.

“It sounds great in principle. If you read the predictions from 20 years ago, it should already have happened,” Dr. Alam said. “But we’re still struggling with that because there are serious points of failure.”

FDA panelist Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, also argued for well-designed studies to understand how consumers and clinicians would react to new tools.

“We have to define what prospective information, in the intended use setting, we need to feel comfortable saying that these tools could be in a layperson’s hand or a primary care person’s hand,” Dr. Rotemberg said.

The studies would not need to be large, especially in the case of nonmelanoma skin cancer, which is common, she added.

“There’s too much nuance here for us to be able to say: ‘This is what would happen,’ without testing it,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “I do not think these prospective studies would be very burdensome, but they would help us understand what the burden would be and what the costs would be and what the potential harms would be.”

Because of rules against disclosing corporate information, the FDA cannot tell the public about the kinds of inquiries it already may have fielded from companies interested in selling skin cancer detection tools.

But in response to a question during the FDA meeting, Binita Ashar, MD, a top official in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said there is interest in having these kinds of products sold in the United States as well.

“I can tell you that this a very timely discussion and questions that we’re posing to you are the questions that we’re encountering or that we have been grappling with,” Dr. Ashar said.

FDA panelists noted that many patients cannot get access easily to dermatology visits.

Companies seeking to develop SLA devices likely will market their tools as attempts to fill a gap that now exists in medical care.

But there will be challenges ahead in explaining to patients how to interpret readings from these tools, the FDA panelists said. Consumers should know these tools are meant to assist in diagnosis, and not to make it.

“I’m not sure the layperson will hear that,” said FDA panelist Paula E. Bourelly, MD, a dermatologist from Olney, Md.

As a result, use of SLA tools could create tension between physicians and patients, with consumers demanding biopsies after seeing readings they don’t understand.

“I do have great concerns about the layperson feeling overly confident and reducing the provider to a technician,” she said.

The FDA panelists were not asked to cast formal votes on any issues discussed during the meeting They instead engaged in broad discussions around questions posed by the FDA in three key areas:

• What standards should be used to confirm lesion diagnosis in clinical testing of the accuracy of SLA devices?
• What would be acceptable true false-positive and false-negative results (sensitivity and specificity) for different diagnoses and users?
• How can the FDA address health equity considerations based on variable incidence of skin lesions?

Developing standards

The FDA asked the panel to consider several scenarios for SLA devices and to discuss how standards might vary depending on the user of the device, whether it would be dermatologists, other clinicians, or consumers.

The agency sought comments in particular about using histological diagnosis (core specimen processing with a consensus diagnosis from an expert dermatopathologist panel). In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA argued that this approach provides the greatest certainty in the diagnosis.

“Device developers, however, cite concerns, both practical and ethical, in requiring biopsy of all lesions, particularly those that appear benign,” the FDA said. “They have proposed alternate means of defining ground truth, including consensus opinion of experts (of visual or dermoscopic examination of the lesion[s]), opinion of one expert (visual or dermoscopic examination), or other methods.”

In summarizing the discussion on this question, the FDA panel chairman, Hobart W. Harris, MD, MPH, a surgeon from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that there was broad support for histological data in clinical trials of SLA devices, with some allowance for cases where more hybrid approaches would be used.

There were also suggestions offered about designing trials and the need for biopsies of lesions that are clearly benign, as this would help gather data to help in developing algorithms.

Dr. Alam said care should be taken in explaining to study participants that they might have to undergo biopsies that they didn’t need, as part of the larger effort to gather data. This should be detailed in the consent form, he said.

“But I also think this is a relatively minor risk,” Dr. Alam said, comparing these biopsies to the blood samples that patients in many clinical studies routinely give.

“Are all of those blood draws necessary to track the change in whatever parameters that are being tracked? Probably not,” Dr. Alam said. “I think it would be possible to explain to a reasonable patient what this entails.”

Dr. Alam noted that companies might face extra hurdles in enrolling study participants and keeping them in the trials if the FDA seeks this kind of biopsy data. “But I don’t think inconvenience to the study sponsor is a good argument” for not seeking this kind of data, he added.

Leaving a loophole where certain kinds of clearly benign lesions don’t require a biopsy would eventually erode the quality of the research done on these devices. “That bar will be moved to accommodate the convenience of the sponsor, to make the study feasible,” Dr. Alam said. “And pretty soon, you’ll be missing a lot of patients that really should have biopsies.”
 

Acceptable rates of false positives, false negatives

The FDA panel chair noted that his colleagues had strongly urged review standards that would require that the devices improve on the rates of successful catches of suspicious lesions and lower false positives. But they did not endorse specific targets regarding the sensitivity and specificity rates.

“No one seems to be comfortable with providing or preordaining” these targets, Dr. Harris said.

Panelist Deneen Hesser, MSHSA, RN, urged a deep recognition of the power of a FDA clearance in the view of consumers.

“We need to be cognizant of what the term ‘FDA approved’ means to the lay individual,” said Ms. Hesser, who served as the patient representative on the panel. “A patient who sees that those tools are FDA approved will assume that each of those is the gold standard” in terms of expectations for delivering accurate results.

Like many of the panelists, Dr. Rotemberg urged the FDA to gather data about how patients would react to different messages encoded in consumer-oriented products.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“If the device says: ‘You should see a dermatologist for this’ and no other information, that’s very different from [saying]: ‘That lesion is suspicious for melanoma,’ ” Dr. Rotemberg said.

Despite the likely difficulties in conducting trials, the FDA needs to have the data to answer key questions about patient and physician reactions to readings from new tools, Dr. Rotemberg said.

“We don’t know how many additional biopsies we would cause with a specificity of 80%” for a new SLA tool, Dr. Rotemberg said, giving an example. “We don’t know how confident a dermatologist might be to say: ‘Actually, I’m not suspicious about that lesion and we can just fudge it or not biopsy it.’ We don’t know any of that until we study it in real life.”

The panelists also urged the FDA to seek to ensure that new tools used in analyzing skin lesions improve the quality of diagnosis.
 

Addressing equity

The FDA also asked the panel to weigh in on whether the agency should clear SLA tools in cases where the existing study data is drawn heavily from people considered to be at higher risk for skin cancer.

No credit needed per U.S. gov work.

“To ensure generalizability across the entire U.S. population, should FDA require SLAs indicated for use beyond cancerous lesions be tested in a representative U.S. population?” the FDA asked.

The three most common skin cancers – melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma – are more prevalent in people with Fitzpatrick I and II skin types, who tend to get sunburns, not tans. But people of color are more likely to develop melanoma in areas that are not sun exposed, such as the sole of the foot or under fingernails or toenails.

“Due in part to lower expected risk and screening, these melanomas are often detected late,” the FDA said in the briefing document.

There was broad consensus among panelists that the FDA should encourage companies to enroll people with all skin types and tones.

But they also looked for ways that the FDA could clear devices based on initial studies conducted largely with people considered to be at higher risk, with the agency then requiring follow-up trials to see how these products would work for the general U.S. population.

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

A federal advisory panel stressed the need for further research about potential expanded use of devices in detection of skin cancer, with U.S. regulators readying for challenges in determining how well these tools need to work and how to address longstanding issues of racial equity in this field of medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration has scheduled two meetings to gather expert feedback about managing an expected expansion in the use of skin lesion apps and devices. Outside of the United States, there are apps promoted as being able to help spot skin lesions that should trigger a medical visit.

AGA Institute

The general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee began work on this topic on July 28, with a wide-ranging discussion about potential expanded use of computer-aided, skin lesion analyzer (SLA) devices. On Friday, the panel is considering an FDA proposal to shift the designation for an approved device for aiding dermatologists in skin cancer diagnoses from the most stringent regulatory category, class III, to the less restrictive class II.

The FDA called the meeting amid growing interest in using technology to aid in finding cancers, with some of these products already marketed to consumers outside of the United States. There are presently no legally marketed, FDA-cleared or FDA-approved SLA devices indicated for use by clinicians other than dermatologists or the lay public, the agency said in a briefing memo for the meeting. There are two devices with FDA approval, though, for aiding dermatologists. The FDA approved SciBase’s Nevisense in 2017 and Mela Sciences’ MelaFind, which has fallen out of use, in 2012. Both are class III devices.

But some companies intend to offer products for consumers in the United States. The company SkinVision, for example, has developed an app of the same name, which is intended to detect suspicious-looking skin spots via smartphone photos. SkinVision’s website says the product has been offered to consumers in Australia for remote skin checks since 2015. People in the Netherlands and United Kingdom also can use SkinVision, according to the company’s website. SkinVision says the company is working on providing the app for U.S. customers, “but we are not quite there yet.”

During the meeting, FDA panelists repeatedly emphasized the potential risks of these devices in terms of sensitivity (how often a test correctly generates a positive result) and of specificity (how often a test correctly generates a negative result).

New tools intended to aid in detection of skin cancer might produce too many false positives and thus trigger floods of worried patients seeking care and often facing unnecessary biopsies, the FDA panelists said. But more worrisome would be FDA clearance of tools that delivered too many false negative results, leaving people unaware of their cancers.

The standards would have to be set very high for new products, especially those intended for consumers, said FDA panelist Murad Alam, MD, a dermatologist and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Current technologies for analyzing skin lesions are not yet up to that task. Dr. Alam likened the situation to the hopes for self-driving cars.

“It sounds great in principle. If you read the predictions from 20 years ago, it should already have happened,” Dr. Alam said. “But we’re still struggling with that because there are serious points of failure.”

FDA panelist Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, also argued for well-designed studies to understand how consumers and clinicians would react to new tools.

“We have to define what prospective information, in the intended use setting, we need to feel comfortable saying that these tools could be in a layperson’s hand or a primary care person’s hand,” Dr. Rotemberg said.

The studies would not need to be large, especially in the case of nonmelanoma skin cancer, which is common, she added.

“There’s too much nuance here for us to be able to say: ‘This is what would happen,’ without testing it,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “I do not think these prospective studies would be very burdensome, but they would help us understand what the burden would be and what the costs would be and what the potential harms would be.”

Because of rules against disclosing corporate information, the FDA cannot tell the public about the kinds of inquiries it already may have fielded from companies interested in selling skin cancer detection tools.

But in response to a question during the FDA meeting, Binita Ashar, MD, a top official in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said there is interest in having these kinds of products sold in the United States as well.

“I can tell you that this a very timely discussion and questions that we’re posing to you are the questions that we’re encountering or that we have been grappling with,” Dr. Ashar said.

FDA panelists noted that many patients cannot get access easily to dermatology visits.

Companies seeking to develop SLA devices likely will market their tools as attempts to fill a gap that now exists in medical care.

But there will be challenges ahead in explaining to patients how to interpret readings from these tools, the FDA panelists said. Consumers should know these tools are meant to assist in diagnosis, and not to make it.

“I’m not sure the layperson will hear that,” said FDA panelist Paula E. Bourelly, MD, a dermatologist from Olney, Md.

As a result, use of SLA tools could create tension between physicians and patients, with consumers demanding biopsies after seeing readings they don’t understand.

“I do have great concerns about the layperson feeling overly confident and reducing the provider to a technician,” she said.

The FDA panelists were not asked to cast formal votes on any issues discussed during the meeting They instead engaged in broad discussions around questions posed by the FDA in three key areas:

• What standards should be used to confirm lesion diagnosis in clinical testing of the accuracy of SLA devices?
• What would be acceptable true false-positive and false-negative results (sensitivity and specificity) for different diagnoses and users?
• How can the FDA address health equity considerations based on variable incidence of skin lesions?

Developing standards

The FDA asked the panel to consider several scenarios for SLA devices and to discuss how standards might vary depending on the user of the device, whether it would be dermatologists, other clinicians, or consumers.

The agency sought comments in particular about using histological diagnosis (core specimen processing with a consensus diagnosis from an expert dermatopathologist panel). In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA argued that this approach provides the greatest certainty in the diagnosis.

“Device developers, however, cite concerns, both practical and ethical, in requiring biopsy of all lesions, particularly those that appear benign,” the FDA said. “They have proposed alternate means of defining ground truth, including consensus opinion of experts (of visual or dermoscopic examination of the lesion[s]), opinion of one expert (visual or dermoscopic examination), or other methods.”

In summarizing the discussion on this question, the FDA panel chairman, Hobart W. Harris, MD, MPH, a surgeon from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that there was broad support for histological data in clinical trials of SLA devices, with some allowance for cases where more hybrid approaches would be used.

There were also suggestions offered about designing trials and the need for biopsies of lesions that are clearly benign, as this would help gather data to help in developing algorithms.

Dr. Alam said care should be taken in explaining to study participants that they might have to undergo biopsies that they didn’t need, as part of the larger effort to gather data. This should be detailed in the consent form, he said.

“But I also think this is a relatively minor risk,” Dr. Alam said, comparing these biopsies to the blood samples that patients in many clinical studies routinely give.

“Are all of those blood draws necessary to track the change in whatever parameters that are being tracked? Probably not,” Dr. Alam said. “I think it would be possible to explain to a reasonable patient what this entails.”

Dr. Alam noted that companies might face extra hurdles in enrolling study participants and keeping them in the trials if the FDA seeks this kind of biopsy data. “But I don’t think inconvenience to the study sponsor is a good argument” for not seeking this kind of data, he added.

Leaving a loophole where certain kinds of clearly benign lesions don’t require a biopsy would eventually erode the quality of the research done on these devices. “That bar will be moved to accommodate the convenience of the sponsor, to make the study feasible,” Dr. Alam said. “And pretty soon, you’ll be missing a lot of patients that really should have biopsies.”
 

Acceptable rates of false positives, false negatives

The FDA panel chair noted that his colleagues had strongly urged review standards that would require that the devices improve on the rates of successful catches of suspicious lesions and lower false positives. But they did not endorse specific targets regarding the sensitivity and specificity rates.

“No one seems to be comfortable with providing or preordaining” these targets, Dr. Harris said.

Panelist Deneen Hesser, MSHSA, RN, urged a deep recognition of the power of a FDA clearance in the view of consumers.

“We need to be cognizant of what the term ‘FDA approved’ means to the lay individual,” said Ms. Hesser, who served as the patient representative on the panel. “A patient who sees that those tools are FDA approved will assume that each of those is the gold standard” in terms of expectations for delivering accurate results.

Like many of the panelists, Dr. Rotemberg urged the FDA to gather data about how patients would react to different messages encoded in consumer-oriented products.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“If the device says: ‘You should see a dermatologist for this’ and no other information, that’s very different from [saying]: ‘That lesion is suspicious for melanoma,’ ” Dr. Rotemberg said.

Despite the likely difficulties in conducting trials, the FDA needs to have the data to answer key questions about patient and physician reactions to readings from new tools, Dr. Rotemberg said.

“We don’t know how many additional biopsies we would cause with a specificity of 80%” for a new SLA tool, Dr. Rotemberg said, giving an example. “We don’t know how confident a dermatologist might be to say: ‘Actually, I’m not suspicious about that lesion and we can just fudge it or not biopsy it.’ We don’t know any of that until we study it in real life.”

The panelists also urged the FDA to seek to ensure that new tools used in analyzing skin lesions improve the quality of diagnosis.
 

Addressing equity

The FDA also asked the panel to weigh in on whether the agency should clear SLA tools in cases where the existing study data is drawn heavily from people considered to be at higher risk for skin cancer.

No credit needed per U.S. gov work.

“To ensure generalizability across the entire U.S. population, should FDA require SLAs indicated for use beyond cancerous lesions be tested in a representative U.S. population?” the FDA asked.

The three most common skin cancers – melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma – are more prevalent in people with Fitzpatrick I and II skin types, who tend to get sunburns, not tans. But people of color are more likely to develop melanoma in areas that are not sun exposed, such as the sole of the foot or under fingernails or toenails.

“Due in part to lower expected risk and screening, these melanomas are often detected late,” the FDA said in the briefing document.

There was broad consensus among panelists that the FDA should encourage companies to enroll people with all skin types and tones.

But they also looked for ways that the FDA could clear devices based on initial studies conducted largely with people considered to be at higher risk, with the agency then requiring follow-up trials to see how these products would work for the general U.S. population.

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

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Practice Gap

Dermatology residents can struggle with surgical closure early in their training years. Although experienced dermatologic surgeons may intuitively be able to align edges for maximal cosmesis, doing so can prove challenging in the context of learning basic surgical techniques for early residents.

Furthermore, local anesthesia can distort cutaneous anatomy and surgical landmarks, requiring the surgeon to reexamine their closure technique. Patients may require position changes or may make involuntary movements, both of which require dynamic thinking and planning on the part of the dermatologic surgeon to achieve optimal outcomes.

The Technique

We propose the use of sutures to intraoperatively guide placement of the dermal needle. This technique can be used for various closure types; here, we demonstrate its use in a standard elliptical excision.

To begin, a standard length to width ellipse ratio of 3:1 is drawn with appropriate margins around a neoplasm.¹ After excision and appropriate undermining of the ellipse, we typically use deep sutures to close the deep space. The first pass of the needle through tissue can be performed in a place of the surgeon’s preference but typically abides by the rule of halves or the zipper method (Figure 1A). To determine optimal placement of the second needle pass through tissue, we recommend applying gentle opposing traction forces to the wound apices to approximate the linear outcome of the wound edges. The surgeon can use a skin hook to guide placement of the needle to the contralateral wound edge in an unassisted method of this technique (Figure 1B). The surgeon’s assistant also can aid in applying cutaneous traction along the length of the excision if the surgeon wishes to free their hands (Figure 1C). Because the risk of needlestick injury at this step is small, it is prudent for the surgeon to advise the assistant to avoid needlestick injury by keeping their hands away from the needle path in the surgical site.

Although traction is being applied to the wound apices, the deep suture should extend across the wound with just enough pressure to leave a serosanguineous notched mark in the contralateral tissue edge (Figure 1D). After releasing traction on the wound edges, the surgeon can effortlessly visualize the target for needle placement and make a throw through the tissue accordingly.

This process can be continued until wound closure is complete (Figure 2). Top sutures or adhesive strips can be placed afterward for completing approximation of the wound edges superficially.

Practice Implications

By using this technique to align wound edges intraoperatively, the surgeon can have a functional guide for needle placement. The technique allows improvement of function and cosmesis of surgical wounds, while also accounting for topographical variations in the patient’s surgical site. Approximation of the wound edges is particularly important at the beginning of closure, as the wound edges align and approximate more with each subsequent stitch, with decreasing tension.²

In addition, when operating on a curvilinear or challenging topographical surface of the body, this technique can provide a clear template for guiding suture placement for approximating wound edges. Furthermore, local biodynamic anatomy might become distorted after excision of the tissue specimen due to release of centripetal tangential forces that were present in the pre-excised skin.¹ Local change in biodynamic forces may be difficult to plan for preoperatively using other techniques.³

Although this technique can be utilized for all suture placements in closure, it is of greatest value when placing the first few sutures and when operating on nonplanar surfaces that might become distorted after excision. To ensure the best outcome, it is important to be certain that the area has been properly cleaned prior to surgery and a sterile technique is used.

Practice Gap

Dermatology residents can struggle with surgical closure early in their training years. Although experienced dermatologic surgeons may intuitively be able to align edges for maximal cosmesis, doing so can prove challenging in the context of learning basic surgical techniques for early residents.

Furthermore, local anesthesia can distort cutaneous anatomy and surgical landmarks, requiring the surgeon to reexamine their closure technique. Patients may require position changes or may make involuntary movements, both of which require dynamic thinking and planning on the part of the dermatologic surgeon to achieve optimal outcomes.

The Technique

We propose the use of sutures to intraoperatively guide placement of the dermal needle. This technique can be used for various closure types; here, we demonstrate its use in a standard elliptical excision.

To begin, a standard length to width ellipse ratio of 3:1 is drawn with appropriate margins around a neoplasm.¹ After excision and appropriate undermining of the ellipse, we typically use deep sutures to close the deep space. The first pass of the needle through tissue can be performed in a place of the surgeon’s preference but typically abides by the rule of halves or the zipper method (Figure 1A). To determine optimal placement of the second needle pass through tissue, we recommend applying gentle opposing traction forces to the wound apices to approximate the linear outcome of the wound edges. The surgeon can use a skin hook to guide placement of the needle to the contralateral wound edge in an unassisted method of this technique (Figure 1B). The surgeon’s assistant also can aid in applying cutaneous traction along the length of the excision if the surgeon wishes to free their hands (Figure 1C). Because the risk of needlestick injury at this step is small, it is prudent for the surgeon to advise the assistant to avoid needlestick injury by keeping their hands away from the needle path in the surgical site.

Although traction is being applied to the wound apices, the deep suture should extend across the wound with just enough pressure to leave a serosanguineous notched mark in the contralateral tissue edge (Figure 1D). After releasing traction on the wound edges, the surgeon can effortlessly visualize the target for needle placement and make a throw through the tissue accordingly.

This process can be continued until wound closure is complete (Figure 2). Top sutures or adhesive strips can be placed afterward for completing approximation of the wound edges superficially.

Practice Implications

By using this technique to align wound edges intraoperatively, the surgeon can have a functional guide for needle placement. The technique allows improvement of function and cosmesis of surgical wounds, while also accounting for topographical variations in the patient’s surgical site. Approximation of the wound edges is particularly important at the beginning of closure, as the wound edges align and approximate more with each subsequent stitch, with decreasing tension.²

In addition, when operating on a curvilinear or challenging topographical surface of the body, this technique can provide a clear template for guiding suture placement for approximating wound edges. Furthermore, local biodynamic anatomy might become distorted after excision of the tissue specimen due to release of centripetal tangential forces that were present in the pre-excised skin.¹ Local change in biodynamic forces may be difficult to plan for preoperatively using other techniques.³

Although this technique can be utilized for all suture placements in closure, it is of greatest value when placing the first few sutures and when operating on nonplanar surfaces that might become distorted after excision. To ensure the best outcome, it is important to be certain that the area has been properly cleaned prior to surgery and a sterile technique is used.

Practice Gap

Dermatology residents can struggle with surgical closure early in their training years. Although experienced dermatologic surgeons may intuitively be able to align edges for maximal cosmesis, doing so can prove challenging in the context of learning basic surgical techniques for early residents.

Furthermore, local anesthesia can distort cutaneous anatomy and surgical landmarks, requiring the surgeon to reexamine their closure technique. Patients may require position changes or may make involuntary movements, both of which require dynamic thinking and planning on the part of the dermatologic surgeon to achieve optimal outcomes.

The Technique

We propose the use of sutures to intraoperatively guide placement of the dermal needle. This technique can be used for various closure types; here, we demonstrate its use in a standard elliptical excision.

To begin, a standard length to width ellipse ratio of 3:1 is drawn with appropriate margins around a neoplasm.¹ After excision and appropriate undermining of the ellipse, we typically use deep sutures to close the deep space. The first pass of the needle through tissue can be performed in a place of the surgeon’s preference but typically abides by the rule of halves or the zipper method (Figure 1A). To determine optimal placement of the second needle pass through tissue, we recommend applying gentle opposing traction forces to the wound apices to approximate the linear outcome of the wound edges. The surgeon can use a skin hook to guide placement of the needle to the contralateral wound edge in an unassisted method of this technique (Figure 1B). The surgeon’s assistant also can aid in applying cutaneous traction along the length of the excision if the surgeon wishes to free their hands (Figure 1C). Because the risk of needlestick injury at this step is small, it is prudent for the surgeon to advise the assistant to avoid needlestick injury by keeping their hands away from the needle path in the surgical site.

Although traction is being applied to the wound apices, the deep suture should extend across the wound with just enough pressure to leave a serosanguineous notched mark in the contralateral tissue edge (Figure 1D). After releasing traction on the wound edges, the surgeon can effortlessly visualize the target for needle placement and make a throw through the tissue accordingly.

This process can be continued until wound closure is complete (Figure 2). Top sutures or adhesive strips can be placed afterward for completing approximation of the wound edges superficially.

Practice Implications

By using this technique to align wound edges intraoperatively, the surgeon can have a functional guide for needle placement. The technique allows improvement of function and cosmesis of surgical wounds, while also accounting for topographical variations in the patient’s surgical site. Approximation of the wound edges is particularly important at the beginning of closure, as the wound edges align and approximate more with each subsequent stitch, with decreasing tension.²

In addition, when operating on a curvilinear or challenging topographical surface of the body, this technique can provide a clear template for guiding suture placement for approximating wound edges. Furthermore, local biodynamic anatomy might become distorted after excision of the tissue specimen due to release of centripetal tangential forces that were present in the pre-excised skin.¹ Local change in biodynamic forces may be difficult to plan for preoperatively using other techniques.³

Although this technique can be utilized for all suture placements in closure, it is of greatest value when placing the first few sutures and when operating on nonplanar surfaces that might become distorted after excision. To ensure the best outcome, it is important to be certain that the area has been properly cleaned prior to surgery and a sterile technique is used.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common keratinocyte carcinoma and affects more than 3 million individuals per year in the United States.¹ Approximately 40% of patients diagnosed with BCC will develop another BCC within 5 years of the initial diagnosis.² Most cases are successfully treated with surgical excision and occasionally topical therapy or radiotherapy. Despite the high cure rate with conventional treatments, BCC can recur and can cause substantial destruction of the surrounding tissue if left untreated.^3-5 In some instances, BCC can even metastasize and lead to death.⁶ For patients who are poor candidates for surgical or topical treatment modalities because of locally advanced BCC (laBCC) or metastatic BCC (mBCC), systemic treatment may be indicated. Vismodegib, sonidegib, and cemiplimab are the only systemic medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of laBCC and/or mBCC. Vismodegib and sonidegib target the sonic hedgehog (SHH) signaling pathway that is abnormally activated in more than 90% of BCCs.⁷ Cemiplimab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) that targets the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor.⁸ Herein, we review the clinical utility of these medications and their evolving roles in the treatment of BCC.

SHH Pathway Inhibitors

The SHH pathway is a key regulator of cell proliferation and differentiation during embryogenesis.⁷ During adulthood, SHH signaling decreases but still plays an important role in stem cell activation and in regulation of the hair follicle growth cycle.^9,10 However, de novo mutations in the genes that comprise the SHH pathway can result in aberrant constitutive activation, leading to unrestricted cell proliferation. Genetic mutations resulting in activation of Smoothened (SMO), a G-protein–coupled receptor involved in the signal transduction and propagation of the SHH pathway, have been implicated in the pathogenesis of BCC. Inactivating mutations also are commonly observed in patched homolog 1, an upstream cell-surface protein that inhibits SMO.⁷ The mechanism by which vismodegib and sonidegib, 2 of the FDA-approved oral medications for the treatment of advanced BCC, block the SHH pathway is through the selective inhibition of SMO.^7,11

Vismodegib first received FDA approval in 2012 for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC after initial results from the pivotal ERIVANCE phase 2 trial demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of 43% (27/63) and 30% (10/33) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic disease, respectively. In this single-arm study, all enrolled patients (63 with laBCC and 33 with mBCC) received 150 mg of oral vismodegib daily.¹² Updated results at 39 months demonstrated improved ORRs of 60% (38/63) and 48% (16/33) for the laBCC and mBCC groups, respectively. A complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) were observed in 32% (n=20) and 29% (n=18) of patients with laBCC, respectively.¹³ These results have been confirmed in subsequent studies, including the large international open-label trial known as STEVIE, with ORRs of 68.5% for 1119 cases of laBCC and 37% for 96 cases of mBCC.^14-17 The CR and PR rates were 33% and 35%, respectively, for the laBCC group. The CR and PR rates for the mBCC group were 5% and 32%, respectively.¹⁴

The FDA approval of sonidegib for laBCC—but not mBCC—occurred in 2015 after the pivotal BOLT randomized phase 2 trial demonstrated an initial ORR of 43% (18/42) for laBCC and 15% (2/13) for mBCC after administration of 200 mg of sonidegib daily.¹⁸ A final follow-up analysis at 42 months resulted in ORRs of 56% (37/66) and 8% (1/13) for the laBCC and mBCC groups, respectively.¹⁹ Additionally, improved efficacy was not observed in the 151 patients who were randomized to receive treatment with the higher 800-mg dose; however, they did experience a higher incidence of adverse events.^18,19

Currently, the true clinical differences between vismodegib and sonidegib remain uncertain, as no head-to-head trials have been conducted. Moreover, direct comparison of the data from the ERIVANCE and BOLT trials is challenging owing to fundamental differences in methodologic design, including the criteria used to assess BCC severity. The ERIVANCE trial utilized the conventional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), while BOLT used the rigorous modified RECIST. However, an expert consensus study attempted to compare the 2 trials by modifying the outcomes from BOLT with the former RECIST criteria. The expert group found that the 2 SHH inhibitors had comparable efficacy and adverse event profiles.²⁰ Nevertheless, a recent meta-analysis found that although ORRs for laBCC were similar between the 2 drugs, the CR rate for vismodegib was 31% compared with 3% for sonidegib. Additionally, for mBCC, they reported the ORR of vismodegib to be 2.7 times higher than that of sonidegib (39% vs 15%).²¹

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have successfully been utilized in the treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC); however, their use for treating BCC has been limited until recently.^22-25 In February 2021, cemiplimab became the first and only ICI approved for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC in patients who did not respond to or were intolerant to prior SHH inhibitor therapy.²⁶ Cemiplimab—a human monoclonal antibody against the PD-1 receptor expressed on T cells—blocks its interaction with programmed cell death ligand 1 and programmed cell death ligand 2 present on tumor cells. The blockade of the PD-1 pathway releases the inhibition of the antitumor immune response and enables appropriate cytotoxic T-cell activity to occur.⁸

The FDA approval of cemiplimab for the treatment of advanced BCC was based on an open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase 2 trial (NCT03132636) evaluating 84 patients with laBCC refractory or intolerant to SHH inhibitor therapy.²⁶ Patients received an intravenous infusion of cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 93 weeks or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. An ORR of 31% (26/84) was observed with a CR and PR of 6% (5/84) and 25% (21/84), respectively. The median duration of follow-up was 15 months.²⁶ Given the clinically meaningful results of this trial, investigating the efficacy of other PD-1 inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab, for treatment of advanced BCC may prove worthwhile.

The 2 approved SHH inhibitors—vismodegib and sonidegib—appear to have similar side-effect profiles, with the most common adverse effects being muscle spasms, dysgeusia, alopecia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss, and fatigue.^20,21,27 These side effects occur at high frequencies (>40%) for both SHH inhibitors and often lead to discontinuation of the medication.²¹ Rates of treatment discontinuation range from 15% to 50% on average.^12-14,18 Fortunately, the majority of these adverse effects do not appear to increase in severity or frequency with prolonged use of these medications.^14,16,28

Various conservative and pharmacologic measures can be implemented to help manage side effects. For muscle spasms, which are the most commonly reported adverse effect, supplementation with magnesium, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, acupuncture, massages, stretching, and thermal compresses can potentially be beneficial.²⁹ Calcium channel blockers also may be effective, as one small prospective cohort study reported a reduction in the frequency of muscle cramps with amlodipine 10 mg daily.³⁰ For alopecia, which typically is reversible and caused by SHH inhibition of the normal hair cycle, minoxidil theoretically can help, as it reduces telogen arrest and extends the anagen growth phase.^31,32 Although usually mild and self-limiting, management of dysgeusia, weight loss, and gastrointestinal upset often can be managed with dietary changes, such as smaller, more frequent meals.^33,34 Finally, alternative dosing strategies and drug holidays have been employed to mitigate these side effects and increase drug tolerability.^35,36 These are discussed in the Alternative Dosing section.

Given the essential role of the SHH pathway in embryologic development, SHH inhibitors carry a black box warning of embryofetal teratogenicity and are contraindicated in females who are pregnant or breastfeeding. For females of reproductive potential, verification of pregnancy status should be performed prior to initiating treatment with an SHH inhibitor. These patients should be counseled on the use of contraception during treatment and for at least 24 months and 20 months after cessation of vismodegib and sonidegib, respectively.^27,37,38 Male patients, even after a vasectomy, should use barrier contraception during treatment and for at least 3 months and 8 months after the final dose of vismodegib and sonidegib, respectively.^37,38

Laboratory abnormalities commonly associated with SHH inhibitors include elevated hepatic enzymes, particularly with vismodegib, and elevated creatine kinase levels, particularly with sonidegib.^28,39 Other laboratory abnormalities that can occur include hypercholesterolemia, hypercreatininemia, hyperglycemia, and increased serum lipase levels.^19,28 Although these laboratory abnormalities usually are asymptomatic and self-limiting, regular monitoring should be performed.

There also is concern that SHH inhibitors may induce the development of cSCC. A case-control study of 55 cases and 125 control patients found an increased risk for cSCC in those previously treated with vismodegib, with a hazard ratio of 8.12.⁴⁰ However, a subsequent retrospective cohort study of 1675 patients with BCC failed to find any association with cSCC among those treated with vismodegib compared to those who received standard surgical therapy.⁴¹ Clinical data for sonidegib are lacking, but the BOLT trial found that cSCC occurred in 3 patients receiving treatment with the SHH inhibitor.¹⁸ Thus, further studies are needed to more thoroughly assess this concern. Close monitoring for cSCC may be warranted in patients prescribed SHH inhibitors at this time.

Cemiplimab has demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and is generally well tolerated. In the phase 2 trial of cemiplimab for cSCC, approximately 5% of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse effects. The most commonly reported side effects of cemiplimab were diarrhea (27%), fatigue (24%), nausea (17%), constipation (15%), and rash (15%).²³ In the phase 2 trial for laBCC, grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients, with hypertension (5%) being the most common.²⁶ Although rare, immune-mediated adverse reactions also can occur, given the mechanism of action of ICIs. These side effects, ranging in severity from mild to fatal, include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, nephritis, myocarditis, and hypophysitis. Therefore, close monitoring for these immune-mediated reactions is critical, but most can be managed with corticosteroids or treatment interruption if they occur.^42,43

No absolute contraindications exist for cemiplimab; however, extreme caution should be taken in immunosuppressed individuals, such as solid organ transplant recipients and those with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), as safety data are limited in these patients.^44,45 Although small retrospective studies have reported reasonable tolerability in solid organ transplant recipients treated with ICIs, an allograft rejection rate of 41% was found in a meta-analysis of 64 patients.^46-48 In CLL patients with keratinocyte carcinomas, ICIs have been safely used and have even demonstrated efficacy for CLL in some cases.^49-52

Alternative Dosing

The side effects of SHH inhibitors have led to alternative dosing strategies to prevent medication discontinuation and improve adherence. In patients with basal cell nevus syndrome, multimonth drug holidays have been shown to increase drug tolerability without compromising efficacy.^35,36 Weekly intermittent dosing regimens of vismodegib ranging from 1 week on followed by 1 to 3 weeks off demonstrated efficacy in a retrospective study of 7 patients with advanced BCC.⁵³ All 7 patients experienced improvement in their BCCs, with 3 patients experiencing CR. Importantly, treatment-related adverse effects were mild and well tolerated, with no patients terminating the medication.⁵³ Two other retrospective case series of patients with advanced BCC treated with vismodegib reported similar findings for those placed on an intermittent dosing schedule ranging from once every other day to once per week.^54,55

In the large phase 2 randomized trial known as MIKIE, 2 different intermittent dosing regimens of 150 mg vismodegib daily for patients with multiple BCCs were found to have good activity and tolerability.⁵⁶ The first group (n=116) received vismodegib for 12 weeks, then 3 rounds of 8 weeks of placebo, followed by 12 weeks of vismodegib; there was a 63% reduction in clinically evident BCCs after 73 weeks. The second group (n=113) received the medication for 24 weeks, then 3 rounds of 8 weeks of placebo, followed by 8 weeks of vismodegib; there was a 54% reduction at the end of 73 weeks.⁵⁶ Subsequent analyses found improvements in health-related quality-of-life outcomes that were similar for both groups.⁵⁷

Consequently, alternative dosing schedules appear to be a viable option for patients at risk of discontinuing treatment because of adverse effects, and current data support the recently approved recommendations of dose interruptions of up to 8 weeks to manage adverse effects in patients with laBCC or mBCC.⁵⁸ Nevertheless, further clinical studies are required to determine the optimal intermittent dosing regimen for patients treated with SHH inhibitors.

Neoadjuvant Administration

Recently, vismodegib has been studied as a neoadjuvant therapy for BCC with promising results. Several small retrospective studies and case reports have documented successful treatment of both operable and inoperable periocular laBCC, with preservation of the eye in all patients.^59-61 An open-label trial of 15 patients with advanced BCC who received neoadjuvant vismodegib for 3 to 6 months prior to surgical excision reported a mean reduction of 35% in the final surgical defect size, with no recurrence at 22 months.^62,63 The latest and largest study performed was a phase 2 open-label trial known as VISMONEO, where 44 of 55 laBCC patients (80%) receiving neoadjuvant vismodegib for a mean duration of 6 months (range, 4–10 months) achieved the primary end point of tumor surgical downstaging.⁶⁴ Of the 44 patients who had tumor downstaging, 27 (61%) experienced histologically proven CRs. Additionally, a 66% reduction in the average target lesion size was reported in this group compared to29% in the 11 patients who did not have tumor downstaging (P=.0002).⁶⁴ Thus, SHH inhibitors may hold an important neoadjuvant role in the treatment of BCC by decreasing surgical defect size and allowing for surgical management of previously inoperable cases.

Synergism With Radiation

Preliminary data suggest SHH inhibitors may help potentiate the effects of radiation therapy for the treatment of BCC. Currently, the evidence primarily is limited to case studies, with several reports describing complete remission in patients with advanced BCCs who were considered unsuitable candidates for surgery. In these cases, vismodegib was administered either prior to or concurrently with radiation treatment.^65-69 An in vitro study also documented the radiation-sensitizing effects of vismodegib in a BCC cell line.⁷⁰ Recently, a phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01835626) evaluating the concurrent use of vismodegib and radiotherapy for patients with advanced BCC was completed, but data has yet to be published.

Synergism With and Benefit of Antifungal Therapy

The antifungal drug itraconazole is a potent inhibitor of the SHH pathway and may have an adjunctive role in the treatment of BCC. Similar to vismodegib and sonidegib, itraconazole acts as a direct antagonist of SMO. However, it is thought to bind to a distinct site on SMO.^71,72 An open-label, exploratory phase 2 trial of 19 patients with BCC found that oral itraconazole 200 to 400 mg daily decreased tumor proliferative index by 45% (P=.04), as measured by Ki-67; SHH activity by 65% (P=.03), as measured by GLI1 messenger RNA; and mean tumor area by 24%.⁷³ In a case series of 5 patients with mBCC refractory to conventional SHH inhibitor therapy, combined treatment with itraconazole and arsenic trioxide resulted in stable disease and a 75% reduction in SHH activity (P<.001).⁷⁴ One case report documented tumor regression leading to stable disease for 15 months in a patient with laBCC treated with itraconazole monotherapy due to being unable to afford vismodegib or sonidegib. However, within 2 months of treatment discontinuation, the lesion progressed considerably.⁷⁵ The efficacy of a topical formulation of itraconazole also has been tested in an open-label, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, but no benefit was observed.⁷⁶

Posaconazole is a second-generation antifungal agent that may serve as a potential alternative to itraconazole.⁷⁷ Although clinical data are lacking, a basic science study found that posaconazole could inhibit the growth of SHH-dependent BCC in vivo (in mice).⁷⁸ Furthermore, posaconazole has demonstrated a better safety profile with fewer and more mild side effects than itraconazole and does not require dose adjustment for those with hepatic or renal failure.^79,80 Thus, posaconazole may be a safer alternative to itraconazole for the treatment of BCC. Further clinical studies are needed to elucidate the potential synergistic effects of these antifungal agents with the 2 currently approved SHH inhibitors for the treatment of advanced BCC.

Treatment resistance to SHH inhibitors, though uncommon, is a growing concern. Acquired mutations in the SMO binding site or downstream mediators of the SHH pathway have been shown to confer resistance to vismodegib and sonidegib.^72,81-83 In addition, it appears that there may be shared resistance among the drugs in this class. One study assessing the efficacy of sonidegib in 9 patients with laBCC resistant to vismodegib found that these patients also did not respond to sonidegib.⁸⁴ Interestingly, 1 case report documented tumor regression of an intracranial BCC in a patient treated with sonidegib and itraconazole after failure with vismodegib.⁸⁵ An in vitro study also found that itraconazole maintained SHH inhibitory activity for all drug-resistant SMO mutations that have been reported.⁷² Therefore, itraconazole monotherapy or combination therapy with a canonical SHH inhibitor may be considered for patients with recalcitrant BCC and warrants further investigation.

Taladegib is a newly developed SMO inhibitor that may serve as another promising alternative for patients who develop resistance to vismodegib or sonidegib. A phase 1 trial of taladegib for advanced BCC found an ORR of 69% (11/16) in the SHH inhibitor–naïve group and an ORR of 36% (11/32) in the group previously treated with a SHH inhibitor.⁸⁶ Additionally, the safety profile and frequency of adverse effects appear to be similar to those associated with vismodegib and sonidegib.^86,87 Unfortunately, no clinical trials evaluating taladegib for BCC are ongoing or in development at this time.

Recurrence

There appears to be a relatively high rate of recurrence for BCC patients who achieve a CR to SHH inhibitors. In a retrospective study of 116 laBCC patients who experienced a CR after vismodegib therapy, 54 patients (47%) relapsed at 36 months. Among the 54 patients that relapsed, 27 were re-treated with vismodegib, which resulted in an ORR of 85% (23/27), a CR rate of 37% (10/27), and a PR rate of 48% (13/27).⁸⁸ Another retrospective study of 35 laBCC patients who relapsed after vismodegib treatment reported a 31% (11/35) clinical recurrence rate at 6-month follow-up.⁸⁹ An observational retrospective study also assessed the efficacy of SHH inhibitor maintenance therapy for advanced BCC patients who achieved a CR.⁹⁰ In the study, 27 (64%) patients received a maintenance dose of 150 mg vismodegib once per week for 1 year, while 15 (36%) patients decided not to take a maintenance dose following CR of their BCC. All patients who took the maintenance therapy did not experience clinical recurrence at 1-year follow-up, whereas 26% of patients not on the maintenance dose relapsed.⁹⁰ Consequently, these results indicate that BCC recurrence is frequent after SHH inhibitor therapy and highlights the importance of close surveillance after CR is attained. Nevertheless, most patients still respond to treatment with SHH inhibitors after relapsing, and intermittent maintenance doses may be an effective means to reduce risk of recurrence.

Conclusion

Vismodegib and sonidegib are SHH inhibitors approved for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC. Cemiplimab is now also approved for patients who do not respond to SHH inhibitors or for whom SHH inhibitors are not tolerable. Although these systemic targeted therapies can lead to notable tumor shrinkage and even complete regression in some patients, recurrence is common, and adverse effects may limit their use. Drug resistance is an emerging issue that requires additional examination. Further clinical studies are needed to determine which patients are likely to respond to these targeted treatments.

Various intermittent and maintenance drug regimens should be evaluated for their potential to mitigate adverse effects and reduce risk of recurrence, respectively. The synergistic effects of these medications with other therapies as well as their neoadjuvant and adjuvant roles should be further investigated. For example, administration of an SHH inhibitor prior to surgical excision of a BCC may allow for a smaller surgical defect size, thereby improving cosmetic and functional outcomes. Moreover, these systemic targeted medications may allow for previously inoperable tumors to become amenable to surgical treatment.

Although SHH inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors represent a major advancement in the field of oncodermatology, real-world efficacy and safety data in the upcoming years will be important for elucidating their true benefit for patients with BCC.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common keratinocyte carcinoma and affects more than 3 million individuals per year in the United States.¹ Approximately 40% of patients diagnosed with BCC will develop another BCC within 5 years of the initial diagnosis.² Most cases are successfully treated with surgical excision and occasionally topical therapy or radiotherapy. Despite the high cure rate with conventional treatments, BCC can recur and can cause substantial destruction of the surrounding tissue if left untreated.^3-5 In some instances, BCC can even metastasize and lead to death.⁶ For patients who are poor candidates for surgical or topical treatment modalities because of locally advanced BCC (laBCC) or metastatic BCC (mBCC), systemic treatment may be indicated. Vismodegib, sonidegib, and cemiplimab are the only systemic medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of laBCC and/or mBCC. Vismodegib and sonidegib target the sonic hedgehog (SHH) signaling pathway that is abnormally activated in more than 90% of BCCs.⁷ Cemiplimab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) that targets the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor.⁸ Herein, we review the clinical utility of these medications and their evolving roles in the treatment of BCC.

SHH Pathway Inhibitors

The SHH pathway is a key regulator of cell proliferation and differentiation during embryogenesis.⁷ During adulthood, SHH signaling decreases but still plays an important role in stem cell activation and in regulation of the hair follicle growth cycle.^9,10 However, de novo mutations in the genes that comprise the SHH pathway can result in aberrant constitutive activation, leading to unrestricted cell proliferation. Genetic mutations resulting in activation of Smoothened (SMO), a G-protein–coupled receptor involved in the signal transduction and propagation of the SHH pathway, have been implicated in the pathogenesis of BCC. Inactivating mutations also are commonly observed in patched homolog 1, an upstream cell-surface protein that inhibits SMO.⁷ The mechanism by which vismodegib and sonidegib, 2 of the FDA-approved oral medications for the treatment of advanced BCC, block the SHH pathway is through the selective inhibition of SMO.^7,11

Vismodegib first received FDA approval in 2012 for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC after initial results from the pivotal ERIVANCE phase 2 trial demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of 43% (27/63) and 30% (10/33) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic disease, respectively. In this single-arm study, all enrolled patients (63 with laBCC and 33 with mBCC) received 150 mg of oral vismodegib daily.¹² Updated results at 39 months demonstrated improved ORRs of 60% (38/63) and 48% (16/33) for the laBCC and mBCC groups, respectively. A complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) were observed in 32% (n=20) and 29% (n=18) of patients with laBCC, respectively.¹³ These results have been confirmed in subsequent studies, including the large international open-label trial known as STEVIE, with ORRs of 68.5% for 1119 cases of laBCC and 37% for 96 cases of mBCC.^14-17 The CR and PR rates were 33% and 35%, respectively, for the laBCC group. The CR and PR rates for the mBCC group were 5% and 32%, respectively.¹⁴

The FDA approval of sonidegib for laBCC—but not mBCC—occurred in 2015 after the pivotal BOLT randomized phase 2 trial demonstrated an initial ORR of 43% (18/42) for laBCC and 15% (2/13) for mBCC after administration of 200 mg of sonidegib daily.¹⁸ A final follow-up analysis at 42 months resulted in ORRs of 56% (37/66) and 8% (1/13) for the laBCC and mBCC groups, respectively.¹⁹ Additionally, improved efficacy was not observed in the 151 patients who were randomized to receive treatment with the higher 800-mg dose; however, they did experience a higher incidence of adverse events.^18,19

Currently, the true clinical differences between vismodegib and sonidegib remain uncertain, as no head-to-head trials have been conducted. Moreover, direct comparison of the data from the ERIVANCE and BOLT trials is challenging owing to fundamental differences in methodologic design, including the criteria used to assess BCC severity. The ERIVANCE trial utilized the conventional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), while BOLT used the rigorous modified RECIST. However, an expert consensus study attempted to compare the 2 trials by modifying the outcomes from BOLT with the former RECIST criteria. The expert group found that the 2 SHH inhibitors had comparable efficacy and adverse event profiles.²⁰ Nevertheless, a recent meta-analysis found that although ORRs for laBCC were similar between the 2 drugs, the CR rate for vismodegib was 31% compared with 3% for sonidegib. Additionally, for mBCC, they reported the ORR of vismodegib to be 2.7 times higher than that of sonidegib (39% vs 15%).²¹

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have successfully been utilized in the treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC); however, their use for treating BCC has been limited until recently.^22-25 In February 2021, cemiplimab became the first and only ICI approved for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC in patients who did not respond to or were intolerant to prior SHH inhibitor therapy.²⁶ Cemiplimab—a human monoclonal antibody against the PD-1 receptor expressed on T cells—blocks its interaction with programmed cell death ligand 1 and programmed cell death ligand 2 present on tumor cells. The blockade of the PD-1 pathway releases the inhibition of the antitumor immune response and enables appropriate cytotoxic T-cell activity to occur.⁸

The FDA approval of cemiplimab for the treatment of advanced BCC was based on an open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase 2 trial (NCT03132636) evaluating 84 patients with laBCC refractory or intolerant to SHH inhibitor therapy.²⁶ Patients received an intravenous infusion of cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 93 weeks or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. An ORR of 31% (26/84) was observed with a CR and PR of 6% (5/84) and 25% (21/84), respectively. The median duration of follow-up was 15 months.²⁶ Given the clinically meaningful results of this trial, investigating the efficacy of other PD-1 inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab, for treatment of advanced BCC may prove worthwhile.

The 2 approved SHH inhibitors—vismodegib and sonidegib—appear to have similar side-effect profiles, with the most common adverse effects being muscle spasms, dysgeusia, alopecia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss, and fatigue.^20,21,27 These side effects occur at high frequencies (>40%) for both SHH inhibitors and often lead to discontinuation of the medication.²¹ Rates of treatment discontinuation range from 15% to 50% on average.^12-14,18 Fortunately, the majority of these adverse effects do not appear to increase in severity or frequency with prolonged use of these medications.^14,16,28

Various conservative and pharmacologic measures can be implemented to help manage side effects. For muscle spasms, which are the most commonly reported adverse effect, supplementation with magnesium, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, acupuncture, massages, stretching, and thermal compresses can potentially be beneficial.²⁹ Calcium channel blockers also may be effective, as one small prospective cohort study reported a reduction in the frequency of muscle cramps with amlodipine 10 mg daily.³⁰ For alopecia, which typically is reversible and caused by SHH inhibition of the normal hair cycle, minoxidil theoretically can help, as it reduces telogen arrest and extends the anagen growth phase.^31,32 Although usually mild and self-limiting, management of dysgeusia, weight loss, and gastrointestinal upset often can be managed with dietary changes, such as smaller, more frequent meals.^33,34 Finally, alternative dosing strategies and drug holidays have been employed to mitigate these side effects and increase drug tolerability.^35,36 These are discussed in the Alternative Dosing section.

Given the essential role of the SHH pathway in embryologic development, SHH inhibitors carry a black box warning of embryofetal teratogenicity and are contraindicated in females who are pregnant or breastfeeding. For females of reproductive potential, verification of pregnancy status should be performed prior to initiating treatment with an SHH inhibitor. These patients should be counseled on the use of contraception during treatment and for at least 24 months and 20 months after cessation of vismodegib and sonidegib, respectively.^27,37,38 Male patients, even after a vasectomy, should use barrier contraception during treatment and for at least 3 months and 8 months after the final dose of vismodegib and sonidegib, respectively.^37,38

Laboratory abnormalities commonly associated with SHH inhibitors include elevated hepatic enzymes, particularly with vismodegib, and elevated creatine kinase levels, particularly with sonidegib.^28,39 Other laboratory abnormalities that can occur include hypercholesterolemia, hypercreatininemia, hyperglycemia, and increased serum lipase levels.^19,28 Although these laboratory abnormalities usually are asymptomatic and self-limiting, regular monitoring should be performed.

There also is concern that SHH inhibitors may induce the development of cSCC. A case-control study of 55 cases and 125 control patients found an increased risk for cSCC in those previously treated with vismodegib, with a hazard ratio of 8.12.⁴⁰ However, a subsequent retrospective cohort study of 1675 patients with BCC failed to find any association with cSCC among those treated with vismodegib compared to those who received standard surgical therapy.⁴¹ Clinical data for sonidegib are lacking, but the BOLT trial found that cSCC occurred in 3 patients receiving treatment with the SHH inhibitor.¹⁸ Thus, further studies are needed to more thoroughly assess this concern. Close monitoring for cSCC may be warranted in patients prescribed SHH inhibitors at this time.

Cemiplimab has demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and is generally well tolerated. In the phase 2 trial of cemiplimab for cSCC, approximately 5% of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse effects. The most commonly reported side effects of cemiplimab were diarrhea (27%), fatigue (24%), nausea (17%), constipation (15%), and rash (15%).²³ In the phase 2 trial for laBCC, grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients, with hypertension (5%) being the most common.²⁶ Although rare, immune-mediated adverse reactions also can occur, given the mechanism of action of ICIs. These side effects, ranging in severity from mild to fatal, include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, nephritis, myocarditis, and hypophysitis. Therefore, close monitoring for these immune-mediated reactions is critical, but most can be managed with corticosteroids or treatment interruption if they occur.^42,43

No absolute contraindications exist for cemiplimab; however, extreme caution should be taken in immunosuppressed individuals, such as solid organ transplant recipients and those with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), as safety data are limited in these patients.^44,45 Although small retrospective studies have reported reasonable tolerability in solid organ transplant recipients treated with ICIs, an allograft rejection rate of 41% was found in a meta-analysis of 64 patients.^46-48 In CLL patients with keratinocyte carcinomas, ICIs have been safely used and have even demonstrated efficacy for CLL in some cases.^49-52

Alternative Dosing

The side effects of SHH inhibitors have led to alternative dosing strategies to prevent medication discontinuation and improve adherence. In patients with basal cell nevus syndrome, multimonth drug holidays have been shown to increase drug tolerability without compromising efficacy.^35,36 Weekly intermittent dosing regimens of vismodegib ranging from 1 week on followed by 1 to 3 weeks off demonstrated efficacy in a retrospective study of 7 patients with advanced BCC.⁵³ All 7 patients experienced improvement in their BCCs, with 3 patients experiencing CR. Importantly, treatment-related adverse effects were mild and well tolerated, with no patients terminating the medication.⁵³ Two other retrospective case series of patients with advanced BCC treated with vismodegib reported similar findings for those placed on an intermittent dosing schedule ranging from once every other day to once per week.^54,55

In the large phase 2 randomized trial known as MIKIE, 2 different intermittent dosing regimens of 150 mg vismodegib daily for patients with multiple BCCs were found to have good activity and tolerability.⁵⁶ The first group (n=116) received vismodegib for 12 weeks, then 3 rounds of 8 weeks of placebo, followed by 12 weeks of vismodegib; there was a 63% reduction in clinically evident BCCs after 73 weeks. The second group (n=113) received the medication for 24 weeks, then 3 rounds of 8 weeks of placebo, followed by 8 weeks of vismodegib; there was a 54% reduction at the end of 73 weeks.⁵⁶ Subsequent analyses found improvements in health-related quality-of-life outcomes that were similar for both groups.⁵⁷

Consequently, alternative dosing schedules appear to be a viable option for patients at risk of discontinuing treatment because of adverse effects, and current data support the recently approved recommendations of dose interruptions of up to 8 weeks to manage adverse effects in patients with laBCC or mBCC.⁵⁸ Nevertheless, further clinical studies are required to determine the optimal intermittent dosing regimen for patients treated with SHH inhibitors.

Neoadjuvant Administration

Recently, vismodegib has been studied as a neoadjuvant therapy for BCC with promising results. Several small retrospective studies and case reports have documented successful treatment of both operable and inoperable periocular laBCC, with preservation of the eye in all patients.^59-61 An open-label trial of 15 patients with advanced BCC who received neoadjuvant vismodegib for 3 to 6 months prior to surgical excision reported a mean reduction of 35% in the final surgical defect size, with no recurrence at 22 months.^62,63 The latest and largest study performed was a phase 2 open-label trial known as VISMONEO, where 44 of 55 laBCC patients (80%) receiving neoadjuvant vismodegib for a mean duration of 6 months (range, 4–10 months) achieved the primary end point of tumor surgical downstaging.⁶⁴ Of the 44 patients who had tumor downstaging, 27 (61%) experienced histologically proven CRs. Additionally, a 66% reduction in the average target lesion size was reported in this group compared to29% in the 11 patients who did not have tumor downstaging (P=.0002).⁶⁴ Thus, SHH inhibitors may hold an important neoadjuvant role in the treatment of BCC by decreasing surgical defect size and allowing for surgical management of previously inoperable cases.

Synergism With Radiation

Preliminary data suggest SHH inhibitors may help potentiate the effects of radiation therapy for the treatment of BCC. Currently, the evidence primarily is limited to case studies, with several reports describing complete remission in patients with advanced BCCs who were considered unsuitable candidates for surgery. In these cases, vismodegib was administered either prior to or concurrently with radiation treatment.^65-69 An in vitro study also documented the radiation-sensitizing effects of vismodegib in a BCC cell line.⁷⁰ Recently, a phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01835626) evaluating the concurrent use of vismodegib and radiotherapy for patients with advanced BCC was completed, but data has yet to be published.

Synergism With and Benefit of Antifungal Therapy

The antifungal drug itraconazole is a potent inhibitor of the SHH pathway and may have an adjunctive role in the treatment of BCC. Similar to vismodegib and sonidegib, itraconazole acts as a direct antagonist of SMO. However, it is thought to bind to a distinct site on SMO.^71,72 An open-label, exploratory phase 2 trial of 19 patients with BCC found that oral itraconazole 200 to 400 mg daily decreased tumor proliferative index by 45% (P=.04), as measured by Ki-67; SHH activity by 65% (P=.03), as measured by GLI1 messenger RNA; and mean tumor area by 24%.⁷³ In a case series of 5 patients with mBCC refractory to conventional SHH inhibitor therapy, combined treatment with itraconazole and arsenic trioxide resulted in stable disease and a 75% reduction in SHH activity (P<.001).⁷⁴ One case report documented tumor regression leading to stable disease for 15 months in a patient with laBCC treated with itraconazole monotherapy due to being unable to afford vismodegib or sonidegib. However, within 2 months of treatment discontinuation, the lesion progressed considerably.⁷⁵ The efficacy of a topical formulation of itraconazole also has been tested in an open-label, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, but no benefit was observed.⁷⁶

Posaconazole is a second-generation antifungal agent that may serve as a potential alternative to itraconazole.⁷⁷ Although clinical data are lacking, a basic science study found that posaconazole could inhibit the growth of SHH-dependent BCC in vivo (in mice).⁷⁸ Furthermore, posaconazole has demonstrated a better safety profile with fewer and more mild side effects than itraconazole and does not require dose adjustment for those with hepatic or renal failure.^79,80 Thus, posaconazole may be a safer alternative to itraconazole for the treatment of BCC. Further clinical studies are needed to elucidate the potential synergistic effects of these antifungal agents with the 2 currently approved SHH inhibitors for the treatment of advanced BCC.

Treatment resistance to SHH inhibitors, though uncommon, is a growing concern. Acquired mutations in the SMO binding site or downstream mediators of the SHH pathway have been shown to confer resistance to vismodegib and sonidegib.^72,81-83 In addition, it appears that there may be shared resistance among the drugs in this class. One study assessing the efficacy of sonidegib in 9 patients with laBCC resistant to vismodegib found that these patients also did not respond to sonidegib.⁸⁴ Interestingly, 1 case report documented tumor regression of an intracranial BCC in a patient treated with sonidegib and itraconazole after failure with vismodegib.⁸⁵ An in vitro study also found that itraconazole maintained SHH inhibitory activity for all drug-resistant SMO mutations that have been reported.⁷² Therefore, itraconazole monotherapy or combination therapy with a canonical SHH inhibitor may be considered for patients with recalcitrant BCC and warrants further investigation.

Taladegib is a newly developed SMO inhibitor that may serve as another promising alternative for patients who develop resistance to vismodegib or sonidegib. A phase 1 trial of taladegib for advanced BCC found an ORR of 69% (11/16) in the SHH inhibitor–naïve group and an ORR of 36% (11/32) in the group previously treated with a SHH inhibitor.⁸⁶ Additionally, the safety profile and frequency of adverse effects appear to be similar to those associated with vismodegib and sonidegib.^86,87 Unfortunately, no clinical trials evaluating taladegib for BCC are ongoing or in development at this time.

Recurrence

There appears to be a relatively high rate of recurrence for BCC patients who achieve a CR to SHH inhibitors. In a retrospective study of 116 laBCC patients who experienced a CR after vismodegib therapy, 54 patients (47%) relapsed at 36 months. Among the 54 patients that relapsed, 27 were re-treated with vismodegib, which resulted in an ORR of 85% (23/27), a CR rate of 37% (10/27), and a PR rate of 48% (13/27).⁸⁸ Another retrospective study of 35 laBCC patients who relapsed after vismodegib treatment reported a 31% (11/35) clinical recurrence rate at 6-month follow-up.⁸⁹ An observational retrospective study also assessed the efficacy of SHH inhibitor maintenance therapy for advanced BCC patients who achieved a CR.⁹⁰ In the study, 27 (64%) patients received a maintenance dose of 150 mg vismodegib once per week for 1 year, while 15 (36%) patients decided not to take a maintenance dose following CR of their BCC. All patients who took the maintenance therapy did not experience clinical recurrence at 1-year follow-up, whereas 26% of patients not on the maintenance dose relapsed.⁹⁰ Consequently, these results indicate that BCC recurrence is frequent after SHH inhibitor therapy and highlights the importance of close surveillance after CR is attained. Nevertheless, most patients still respond to treatment with SHH inhibitors after relapsing, and intermittent maintenance doses may be an effective means to reduce risk of recurrence.

Conclusion

Vismodegib and sonidegib are SHH inhibitors approved for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC. Cemiplimab is now also approved for patients who do not respond to SHH inhibitors or for whom SHH inhibitors are not tolerable. Although these systemic targeted therapies can lead to notable tumor shrinkage and even complete regression in some patients, recurrence is common, and adverse effects may limit their use. Drug resistance is an emerging issue that requires additional examination. Further clinical studies are needed to determine which patients are likely to respond to these targeted treatments.

Various intermittent and maintenance drug regimens should be evaluated for their potential to mitigate adverse effects and reduce risk of recurrence, respectively. The synergistic effects of these medications with other therapies as well as their neoadjuvant and adjuvant roles should be further investigated. For example, administration of an SHH inhibitor prior to surgical excision of a BCC may allow for a smaller surgical defect size, thereby improving cosmetic and functional outcomes. Moreover, these systemic targeted medications may allow for previously inoperable tumors to become amenable to surgical treatment.

Although SHH inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors represent a major advancement in the field of oncodermatology, real-world efficacy and safety data in the upcoming years will be important for elucidating their true benefit for patients with BCC.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common keratinocyte carcinoma and affects more than 3 million individuals per year in the United States.¹ Approximately 40% of patients diagnosed with BCC will develop another BCC within 5 years of the initial diagnosis.² Most cases are successfully treated with surgical excision and occasionally topical therapy or radiotherapy. Despite the high cure rate with conventional treatments, BCC can recur and can cause substantial destruction of the surrounding tissue if left untreated.^3-5 In some instances, BCC can even metastasize and lead to death.⁶ For patients who are poor candidates for surgical or topical treatment modalities because of locally advanced BCC (laBCC) or metastatic BCC (mBCC), systemic treatment may be indicated. Vismodegib, sonidegib, and cemiplimab are the only systemic medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of laBCC and/or mBCC. Vismodegib and sonidegib target the sonic hedgehog (SHH) signaling pathway that is abnormally activated in more than 90% of BCCs.⁷ Cemiplimab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) that targets the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor.⁸ Herein, we review the clinical utility of these medications and their evolving roles in the treatment of BCC.

SHH Pathway Inhibitors

The SHH pathway is a key regulator of cell proliferation and differentiation during embryogenesis.⁷ During adulthood, SHH signaling decreases but still plays an important role in stem cell activation and in regulation of the hair follicle growth cycle.^9,10 However, de novo mutations in the genes that comprise the SHH pathway can result in aberrant constitutive activation, leading to unrestricted cell proliferation. Genetic mutations resulting in activation of Smoothened (SMO), a G-protein–coupled receptor involved in the signal transduction and propagation of the SHH pathway, have been implicated in the pathogenesis of BCC. Inactivating mutations also are commonly observed in patched homolog 1, an upstream cell-surface protein that inhibits SMO.⁷ The mechanism by which vismodegib and sonidegib, 2 of the FDA-approved oral medications for the treatment of advanced BCC, block the SHH pathway is through the selective inhibition of SMO.^7,11

Vismodegib first received FDA approval in 2012 for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC after initial results from the pivotal ERIVANCE phase 2 trial demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of 43% (27/63) and 30% (10/33) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic disease, respectively. In this single-arm study, all enrolled patients (63 with laBCC and 33 with mBCC) received 150 mg of oral vismodegib daily.¹² Updated results at 39 months demonstrated improved ORRs of 60% (38/63) and 48% (16/33) for the laBCC and mBCC groups, respectively. A complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) were observed in 32% (n=20) and 29% (n=18) of patients with laBCC, respectively.¹³ These results have been confirmed in subsequent studies, including the large international open-label trial known as STEVIE, with ORRs of 68.5% for 1119 cases of laBCC and 37% for 96 cases of mBCC.^14-17 The CR and PR rates were 33% and 35%, respectively, for the laBCC group. The CR and PR rates for the mBCC group were 5% and 32%, respectively.¹⁴

The FDA approval of sonidegib for laBCC—but not mBCC—occurred in 2015 after the pivotal BOLT randomized phase 2 trial demonstrated an initial ORR of 43% (18/42) for laBCC and 15% (2/13) for mBCC after administration of 200 mg of sonidegib daily.¹⁸ A final follow-up analysis at 42 months resulted in ORRs of 56% (37/66) and 8% (1/13) for the laBCC and mBCC groups, respectively.¹⁹ Additionally, improved efficacy was not observed in the 151 patients who were randomized to receive treatment with the higher 800-mg dose; however, they did experience a higher incidence of adverse events.^18,19

Currently, the true clinical differences between vismodegib and sonidegib remain uncertain, as no head-to-head trials have been conducted. Moreover, direct comparison of the data from the ERIVANCE and BOLT trials is challenging owing to fundamental differences in methodologic design, including the criteria used to assess BCC severity. The ERIVANCE trial utilized the conventional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), while BOLT used the rigorous modified RECIST. However, an expert consensus study attempted to compare the 2 trials by modifying the outcomes from BOLT with the former RECIST criteria. The expert group found that the 2 SHH inhibitors had comparable efficacy and adverse event profiles.²⁰ Nevertheless, a recent meta-analysis found that although ORRs for laBCC were similar between the 2 drugs, the CR rate for vismodegib was 31% compared with 3% for sonidegib. Additionally, for mBCC, they reported the ORR of vismodegib to be 2.7 times higher than that of sonidegib (39% vs 15%).²¹

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have successfully been utilized in the treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC); however, their use for treating BCC has been limited until recently.^22-25 In February 2021, cemiplimab became the first and only ICI approved for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC in patients who did not respond to or were intolerant to prior SHH inhibitor therapy.²⁶ Cemiplimab—a human monoclonal antibody against the PD-1 receptor expressed on T cells—blocks its interaction with programmed cell death ligand 1 and programmed cell death ligand 2 present on tumor cells. The blockade of the PD-1 pathway releases the inhibition of the antitumor immune response and enables appropriate cytotoxic T-cell activity to occur.⁸

The FDA approval of cemiplimab for the treatment of advanced BCC was based on an open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase 2 trial (NCT03132636) evaluating 84 patients with laBCC refractory or intolerant to SHH inhibitor therapy.²⁶ Patients received an intravenous infusion of cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 93 weeks or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. An ORR of 31% (26/84) was observed with a CR and PR of 6% (5/84) and 25% (21/84), respectively. The median duration of follow-up was 15 months.²⁶ Given the clinically meaningful results of this trial, investigating the efficacy of other PD-1 inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab, for treatment of advanced BCC may prove worthwhile.

The 2 approved SHH inhibitors—vismodegib and sonidegib—appear to have similar side-effect profiles, with the most common adverse effects being muscle spasms, dysgeusia, alopecia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss, and fatigue.^20,21,27 These side effects occur at high frequencies (>40%) for both SHH inhibitors and often lead to discontinuation of the medication.²¹ Rates of treatment discontinuation range from 15% to 50% on average.^12-14,18 Fortunately, the majority of these adverse effects do not appear to increase in severity or frequency with prolonged use of these medications.^14,16,28

Various conservative and pharmacologic measures can be implemented to help manage side effects. For muscle spasms, which are the most commonly reported adverse effect, supplementation with magnesium, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, acupuncture, massages, stretching, and thermal compresses can potentially be beneficial.²⁹ Calcium channel blockers also may be effective, as one small prospective cohort study reported a reduction in the frequency of muscle cramps with amlodipine 10 mg daily.³⁰ For alopecia, which typically is reversible and caused by SHH inhibition of the normal hair cycle, minoxidil theoretically can help, as it reduces telogen arrest and extends the anagen growth phase.^31,32 Although usually mild and self-limiting, management of dysgeusia, weight loss, and gastrointestinal upset often can be managed with dietary changes, such as smaller, more frequent meals.^33,34 Finally, alternative dosing strategies and drug holidays have been employed to mitigate these side effects and increase drug tolerability.^35,36 These are discussed in the Alternative Dosing section.

Given the essential role of the SHH pathway in embryologic development, SHH inhibitors carry a black box warning of embryofetal teratogenicity and are contraindicated in females who are pregnant or breastfeeding. For females of reproductive potential, verification of pregnancy status should be performed prior to initiating treatment with an SHH inhibitor. These patients should be counseled on the use of contraception during treatment and for at least 24 months and 20 months after cessation of vismodegib and sonidegib, respectively.^27,37,38 Male patients, even after a vasectomy, should use barrier contraception during treatment and for at least 3 months and 8 months after the final dose of vismodegib and sonidegib, respectively.^37,38

Laboratory abnormalities commonly associated with SHH inhibitors include elevated hepatic enzymes, particularly with vismodegib, and elevated creatine kinase levels, particularly with sonidegib.^28,39 Other laboratory abnormalities that can occur include hypercholesterolemia, hypercreatininemia, hyperglycemia, and increased serum lipase levels.^19,28 Although these laboratory abnormalities usually are asymptomatic and self-limiting, regular monitoring should be performed.

There also is concern that SHH inhibitors may induce the development of cSCC. A case-control study of 55 cases and 125 control patients found an increased risk for cSCC in those previously treated with vismodegib, with a hazard ratio of 8.12.⁴⁰ However, a subsequent retrospective cohort study of 1675 patients with BCC failed to find any association with cSCC among those treated with vismodegib compared to those who received standard surgical therapy.⁴¹ Clinical data for sonidegib are lacking, but the BOLT trial found that cSCC occurred in 3 patients receiving treatment with the SHH inhibitor.¹⁸ Thus, further studies are needed to more thoroughly assess this concern. Close monitoring for cSCC may be warranted in patients prescribed SHH inhibitors at this time.

Cemiplimab has demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and is generally well tolerated. In the phase 2 trial of cemiplimab for cSCC, approximately 5% of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse effects. The most commonly reported side effects of cemiplimab were diarrhea (27%), fatigue (24%), nausea (17%), constipation (15%), and rash (15%).²³ In the phase 2 trial for laBCC, grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients, with hypertension (5%) being the most common.²⁶ Although rare, immune-mediated adverse reactions also can occur, given the mechanism of action of ICIs. These side effects, ranging in severity from mild to fatal, include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, nephritis, myocarditis, and hypophysitis. Therefore, close monitoring for these immune-mediated reactions is critical, but most can be managed with corticosteroids or treatment interruption if they occur.^42,43

No absolute contraindications exist for cemiplimab; however, extreme caution should be taken in immunosuppressed individuals, such as solid organ transplant recipients and those with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), as safety data are limited in these patients.^44,45 Although small retrospective studies have reported reasonable tolerability in solid organ transplant recipients treated with ICIs, an allograft rejection rate of 41% was found in a meta-analysis of 64 patients.^46-48 In CLL patients with keratinocyte carcinomas, ICIs have been safely used and have even demonstrated efficacy for CLL in some cases.^49-52

Alternative Dosing

The side effects of SHH inhibitors have led to alternative dosing strategies to prevent medication discontinuation and improve adherence. In patients with basal cell nevus syndrome, multimonth drug holidays have been shown to increase drug tolerability without compromising efficacy.^35,36 Weekly intermittent dosing regimens of vismodegib ranging from 1 week on followed by 1 to 3 weeks off demonstrated efficacy in a retrospective study of 7 patients with advanced BCC.⁵³ All 7 patients experienced improvement in their BCCs, with 3 patients experiencing CR. Importantly, treatment-related adverse effects were mild and well tolerated, with no patients terminating the medication.⁵³ Two other retrospective case series of patients with advanced BCC treated with vismodegib reported similar findings for those placed on an intermittent dosing schedule ranging from once every other day to once per week.^54,55

In the large phase 2 randomized trial known as MIKIE, 2 different intermittent dosing regimens of 150 mg vismodegib daily for patients with multiple BCCs were found to have good activity and tolerability.⁵⁶ The first group (n=116) received vismodegib for 12 weeks, then 3 rounds of 8 weeks of placebo, followed by 12 weeks of vismodegib; there was a 63% reduction in clinically evident BCCs after 73 weeks. The second group (n=113) received the medication for 24 weeks, then 3 rounds of 8 weeks of placebo, followed by 8 weeks of vismodegib; there was a 54% reduction at the end of 73 weeks.⁵⁶ Subsequent analyses found improvements in health-related quality-of-life outcomes that were similar for both groups.⁵⁷

Consequently, alternative dosing schedules appear to be a viable option for patients at risk of discontinuing treatment because of adverse effects, and current data support the recently approved recommendations of dose interruptions of up to 8 weeks to manage adverse effects in patients with laBCC or mBCC.⁵⁸ Nevertheless, further clinical studies are required to determine the optimal intermittent dosing regimen for patients treated with SHH inhibitors.

Neoadjuvant Administration

Recently, vismodegib has been studied as a neoadjuvant therapy for BCC with promising results. Several small retrospective studies and case reports have documented successful treatment of both operable and inoperable periocular laBCC, with preservation of the eye in all patients.^59-61 An open-label trial of 15 patients with advanced BCC who received neoadjuvant vismodegib for 3 to 6 months prior to surgical excision reported a mean reduction of 35% in the final surgical defect size, with no recurrence at 22 months.^62,63 The latest and largest study performed was a phase 2 open-label trial known as VISMONEO, where 44 of 55 laBCC patients (80%) receiving neoadjuvant vismodegib for a mean duration of 6 months (range, 4–10 months) achieved the primary end point of tumor surgical downstaging.⁶⁴ Of the 44 patients who had tumor downstaging, 27 (61%) experienced histologically proven CRs. Additionally, a 66% reduction in the average target lesion size was reported in this group compared to29% in the 11 patients who did not have tumor downstaging (P=.0002).⁶⁴ Thus, SHH inhibitors may hold an important neoadjuvant role in the treatment of BCC by decreasing surgical defect size and allowing for surgical management of previously inoperable cases.

Synergism With Radiation

Preliminary data suggest SHH inhibitors may help potentiate the effects of radiation therapy for the treatment of BCC. Currently, the evidence primarily is limited to case studies, with several reports describing complete remission in patients with advanced BCCs who were considered unsuitable candidates for surgery. In these cases, vismodegib was administered either prior to or concurrently with radiation treatment.^65-69 An in vitro study also documented the radiation-sensitizing effects of vismodegib in a BCC cell line.⁷⁰ Recently, a phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01835626) evaluating the concurrent use of vismodegib and radiotherapy for patients with advanced BCC was completed, but data has yet to be published.

Synergism With and Benefit of Antifungal Therapy

The antifungal drug itraconazole is a potent inhibitor of the SHH pathway and may have an adjunctive role in the treatment of BCC. Similar to vismodegib and sonidegib, itraconazole acts as a direct antagonist of SMO. However, it is thought to bind to a distinct site on SMO.^71,72 An open-label, exploratory phase 2 trial of 19 patients with BCC found that oral itraconazole 200 to 400 mg daily decreased tumor proliferative index by 45% (P=.04), as measured by Ki-67; SHH activity by 65% (P=.03), as measured by GLI1 messenger RNA; and mean tumor area by 24%.⁷³ In a case series of 5 patients with mBCC refractory to conventional SHH inhibitor therapy, combined treatment with itraconazole and arsenic trioxide resulted in stable disease and a 75% reduction in SHH activity (P<.001).⁷⁴ One case report documented tumor regression leading to stable disease for 15 months in a patient with laBCC treated with itraconazole monotherapy due to being unable to afford vismodegib or sonidegib. However, within 2 months of treatment discontinuation, the lesion progressed considerably.⁷⁵ The efficacy of a topical formulation of itraconazole also has been tested in an open-label, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, but no benefit was observed.⁷⁶

Posaconazole is a second-generation antifungal agent that may serve as a potential alternative to itraconazole.⁷⁷ Although clinical data are lacking, a basic science study found that posaconazole could inhibit the growth of SHH-dependent BCC in vivo (in mice).⁷⁸ Furthermore, posaconazole has demonstrated a better safety profile with fewer and more mild side effects than itraconazole and does not require dose adjustment for those with hepatic or renal failure.^79,80 Thus, posaconazole may be a safer alternative to itraconazole for the treatment of BCC. Further clinical studies are needed to elucidate the potential synergistic effects of these antifungal agents with the 2 currently approved SHH inhibitors for the treatment of advanced BCC.

Treatment resistance to SHH inhibitors, though uncommon, is a growing concern. Acquired mutations in the SMO binding site or downstream mediators of the SHH pathway have been shown to confer resistance to vismodegib and sonidegib.^72,81-83 In addition, it appears that there may be shared resistance among the drugs in this class. One study assessing the efficacy of sonidegib in 9 patients with laBCC resistant to vismodegib found that these patients also did not respond to sonidegib.⁸⁴ Interestingly, 1 case report documented tumor regression of an intracranial BCC in a patient treated with sonidegib and itraconazole after failure with vismodegib.⁸⁵ An in vitro study also found that itraconazole maintained SHH inhibitory activity for all drug-resistant SMO mutations that have been reported.⁷² Therefore, itraconazole monotherapy or combination therapy with a canonical SHH inhibitor may be considered for patients with recalcitrant BCC and warrants further investigation.

Taladegib is a newly developed SMO inhibitor that may serve as another promising alternative for patients who develop resistance to vismodegib or sonidegib. A phase 1 trial of taladegib for advanced BCC found an ORR of 69% (11/16) in the SHH inhibitor–naïve group and an ORR of 36% (11/32) in the group previously treated with a SHH inhibitor.⁸⁶ Additionally, the safety profile and frequency of adverse effects appear to be similar to those associated with vismodegib and sonidegib.^86,87 Unfortunately, no clinical trials evaluating taladegib for BCC are ongoing or in development at this time.

Recurrence

There appears to be a relatively high rate of recurrence for BCC patients who achieve a CR to SHH inhibitors. In a retrospective study of 116 laBCC patients who experienced a CR after vismodegib therapy, 54 patients (47%) relapsed at 36 months. Among the 54 patients that relapsed, 27 were re-treated with vismodegib, which resulted in an ORR of 85% (23/27), a CR rate of 37% (10/27), and a PR rate of 48% (13/27).⁸⁸ Another retrospective study of 35 laBCC patients who relapsed after vismodegib treatment reported a 31% (11/35) clinical recurrence rate at 6-month follow-up.⁸⁹ An observational retrospective study also assessed the efficacy of SHH inhibitor maintenance therapy for advanced BCC patients who achieved a CR.⁹⁰ In the study, 27 (64%) patients received a maintenance dose of 150 mg vismodegib once per week for 1 year, while 15 (36%) patients decided not to take a maintenance dose following CR of their BCC. All patients who took the maintenance therapy did not experience clinical recurrence at 1-year follow-up, whereas 26% of patients not on the maintenance dose relapsed.⁹⁰ Consequently, these results indicate that BCC recurrence is frequent after SHH inhibitor therapy and highlights the importance of close surveillance after CR is attained. Nevertheless, most patients still respond to treatment with SHH inhibitors after relapsing, and intermittent maintenance doses may be an effective means to reduce risk of recurrence.

Conclusion

Vismodegib and sonidegib are SHH inhibitors approved for the treatment of laBCC and mBCC. Cemiplimab is now also approved for patients who do not respond to SHH inhibitors or for whom SHH inhibitors are not tolerable. Although these systemic targeted therapies can lead to notable tumor shrinkage and even complete regression in some patients, recurrence is common, and adverse effects may limit their use. Drug resistance is an emerging issue that requires additional examination. Further clinical studies are needed to determine which patients are likely to respond to these targeted treatments.

Various intermittent and maintenance drug regimens should be evaluated for their potential to mitigate adverse effects and reduce risk of recurrence, respectively. The synergistic effects of these medications with other therapies as well as their neoadjuvant and adjuvant roles should be further investigated. For example, administration of an SHH inhibitor prior to surgical excision of a BCC may allow for a smaller surgical defect size, thereby improving cosmetic and functional outcomes. Moreover, these systemic targeted medications may allow for previously inoperable tumors to become amenable to surgical treatment.

Although SHH inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors represent a major advancement in the field of oncodermatology, real-world efficacy and safety data in the upcoming years will be important for elucidating their true benefit for patients with BCC.

A large study showing an increased risk of keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) in children who receive a solid-organ transplant highlights the need for early education about risk reduction and more research to determine optimal timing for screening, say an investigator and two dermatologists with expertise in transplant-related skin issues.

The increased incidence of KC in pediatric transplant recipients is “really high, so we definitely know there’s risk there,” just as there is for adult recipients of solid-organ transplants, said Cathryn Sibbald, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and coauthor of a research letter published in June in JAMA Dermatology.

For their study, Dr. Sibbald and her coinvestigators turned to the Ontario Health Insurance plan database, which covers health care for Canadian citizens and qualified residents in the province. They identified 951 patients younger than the age of 18 who received a solid-organ transplant between 1991 and 2004 at an Ontario hospital

They then used a validated health insurance claims–based algorithm to identify diagnoses of KC for the transplant recipients and for more than 5 million age-matched controls. KC, including squamous and basal cell carcinoma, is the most prevalent skin cancer for people who have had a solid-organ transplant.

Fifteen posttransplant KCs (10 patients, 1.1%) were reported a mean of 13.1 years after transplant, with none reported in the first 4 years. The mean age at transplant was 7.8 years, and the mean age at KC diagnosis was 25.2 years. Kidney transplants were the most common (42.1% of transplantations). Most of the transplants recipients (eight patients) who developed KC had kidney transplantation, and most of them had functional graft at the time of KC diagnosis.

Researchers found an increased incidence of KC compared with that of the general population (standardized incidence ratio, 9.09; 95% confidence interval, 5.48-15.08). And the risk for KC increased with time since transplant, with adjusted hazard ratios for KC of 3.63 (95% CI, 0.51-25.77) for 1-5 years, 5.14 (95% CI, 1.28-20.55) for 5-10 years, and 4.80 (95% CI, 2.29-10.08) for 10 years or more, compared with the control population.

Several years ago, another research team performed a similar population-based cohort study of adult transplant recipients in Ontario and found a 6.6-times increased risk of KC in transplant recipients compared with the general population.

Sun protection and skin cancer screening

In commenting on the study, Sarah Arron, MD, PhD, a San Francisco Bay area dermatologist and immediate past president of the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative (www.itscc.org), said she feels “reassured” that young transplant patients tend not to develop the skin cancer until young adulthood.

A ”large study like this is important because the overall rate of KC is low in this age group,” she noted.

The findings “suggest that we can focus our efforts on prevention during childhood, with sun protection and skin cancer education,” she said. “Then, as these children move into adulthood, we can begin screening with skin examinations. Of course, [any child] with a skin lesion or mole that concerns their parents or transplant team should be referred to dermatology for evaluation.”

Pediatric transplant recipients and their parents are most interested in learning about skin cancer prevention either before or immediately after transplantation, according to a survey by other researchers.

Intervention studies needed

The increased risk of KC probably stems largely from immunosuppression, said Dr. Sibbald in an interview. “We know [this is the case] in the older population, and it’s likely true in the younger population as well that it’s one of the primary drivers,” she said.

More research to extensively analyze risk factors should come next, she said. This includes “the granularity of what [immunosuppressants and other] medications are received, and at what dose and for what periods of time, so we can calculate cumulative exposure and its relation to risk,” she said.

Kristin Bibee, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said she’d like to see further studies “evaluate appropriate interventions, like sun-protective behavior in childhood and adolescence or immunosuppression modulation, to prevent malignancy development.”

The optimal time and intensity of screening for young transplant recipients must still be determined, both Dr. Bibee and Dr. Arron said. Patients deemed through further research to be at higher risk may need earlier and/or more intensive surveillance.

The role of race in skin cancer risk in this population is “one question the study leaves open,” said Dr. Arron. U.S. studies have shown that among adult transplant recipients White patients are “at highest risk for the ultraviolet-associated melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma, followed by Asian and Latino patients. African Americans have had the lowest risk, but some still developed skin cancer after transplant,” she said.

Prior studies of cancer in pediatric transplant recipients have reported primarily on internal malignant neoplasms, with limited data on KC, Dr. Sibbald and coauthors wrote. It is possible the incidence of KS is underestimated in the new study because of “undiagnosed or unreported KCs,” they noted.

The new study was funded by a grant from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and a Hospital for Sick Children grant. In disclosures, Dr. Sibbald reported to JAMA Dermatology receiving grants from the alliance and from Paediatric Consultants Partnership during the conduct of the study. Dr. Arron and Dr. Bibee both said they have no disclosures relevant to the study and its content.

A large study showing an increased risk of keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) in children who receive a solid-organ transplant highlights the need for early education about risk reduction and more research to determine optimal timing for screening, say an investigator and two dermatologists with expertise in transplant-related skin issues.

The increased incidence of KC in pediatric transplant recipients is “really high, so we definitely know there’s risk there,” just as there is for adult recipients of solid-organ transplants, said Cathryn Sibbald, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and coauthor of a research letter published in June in JAMA Dermatology.

For their study, Dr. Sibbald and her coinvestigators turned to the Ontario Health Insurance plan database, which covers health care for Canadian citizens and qualified residents in the province. They identified 951 patients younger than the age of 18 who received a solid-organ transplant between 1991 and 2004 at an Ontario hospital

They then used a validated health insurance claims–based algorithm to identify diagnoses of KC for the transplant recipients and for more than 5 million age-matched controls. KC, including squamous and basal cell carcinoma, is the most prevalent skin cancer for people who have had a solid-organ transplant.

Fifteen posttransplant KCs (10 patients, 1.1%) were reported a mean of 13.1 years after transplant, with none reported in the first 4 years. The mean age at transplant was 7.8 years, and the mean age at KC diagnosis was 25.2 years. Kidney transplants were the most common (42.1% of transplantations). Most of the transplants recipients (eight patients) who developed KC had kidney transplantation, and most of them had functional graft at the time of KC diagnosis.

Researchers found an increased incidence of KC compared with that of the general population (standardized incidence ratio, 9.09; 95% confidence interval, 5.48-15.08). And the risk for KC increased with time since transplant, with adjusted hazard ratios for KC of 3.63 (95% CI, 0.51-25.77) for 1-5 years, 5.14 (95% CI, 1.28-20.55) for 5-10 years, and 4.80 (95% CI, 2.29-10.08) for 10 years or more, compared with the control population.

Several years ago, another research team performed a similar population-based cohort study of adult transplant recipients in Ontario and found a 6.6-times increased risk of KC in transplant recipients compared with the general population.

Sun protection and skin cancer screening

In commenting on the study, Sarah Arron, MD, PhD, a San Francisco Bay area dermatologist and immediate past president of the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative (www.itscc.org), said she feels “reassured” that young transplant patients tend not to develop the skin cancer until young adulthood.

A ”large study like this is important because the overall rate of KC is low in this age group,” she noted.

The findings “suggest that we can focus our efforts on prevention during childhood, with sun protection and skin cancer education,” she said. “Then, as these children move into adulthood, we can begin screening with skin examinations. Of course, [any child] with a skin lesion or mole that concerns their parents or transplant team should be referred to dermatology for evaluation.”

Pediatric transplant recipients and their parents are most interested in learning about skin cancer prevention either before or immediately after transplantation, according to a survey by other researchers.

Intervention studies needed

The increased risk of KC probably stems largely from immunosuppression, said Dr. Sibbald in an interview. “We know [this is the case] in the older population, and it’s likely true in the younger population as well that it’s one of the primary drivers,” she said.

More research to extensively analyze risk factors should come next, she said. This includes “the granularity of what [immunosuppressants and other] medications are received, and at what dose and for what periods of time, so we can calculate cumulative exposure and its relation to risk,” she said.

Kristin Bibee, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said she’d like to see further studies “evaluate appropriate interventions, like sun-protective behavior in childhood and adolescence or immunosuppression modulation, to prevent malignancy development.”

The optimal time and intensity of screening for young transplant recipients must still be determined, both Dr. Bibee and Dr. Arron said. Patients deemed through further research to be at higher risk may need earlier and/or more intensive surveillance.

The role of race in skin cancer risk in this population is “one question the study leaves open,” said Dr. Arron. U.S. studies have shown that among adult transplant recipients White patients are “at highest risk for the ultraviolet-associated melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma, followed by Asian and Latino patients. African Americans have had the lowest risk, but some still developed skin cancer after transplant,” she said.

Prior studies of cancer in pediatric transplant recipients have reported primarily on internal malignant neoplasms, with limited data on KC, Dr. Sibbald and coauthors wrote. It is possible the incidence of KS is underestimated in the new study because of “undiagnosed or unreported KCs,” they noted.

The new study was funded by a grant from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and a Hospital for Sick Children grant. In disclosures, Dr. Sibbald reported to JAMA Dermatology receiving grants from the alliance and from Paediatric Consultants Partnership during the conduct of the study. Dr. Arron and Dr. Bibee both said they have no disclosures relevant to the study and its content.

A large study showing an increased risk of keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) in children who receive a solid-organ transplant highlights the need for early education about risk reduction and more research to determine optimal timing for screening, say an investigator and two dermatologists with expertise in transplant-related skin issues.

The increased incidence of KC in pediatric transplant recipients is “really high, so we definitely know there’s risk there,” just as there is for adult recipients of solid-organ transplants, said Cathryn Sibbald, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and coauthor of a research letter published in June in JAMA Dermatology.

For their study, Dr. Sibbald and her coinvestigators turned to the Ontario Health Insurance plan database, which covers health care for Canadian citizens and qualified residents in the province. They identified 951 patients younger than the age of 18 who received a solid-organ transplant between 1991 and 2004 at an Ontario hospital

They then used a validated health insurance claims–based algorithm to identify diagnoses of KC for the transplant recipients and for more than 5 million age-matched controls. KC, including squamous and basal cell carcinoma, is the most prevalent skin cancer for people who have had a solid-organ transplant.

Fifteen posttransplant KCs (10 patients, 1.1%) were reported a mean of 13.1 years after transplant, with none reported in the first 4 years. The mean age at transplant was 7.8 years, and the mean age at KC diagnosis was 25.2 years. Kidney transplants were the most common (42.1% of transplantations). Most of the transplants recipients (eight patients) who developed KC had kidney transplantation, and most of them had functional graft at the time of KC diagnosis.

Researchers found an increased incidence of KC compared with that of the general population (standardized incidence ratio, 9.09; 95% confidence interval, 5.48-15.08). And the risk for KC increased with time since transplant, with adjusted hazard ratios for KC of 3.63 (95% CI, 0.51-25.77) for 1-5 years, 5.14 (95% CI, 1.28-20.55) for 5-10 years, and 4.80 (95% CI, 2.29-10.08) for 10 years or more, compared with the control population.

Several years ago, another research team performed a similar population-based cohort study of adult transplant recipients in Ontario and found a 6.6-times increased risk of KC in transplant recipients compared with the general population.

Sun protection and skin cancer screening

In commenting on the study, Sarah Arron, MD, PhD, a San Francisco Bay area dermatologist and immediate past president of the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative (www.itscc.org), said she feels “reassured” that young transplant patients tend not to develop the skin cancer until young adulthood.

A ”large study like this is important because the overall rate of KC is low in this age group,” she noted.

The findings “suggest that we can focus our efforts on prevention during childhood, with sun protection and skin cancer education,” she said. “Then, as these children move into adulthood, we can begin screening with skin examinations. Of course, [any child] with a skin lesion or mole that concerns their parents or transplant team should be referred to dermatology for evaluation.”

Pediatric transplant recipients and their parents are most interested in learning about skin cancer prevention either before or immediately after transplantation, according to a survey by other researchers.

Intervention studies needed

The increased risk of KC probably stems largely from immunosuppression, said Dr. Sibbald in an interview. “We know [this is the case] in the older population, and it’s likely true in the younger population as well that it’s one of the primary drivers,” she said.

More research to extensively analyze risk factors should come next, she said. This includes “the granularity of what [immunosuppressants and other] medications are received, and at what dose and for what periods of time, so we can calculate cumulative exposure and its relation to risk,” she said.

Kristin Bibee, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said she’d like to see further studies “evaluate appropriate interventions, like sun-protective behavior in childhood and adolescence or immunosuppression modulation, to prevent malignancy development.”

The optimal time and intensity of screening for young transplant recipients must still be determined, both Dr. Bibee and Dr. Arron said. Patients deemed through further research to be at higher risk may need earlier and/or more intensive surveillance.

The role of race in skin cancer risk in this population is “one question the study leaves open,” said Dr. Arron. U.S. studies have shown that among adult transplant recipients White patients are “at highest risk for the ultraviolet-associated melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma, followed by Asian and Latino patients. African Americans have had the lowest risk, but some still developed skin cancer after transplant,” she said.

Prior studies of cancer in pediatric transplant recipients have reported primarily on internal malignant neoplasms, with limited data on KC, Dr. Sibbald and coauthors wrote. It is possible the incidence of KS is underestimated in the new study because of “undiagnosed or unreported KCs,” they noted.

The new study was funded by a grant from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and a Hospital for Sick Children grant. In disclosures, Dr. Sibbald reported to JAMA Dermatology receiving grants from the alliance and from Paediatric Consultants Partnership during the conduct of the study. Dr. Arron and Dr. Bibee both said they have no disclosures relevant to the study and its content.

Patients who are immunocompromised showed no increased risk of surgical site infection when undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery, regardless of whether or not they received antibiotics, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis, which is often used for these patients, may not be necessary, according to new research.

The retrospective cohort study found that “immunosuppressed patients had similar infection rates as immunocompetent patients following Mohs micrographic surgery,” first author Tuyet A. Nguyen, MD, of the department of dermatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Therefore, antibiotic prescribing patterns should not change simply due to immunosuppression. Furthermore, immunosuppressed patients appear to respond well to antibiotics and recover similarly to immunocompetent patients,” she said.

Dr. Nguyen

Overall, postprocedural infections occurred in 1.6% (95) of patients, a rate that mirrors that of the general population, Dr. Nguyen noted. No significant differences in surgical site infection rates were observed between immunocompromised patients (2.1%, n = 15) and those who were immunocompetent (1.6%, n = 80; P = .30).

Importantly, among those who were immunocompromised, the rates of infection were not significantly different between those who did receive antibiotics (3.0%, n = 8) and those who did not receive antibiotics (1.5%, n = 7; P = .19).

The lack of a difference in surgical site infection rates among those who did and those who did not receive antibiotics extended to the entire study population (2.0% vs. 1.4%; P = .12).

The study cohort mainly comprised immunosuppressed transplant patients, notably, heart, lung, and kidney transplant patients. However, “even in this population, we did not see a higher rate of infection,” senior author Nima M. Gharavi, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery and Mohs micrographic surgery and associate professor of medicine and pathology and laboratory medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said in an interview.

Dr. Nima M. Gharavi

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

Patients who are immunocompromised showed no increased risk of surgical site infection when undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery, regardless of whether or not they received antibiotics, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis, which is often used for these patients, may not be necessary, according to new research.

The retrospective cohort study found that “immunosuppressed patients had similar infection rates as immunocompetent patients following Mohs micrographic surgery,” first author Tuyet A. Nguyen, MD, of the department of dermatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Therefore, antibiotic prescribing patterns should not change simply due to immunosuppression. Furthermore, immunosuppressed patients appear to respond well to antibiotics and recover similarly to immunocompetent patients,” she said.

Dr. Nguyen

Overall, postprocedural infections occurred in 1.6% (95) of patients, a rate that mirrors that of the general population, Dr. Nguyen noted. No significant differences in surgical site infection rates were observed between immunocompromised patients (2.1%, n = 15) and those who were immunocompetent (1.6%, n = 80; P = .30).

Importantly, among those who were immunocompromised, the rates of infection were not significantly different between those who did receive antibiotics (3.0%, n = 8) and those who did not receive antibiotics (1.5%, n = 7; P = .19).

The lack of a difference in surgical site infection rates among those who did and those who did not receive antibiotics extended to the entire study population (2.0% vs. 1.4%; P = .12).

The study cohort mainly comprised immunosuppressed transplant patients, notably, heart, lung, and kidney transplant patients. However, “even in this population, we did not see a higher rate of infection,” senior author Nima M. Gharavi, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery and Mohs micrographic surgery and associate professor of medicine and pathology and laboratory medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said in an interview.

Dr. Nima M. Gharavi

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

Patients who are immunocompromised showed no increased risk of surgical site infection when undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery, regardless of whether or not they received antibiotics, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis, which is often used for these patients, may not be necessary, according to new research.

The retrospective cohort study found that “immunosuppressed patients had similar infection rates as immunocompetent patients following Mohs micrographic surgery,” first author Tuyet A. Nguyen, MD, of the department of dermatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Therefore, antibiotic prescribing patterns should not change simply due to immunosuppression. Furthermore, immunosuppressed patients appear to respond well to antibiotics and recover similarly to immunocompetent patients,” she said.

Dr. Nguyen

Overall, postprocedural infections occurred in 1.6% (95) of patients, a rate that mirrors that of the general population, Dr. Nguyen noted. No significant differences in surgical site infection rates were observed between immunocompromised patients (2.1%, n = 15) and those who were immunocompetent (1.6%, n = 80; P = .30).

Importantly, among those who were immunocompromised, the rates of infection were not significantly different between those who did receive antibiotics (3.0%, n = 8) and those who did not receive antibiotics (1.5%, n = 7; P = .19).

The lack of a difference in surgical site infection rates among those who did and those who did not receive antibiotics extended to the entire study population (2.0% vs. 1.4%; P = .12).

The study cohort mainly comprised immunosuppressed transplant patients, notably, heart, lung, and kidney transplant patients. However, “even in this population, we did not see a higher rate of infection,” senior author Nima M. Gharavi, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery and Mohs micrographic surgery and associate professor of medicine and pathology and laboratory medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said in an interview.

Dr. Nima M. Gharavi

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

As increasing numbers of patients in their 80s, 90s, and even 100s present for possible Mohs micrographic surgery, surgeons are confronted with deciding when the risks of treatment may outweigh the benefits.

In one of two presentations at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery that addressed this topic, Howard W. Rogers, MD, of Advanced Dermatology in Norwich, Conn., said that the crux of the issue is the concern not to undertreat. He noted that reduced access to dermatologic care during the pandemic has provided a stark lesson in the risks of delaying treatment in all age groups. “Mohs surgeons have all seen the consequences of delayed treatment due to the pandemic with enormous, destructive, and sometimes fatal cancers coming to the office in the last year,” he told this news organization.

“Pandemic-related treatment delay has caused increased suffering and morbidity for countless skin cancer patients across the U.S.,” he said. “In general, not treating skin cancer and hoping it’s not going to grow or having significant delays in treatment are a recipe for disastrous outcomes.”

That said, active monitoring may be appropriate “for select small cancers that tend to grow slowly in the very elderly,” added Dr. Rogers, the incoming ACMS president. Among the key situations where the benefits of active monitoring may outweigh the risks of surgery are small, slowly growing cancers, when frailty is an issue.

Frailty has been equated to compromised functionality, which can increase the risk of an array of complications, including prolonged wound healing and secondary complications stemming from immobility. The toll those issues can take on patients’ quality of life can be considerable, Dr. Rogers said.

When weighing treatment options with elderly patients, he emphasized that careful consideration should be given to whether the “time needed to benefit from a Mohs procedure is longer than the patient’s life expectancy.” Furthermore, a decision not to treat does not have to be the last word. “We need to have an honest dialogue on the consequences of nontreatment, but part of that should be that just because we don’t treat today, doesn’t mean we can’t treat it tomorrow, if necessary.”

Of note, he added, “more than 100,00 patients have surgery for basal cell carcinoma [BCC] in their last year of life.” And that figure will likely rise exponentially if population projections come to fruition, considering that the population of people over the age of 85 is predicted to increase to nearly 18 million in 2050, from 5.8 million in 2012, Dr. Rogers said.

Until more research emerges on how to best treat this age group, Dr. Rogers noted that experts recommend that for elderly patients, “treatment should be individualized with consideration of active monitoring of primary BCC that is not in the H-zone, asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm, with treatment initiated if there is substantial growth or symptoms.” Ultimately, he urged surgeons to “be sensitive and treat our patients like ourselves or our family members.”
 

When appropriate – Mohs is safe in the very elderly

Taking on the issue in a separate presentation, Deborah MacFarlane, MD, professor of dermatology and head and neck surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that for skin cancer cases that warrant treatment, clinicians should not let age alone stand in the way of Mohs surgery.

The evidence of its safety in the elderly dates back to a paper published in 1997 that Dr. MacFarlane coauthored, describing Mohs surgery of BCCs, squamous cell cancers (SCCs), and melanomas among 115 patients aged 90 and older (average, 92.4 years) who had an average of 1.9 comorbid medical conditions, and were taking an average of 2.3 medications. “Overall, we had just one complication among the patients,” she said.

In a subsequent paper, Dr. MacFarlane and her colleagues found that age at the time of Mohs surgery, even in older patients, was unrelated to survival, stage of cancer, or the type of repair. “We have concluded that this rapidly growing segment of the population can undergo Mohs surgery and should not be relegated to less effective treatment out of fear of its affecting their survival,” Dr. MacFarlane said.

She agreed with the concern about frailty and hence functionality, which may need to be factored in when making a decision to perform Mohs surgery. “I think this is something we do intuitively anyway,” she added. “We’re going to offer Mohs to someone who we think will survive and who is in relatively good health,” Dr. MacFarlane noted.

The point is illustrated in a new multicenter study of 1,181 patients at 22 U.S. sites, aged 85 years and older with nonmelanoma skin cancer referred for Mohs surgery. In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology after the ACMS meeting, patients who had Mohs surgery were almost four times more likely to have high functional status (P < .001) and were more likely to have facial tumors (P < .001), compared with those who had an alternate surgery.

The main reasons provided by the surgeons for opting to treat with Mohs included a patient’s desire for treatment with a high cure rate (66%), good/excellent patient functional status for age (57%), and a high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (40%), noted Dr. MacFarlane, one of the authors.

She reiterated the point raised by Dr. Rogers that “this is something we’re going to increasingly face,” noting that people over 85 represent the fastest growing segment of the population. “I have more patients over the age of 100 than I’ve ever had before,” she said.

Nevertheless, her own experience with elderly patients speaks to the safety of Mohs surgery in this population: Dr. MacFarlane reported a review of her practice’s records of 171 patients aged 85 years and older between May 2016 and May 2022, who received 414 separate procedures, without a single complication.

Sharing many of Dr. Rogers’ concerns about using caution in at-risk patients, Dr. MacFarlane offered recommendations for the optimal treatment of elderly patients receiving Mohs, including handling tissue delicately, and “keep undermining to a minimum.” She noted that intermediate closures and full thickness skin grafts are ideal closures for the elderly, while flaps may be performed in selected robust skin. It is also important to involve caretakers from the onset, talk and listen to patients – and play their choice of music during treatment, she said.

Commenting on the debate, comoderator Nahid Y. Vidal, MD, of the department of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the expanding older population is accompanied by increases in skin cancer, in addition to more immunosenescence that is related to development of infections, autoimmune disease, and malignant tumors.

“In our academic practice, as with both the reference speakers, we do frequently see elderly, and not uncommonly the super-elderly,” she told this news organization. “The take-home point for me is to treat your whole patient, not just the tumor,” considering social factors, frailty/spry factor, and preferences, “and to do the humanistic thing, while also remaining evidence based,” she said.

“Don’t assume that increased age translates to morbidity, worse outcomes, or futility of treatment,” she added. “Chances are, if [a patient] made it to 90 years old with only a few medications and few medical problems, they may make it to 100, so why put the patient at risk for metastasis and death from a treatable/curable skin cancer,” in the case of SCC, she said.

“By the same token, why not perform more conservative treatments such as ED&C [electrodesiccation and curettage] for very low-risk skin cancers in low-risk locations, such as a superficial basal cell carcinoma on the trunk?” Overall, instead of trying to determine how long a super-elderly individual will live, Dr. Vidal said that “it’s better to educate the patient, engage in a discussion about goals of care, and to make few assumptions.”

Dr. Rogers, Dr. MacFarlane, and Dr. Vidal report no disclosures.

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

As increasing numbers of patients in their 80s, 90s, and even 100s present for possible Mohs micrographic surgery, surgeons are confronted with deciding when the risks of treatment may outweigh the benefits.

In one of two presentations at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery that addressed this topic, Howard W. Rogers, MD, of Advanced Dermatology in Norwich, Conn., said that the crux of the issue is the concern not to undertreat. He noted that reduced access to dermatologic care during the pandemic has provided a stark lesson in the risks of delaying treatment in all age groups. “Mohs surgeons have all seen the consequences of delayed treatment due to the pandemic with enormous, destructive, and sometimes fatal cancers coming to the office in the last year,” he told this news organization.

“Pandemic-related treatment delay has caused increased suffering and morbidity for countless skin cancer patients across the U.S.,” he said. “In general, not treating skin cancer and hoping it’s not going to grow or having significant delays in treatment are a recipe for disastrous outcomes.”

That said, active monitoring may be appropriate “for select small cancers that tend to grow slowly in the very elderly,” added Dr. Rogers, the incoming ACMS president. Among the key situations where the benefits of active monitoring may outweigh the risks of surgery are small, slowly growing cancers, when frailty is an issue.

Frailty has been equated to compromised functionality, which can increase the risk of an array of complications, including prolonged wound healing and secondary complications stemming from immobility. The toll those issues can take on patients’ quality of life can be considerable, Dr. Rogers said.

When weighing treatment options with elderly patients, he emphasized that careful consideration should be given to whether the “time needed to benefit from a Mohs procedure is longer than the patient’s life expectancy.” Furthermore, a decision not to treat does not have to be the last word. “We need to have an honest dialogue on the consequences of nontreatment, but part of that should be that just because we don’t treat today, doesn’t mean we can’t treat it tomorrow, if necessary.”

Of note, he added, “more than 100,00 patients have surgery for basal cell carcinoma [BCC] in their last year of life.” And that figure will likely rise exponentially if population projections come to fruition, considering that the population of people over the age of 85 is predicted to increase to nearly 18 million in 2050, from 5.8 million in 2012, Dr. Rogers said.

Until more research emerges on how to best treat this age group, Dr. Rogers noted that experts recommend that for elderly patients, “treatment should be individualized with consideration of active monitoring of primary BCC that is not in the H-zone, asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm, with treatment initiated if there is substantial growth or symptoms.” Ultimately, he urged surgeons to “be sensitive and treat our patients like ourselves or our family members.”
 

When appropriate – Mohs is safe in the very elderly

Taking on the issue in a separate presentation, Deborah MacFarlane, MD, professor of dermatology and head and neck surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that for skin cancer cases that warrant treatment, clinicians should not let age alone stand in the way of Mohs surgery.

The evidence of its safety in the elderly dates back to a paper published in 1997 that Dr. MacFarlane coauthored, describing Mohs surgery of BCCs, squamous cell cancers (SCCs), and melanomas among 115 patients aged 90 and older (average, 92.4 years) who had an average of 1.9 comorbid medical conditions, and were taking an average of 2.3 medications. “Overall, we had just one complication among the patients,” she said.

In a subsequent paper, Dr. MacFarlane and her colleagues found that age at the time of Mohs surgery, even in older patients, was unrelated to survival, stage of cancer, or the type of repair. “We have concluded that this rapidly growing segment of the population can undergo Mohs surgery and should not be relegated to less effective treatment out of fear of its affecting their survival,” Dr. MacFarlane said.

She agreed with the concern about frailty and hence functionality, which may need to be factored in when making a decision to perform Mohs surgery. “I think this is something we do intuitively anyway,” she added. “We’re going to offer Mohs to someone who we think will survive and who is in relatively good health,” Dr. MacFarlane noted.

The point is illustrated in a new multicenter study of 1,181 patients at 22 U.S. sites, aged 85 years and older with nonmelanoma skin cancer referred for Mohs surgery. In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology after the ACMS meeting, patients who had Mohs surgery were almost four times more likely to have high functional status (P < .001) and were more likely to have facial tumors (P < .001), compared with those who had an alternate surgery.

The main reasons provided by the surgeons for opting to treat with Mohs included a patient’s desire for treatment with a high cure rate (66%), good/excellent patient functional status for age (57%), and a high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (40%), noted Dr. MacFarlane, one of the authors.

She reiterated the point raised by Dr. Rogers that “this is something we’re going to increasingly face,” noting that people over 85 represent the fastest growing segment of the population. “I have more patients over the age of 100 than I’ve ever had before,” she said.

Nevertheless, her own experience with elderly patients speaks to the safety of Mohs surgery in this population: Dr. MacFarlane reported a review of her practice’s records of 171 patients aged 85 years and older between May 2016 and May 2022, who received 414 separate procedures, without a single complication.

Sharing many of Dr. Rogers’ concerns about using caution in at-risk patients, Dr. MacFarlane offered recommendations for the optimal treatment of elderly patients receiving Mohs, including handling tissue delicately, and “keep undermining to a minimum.” She noted that intermediate closures and full thickness skin grafts are ideal closures for the elderly, while flaps may be performed in selected robust skin. It is also important to involve caretakers from the onset, talk and listen to patients – and play their choice of music during treatment, she said.

Commenting on the debate, comoderator Nahid Y. Vidal, MD, of the department of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the expanding older population is accompanied by increases in skin cancer, in addition to more immunosenescence that is related to development of infections, autoimmune disease, and malignant tumors.

“In our academic practice, as with both the reference speakers, we do frequently see elderly, and not uncommonly the super-elderly,” she told this news organization. “The take-home point for me is to treat your whole patient, not just the tumor,” considering social factors, frailty/spry factor, and preferences, “and to do the humanistic thing, while also remaining evidence based,” she said.

“Don’t assume that increased age translates to morbidity, worse outcomes, or futility of treatment,” she added. “Chances are, if [a patient] made it to 90 years old with only a few medications and few medical problems, they may make it to 100, so why put the patient at risk for metastasis and death from a treatable/curable skin cancer,” in the case of SCC, she said.

“By the same token, why not perform more conservative treatments such as ED&C [electrodesiccation and curettage] for very low-risk skin cancers in low-risk locations, such as a superficial basal cell carcinoma on the trunk?” Overall, instead of trying to determine how long a super-elderly individual will live, Dr. Vidal said that “it’s better to educate the patient, engage in a discussion about goals of care, and to make few assumptions.”

Dr. Rogers, Dr. MacFarlane, and Dr. Vidal report no disclosures.

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

As increasing numbers of patients in their 80s, 90s, and even 100s present for possible Mohs micrographic surgery, surgeons are confronted with deciding when the risks of treatment may outweigh the benefits.

In one of two presentations at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery that addressed this topic, Howard W. Rogers, MD, of Advanced Dermatology in Norwich, Conn., said that the crux of the issue is the concern not to undertreat. He noted that reduced access to dermatologic care during the pandemic has provided a stark lesson in the risks of delaying treatment in all age groups. “Mohs surgeons have all seen the consequences of delayed treatment due to the pandemic with enormous, destructive, and sometimes fatal cancers coming to the office in the last year,” he told this news organization.

“Pandemic-related treatment delay has caused increased suffering and morbidity for countless skin cancer patients across the U.S.,” he said. “In general, not treating skin cancer and hoping it’s not going to grow or having significant delays in treatment are a recipe for disastrous outcomes.”

That said, active monitoring may be appropriate “for select small cancers that tend to grow slowly in the very elderly,” added Dr. Rogers, the incoming ACMS president. Among the key situations where the benefits of active monitoring may outweigh the risks of surgery are small, slowly growing cancers, when frailty is an issue.

Frailty has been equated to compromised functionality, which can increase the risk of an array of complications, including prolonged wound healing and secondary complications stemming from immobility. The toll those issues can take on patients’ quality of life can be considerable, Dr. Rogers said.

When weighing treatment options with elderly patients, he emphasized that careful consideration should be given to whether the “time needed to benefit from a Mohs procedure is longer than the patient’s life expectancy.” Furthermore, a decision not to treat does not have to be the last word. “We need to have an honest dialogue on the consequences of nontreatment, but part of that should be that just because we don’t treat today, doesn’t mean we can’t treat it tomorrow, if necessary.”

Of note, he added, “more than 100,00 patients have surgery for basal cell carcinoma [BCC] in their last year of life.” And that figure will likely rise exponentially if population projections come to fruition, considering that the population of people over the age of 85 is predicted to increase to nearly 18 million in 2050, from 5.8 million in 2012, Dr. Rogers said.

Until more research emerges on how to best treat this age group, Dr. Rogers noted that experts recommend that for elderly patients, “treatment should be individualized with consideration of active monitoring of primary BCC that is not in the H-zone, asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm, with treatment initiated if there is substantial growth or symptoms.” Ultimately, he urged surgeons to “be sensitive and treat our patients like ourselves or our family members.”
 

When appropriate – Mohs is safe in the very elderly

Taking on the issue in a separate presentation, Deborah MacFarlane, MD, professor of dermatology and head and neck surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that for skin cancer cases that warrant treatment, clinicians should not let age alone stand in the way of Mohs surgery.

The evidence of its safety in the elderly dates back to a paper published in 1997 that Dr. MacFarlane coauthored, describing Mohs surgery of BCCs, squamous cell cancers (SCCs), and melanomas among 115 patients aged 90 and older (average, 92.4 years) who had an average of 1.9 comorbid medical conditions, and were taking an average of 2.3 medications. “Overall, we had just one complication among the patients,” she said.

In a subsequent paper, Dr. MacFarlane and her colleagues found that age at the time of Mohs surgery, even in older patients, was unrelated to survival, stage of cancer, or the type of repair. “We have concluded that this rapidly growing segment of the population can undergo Mohs surgery and should not be relegated to less effective treatment out of fear of its affecting their survival,” Dr. MacFarlane said.

She agreed with the concern about frailty and hence functionality, which may need to be factored in when making a decision to perform Mohs surgery. “I think this is something we do intuitively anyway,” she added. “We’re going to offer Mohs to someone who we think will survive and who is in relatively good health,” Dr. MacFarlane noted.

The point is illustrated in a new multicenter study of 1,181 patients at 22 U.S. sites, aged 85 years and older with nonmelanoma skin cancer referred for Mohs surgery. In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology after the ACMS meeting, patients who had Mohs surgery were almost four times more likely to have high functional status (P < .001) and were more likely to have facial tumors (P < .001), compared with those who had an alternate surgery.

The main reasons provided by the surgeons for opting to treat with Mohs included a patient’s desire for treatment with a high cure rate (66%), good/excellent patient functional status for age (57%), and a high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (40%), noted Dr. MacFarlane, one of the authors.

She reiterated the point raised by Dr. Rogers that “this is something we’re going to increasingly face,” noting that people over 85 represent the fastest growing segment of the population. “I have more patients over the age of 100 than I’ve ever had before,” she said.

Nevertheless, her own experience with elderly patients speaks to the safety of Mohs surgery in this population: Dr. MacFarlane reported a review of her practice’s records of 171 patients aged 85 years and older between May 2016 and May 2022, who received 414 separate procedures, without a single complication.

Sharing many of Dr. Rogers’ concerns about using caution in at-risk patients, Dr. MacFarlane offered recommendations for the optimal treatment of elderly patients receiving Mohs, including handling tissue delicately, and “keep undermining to a minimum.” She noted that intermediate closures and full thickness skin grafts are ideal closures for the elderly, while flaps may be performed in selected robust skin. It is also important to involve caretakers from the onset, talk and listen to patients – and play their choice of music during treatment, she said.

Commenting on the debate, comoderator Nahid Y. Vidal, MD, of the department of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the expanding older population is accompanied by increases in skin cancer, in addition to more immunosenescence that is related to development of infections, autoimmune disease, and malignant tumors.

“In our academic practice, as with both the reference speakers, we do frequently see elderly, and not uncommonly the super-elderly,” she told this news organization. “The take-home point for me is to treat your whole patient, not just the tumor,” considering social factors, frailty/spry factor, and preferences, “and to do the humanistic thing, while also remaining evidence based,” she said.

“Don’t assume that increased age translates to morbidity, worse outcomes, or futility of treatment,” she added. “Chances are, if [a patient] made it to 90 years old with only a few medications and few medical problems, they may make it to 100, so why put the patient at risk for metastasis and death from a treatable/curable skin cancer,” in the case of SCC, she said.

“By the same token, why not perform more conservative treatments such as ED&C [electrodesiccation and curettage] for very low-risk skin cancers in low-risk locations, such as a superficial basal cell carcinoma on the trunk?” Overall, instead of trying to determine how long a super-elderly individual will live, Dr. Vidal said that “it’s better to educate the patient, engage in a discussion about goals of care, and to make few assumptions.”

Dr. Rogers, Dr. MacFarlane, and Dr. Vidal report no disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO – Twelve years ago, Merete Haedersdal, MD, PhD, and colleagues published data from a swine study, which showed for the first time that the ablative fractional laser can be used to boost the uptake of drugs into the skin.

That discovery paved the way for what are now well-established clinical applications of laser-assisted drug delivery for treating actinic keratoses and scars. According to Dr. Haedersdal, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, evolving clinical indications for laser-assisted drug delivery include rejuvenation, local anesthesia, melasma, onychomycosis, hyperhidrosis, alopecia, and vitiligo, while emerging indications include treatment of skin cancer with PD-1 inhibitors and combination chemotherapy regimens, and vaccinations.

During a presentation at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, she said that researchers have much to learn about laser-assisted drug delivery, including biodistribution of the drug being delivered. Pointing out that so far, “what we have been dealing with is primarily looking at the skin as a black box,” she asked, “what happens when we drill the holes and drugs are applied on top of the skin and swim through the tiny channels?”

By using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and HPLC mass spectrometry to measure drug concentration in the skin, she and her colleagues have observed enhanced uptake of drugs – 4-fold to 40-fold greater – primarily in ex vivo pig skin. “We do know from ex vivo models that it’s much easier to boost the uptake in the skin” when compared with in vivo human use, where much lower drug concentrations are detected, said Dr. Haedersdal, who, along with Emily Wenande, MD, PhD, and R. Rox Anderson, MD, at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, authored a clinical review, published in 2020, on the basics of laser-assisted drug delivery.

“What we are working on now is visualizing what’s taking place when we apply the holes and the drugs in the skin. This is the key to tailoring laser-assisted uptake to specific dermatologic diseases being treated,” she said. To date, she and her colleagues have examined the interaction with tissue using different devices, including ex vivo confocal microscopy, to view the thermal response to ablative fractional laser and radiofrequency. “We want to take that to the next level and look at the drug biodistribution.”

Efforts are underway to compare the pattern of drug distribution with different modes of delivery, such as comparing ablative fractional laser to intradermal needle injection. “We are also working on pneumatic jet injection, which creates a focal drug distribution,” said Dr. Haedersdal, who is a visiting scientist at the Wellman Center. “In the future, we may take advantage of device-tailored biodistribution, depending on which clinical indication we are treating.”

Another important aspect to consider is drug retention in the skin. In a study presented as an abstract at the meeting, led by Dr. Wenande, she, Dr. Haedersdal, and colleagues used a pig model to evaluate the effect of three vasoregulative interventions on ablative fractional laser-assisted 5-fluororacil concentrations in in vivo skin. The three interventions were brimonidine 0.33% solution, epinephrine 10 mcg/mL gel, and a 595-nm pulsed dye laser (PDL) in designated treatment areas.

“What we learned from that was in the short term – 1-4 hours – the ablative fractional laser enhanced the uptake of 5-FU, but it was very transient,” with a twofold increased concentration of 5-FU, Dr. Haedersdal said. Over 48-72 hours, after PDL, there was “sustained enhancement of drug in the skin by three to four times,” she noted.

The synergy of systemic drugs with ablative fractional laser therapy is also being evaluated. In a mouse study led by Dr. Haedersdal’s colleague, senior researcher Uffe H. Olesen, PhD, the treatment of advanced squamous cell carcinoma tumors with a combination of ablative fractional laser and systemic treatment with PD-1 inhibitors resulted in the clearance of more tumors than with either treatment as monotherapy. “What we want to explore is the laser-induced tumor immune response in keratinocyte cancers,” she added.

“When you shine the laser on the skin, there is a robust increase of neutrophilic granulocytes.” Combining this topical immune-boosting response with systemic delivery of PD-1 inhibitors in a mouse model with basal cell carcinoma, she said, “we learned that, when we compare systemic PD-1 inhibitors alone to the laser alone and then with combination therapy, there was an increased tumor clearance of basal cell carcinomas and also enhanced survival of the mice” with the combination, she said. There were also “enhanced neutrophilic counts and both CD4- and CD8-positive cells were increased,” she added.

Dr. Haedersdal disclosed that she has received grants or research funding from Lutronic, Venus Concept, Leo Pharma, and Mirai Medical.

SAN DIEGO – Twelve years ago, Merete Haedersdal, MD, PhD, and colleagues published data from a swine study, which showed for the first time that the ablative fractional laser can be used to boost the uptake of drugs into the skin.

That discovery paved the way for what are now well-established clinical applications of laser-assisted drug delivery for treating actinic keratoses and scars. According to Dr. Haedersdal, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, evolving clinical indications for laser-assisted drug delivery include rejuvenation, local anesthesia, melasma, onychomycosis, hyperhidrosis, alopecia, and vitiligo, while emerging indications include treatment of skin cancer with PD-1 inhibitors and combination chemotherapy regimens, and vaccinations.

During a presentation at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, she said that researchers have much to learn about laser-assisted drug delivery, including biodistribution of the drug being delivered. Pointing out that so far, “what we have been dealing with is primarily looking at the skin as a black box,” she asked, “what happens when we drill the holes and drugs are applied on top of the skin and swim through the tiny channels?”

By using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and HPLC mass spectrometry to measure drug concentration in the skin, she and her colleagues have observed enhanced uptake of drugs – 4-fold to 40-fold greater – primarily in ex vivo pig skin. “We do know from ex vivo models that it’s much easier to boost the uptake in the skin” when compared with in vivo human use, where much lower drug concentrations are detected, said Dr. Haedersdal, who, along with Emily Wenande, MD, PhD, and R. Rox Anderson, MD, at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, authored a clinical review, published in 2020, on the basics of laser-assisted drug delivery.

“What we are working on now is visualizing what’s taking place when we apply the holes and the drugs in the skin. This is the key to tailoring laser-assisted uptake to specific dermatologic diseases being treated,” she said. To date, she and her colleagues have examined the interaction with tissue using different devices, including ex vivo confocal microscopy, to view the thermal response to ablative fractional laser and radiofrequency. “We want to take that to the next level and look at the drug biodistribution.”

Efforts are underway to compare the pattern of drug distribution with different modes of delivery, such as comparing ablative fractional laser to intradermal needle injection. “We are also working on pneumatic jet injection, which creates a focal drug distribution,” said Dr. Haedersdal, who is a visiting scientist at the Wellman Center. “In the future, we may take advantage of device-tailored biodistribution, depending on which clinical indication we are treating.”

Another important aspect to consider is drug retention in the skin. In a study presented as an abstract at the meeting, led by Dr. Wenande, she, Dr. Haedersdal, and colleagues used a pig model to evaluate the effect of three vasoregulative interventions on ablative fractional laser-assisted 5-fluororacil concentrations in in vivo skin. The three interventions were brimonidine 0.33% solution, epinephrine 10 mcg/mL gel, and a 595-nm pulsed dye laser (PDL) in designated treatment areas.

“What we learned from that was in the short term – 1-4 hours – the ablative fractional laser enhanced the uptake of 5-FU, but it was very transient,” with a twofold increased concentration of 5-FU, Dr. Haedersdal said. Over 48-72 hours, after PDL, there was “sustained enhancement of drug in the skin by three to four times,” she noted.

The synergy of systemic drugs with ablative fractional laser therapy is also being evaluated. In a mouse study led by Dr. Haedersdal’s colleague, senior researcher Uffe H. Olesen, PhD, the treatment of advanced squamous cell carcinoma tumors with a combination of ablative fractional laser and systemic treatment with PD-1 inhibitors resulted in the clearance of more tumors than with either treatment as monotherapy. “What we want to explore is the laser-induced tumor immune response in keratinocyte cancers,” she added.

“When you shine the laser on the skin, there is a robust increase of neutrophilic granulocytes.” Combining this topical immune-boosting response with systemic delivery of PD-1 inhibitors in a mouse model with basal cell carcinoma, she said, “we learned that, when we compare systemic PD-1 inhibitors alone to the laser alone and then with combination therapy, there was an increased tumor clearance of basal cell carcinomas and also enhanced survival of the mice” with the combination, she said. There were also “enhanced neutrophilic counts and both CD4- and CD8-positive cells were increased,” she added.

Dr. Haedersdal disclosed that she has received grants or research funding from Lutronic, Venus Concept, Leo Pharma, and Mirai Medical.

SAN DIEGO – Twelve years ago, Merete Haedersdal, MD, PhD, and colleagues published data from a swine study, which showed for the first time that the ablative fractional laser can be used to boost the uptake of drugs into the skin.

That discovery paved the way for what are now well-established clinical applications of laser-assisted drug delivery for treating actinic keratoses and scars. According to Dr. Haedersdal, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, evolving clinical indications for laser-assisted drug delivery include rejuvenation, local anesthesia, melasma, onychomycosis, hyperhidrosis, alopecia, and vitiligo, while emerging indications include treatment of skin cancer with PD-1 inhibitors and combination chemotherapy regimens, and vaccinations.

During a presentation at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, she said that researchers have much to learn about laser-assisted drug delivery, including biodistribution of the drug being delivered. Pointing out that so far, “what we have been dealing with is primarily looking at the skin as a black box,” she asked, “what happens when we drill the holes and drugs are applied on top of the skin and swim through the tiny channels?”

By using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and HPLC mass spectrometry to measure drug concentration in the skin, she and her colleagues have observed enhanced uptake of drugs – 4-fold to 40-fold greater – primarily in ex vivo pig skin. “We do know from ex vivo models that it’s much easier to boost the uptake in the skin” when compared with in vivo human use, where much lower drug concentrations are detected, said Dr. Haedersdal, who, along with Emily Wenande, MD, PhD, and R. Rox Anderson, MD, at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, authored a clinical review, published in 2020, on the basics of laser-assisted drug delivery.

“What we are working on now is visualizing what’s taking place when we apply the holes and the drugs in the skin. This is the key to tailoring laser-assisted uptake to specific dermatologic diseases being treated,” she said. To date, she and her colleagues have examined the interaction with tissue using different devices, including ex vivo confocal microscopy, to view the thermal response to ablative fractional laser and radiofrequency. “We want to take that to the next level and look at the drug biodistribution.”

Efforts are underway to compare the pattern of drug distribution with different modes of delivery, such as comparing ablative fractional laser to intradermal needle injection. “We are also working on pneumatic jet injection, which creates a focal drug distribution,” said Dr. Haedersdal, who is a visiting scientist at the Wellman Center. “In the future, we may take advantage of device-tailored biodistribution, depending on which clinical indication we are treating.”

Another important aspect to consider is drug retention in the skin. In a study presented as an abstract at the meeting, led by Dr. Wenande, she, Dr. Haedersdal, and colleagues used a pig model to evaluate the effect of three vasoregulative interventions on ablative fractional laser-assisted 5-fluororacil concentrations in in vivo skin. The three interventions were brimonidine 0.33% solution, epinephrine 10 mcg/mL gel, and a 595-nm pulsed dye laser (PDL) in designated treatment areas.

“What we learned from that was in the short term – 1-4 hours – the ablative fractional laser enhanced the uptake of 5-FU, but it was very transient,” with a twofold increased concentration of 5-FU, Dr. Haedersdal said. Over 48-72 hours, after PDL, there was “sustained enhancement of drug in the skin by three to four times,” she noted.

The synergy of systemic drugs with ablative fractional laser therapy is also being evaluated. In a mouse study led by Dr. Haedersdal’s colleague, senior researcher Uffe H. Olesen, PhD, the treatment of advanced squamous cell carcinoma tumors with a combination of ablative fractional laser and systemic treatment with PD-1 inhibitors resulted in the clearance of more tumors than with either treatment as monotherapy. “What we want to explore is the laser-induced tumor immune response in keratinocyte cancers,” she added.

“When you shine the laser on the skin, there is a robust increase of neutrophilic granulocytes.” Combining this topical immune-boosting response with systemic delivery of PD-1 inhibitors in a mouse model with basal cell carcinoma, she said, “we learned that, when we compare systemic PD-1 inhibitors alone to the laser alone and then with combination therapy, there was an increased tumor clearance of basal cell carcinomas and also enhanced survival of the mice” with the combination, she said. There were also “enhanced neutrophilic counts and both CD4- and CD8-positive cells were increased,” she added.

Dr. Haedersdal disclosed that she has received grants or research funding from Lutronic, Venus Concept, Leo Pharma, and Mirai Medical.