Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a multifactorial chronic inflammatory skin disease affecting 1% to 4% of Europeans. It is characterized by recurrent inflamed nodules, abscesses, and sinus tracts in intertriginous regions.¹ The genital area is affected in 11% of cases² and usually is connected to severe forms of HS in both men and women.³ The prevalence of HS-associated genital lymphedema remains unknown.

Saxophone penis is a specific penile malformation characterized by a saxophone shape due to inflammation of the major penile lymphatic vessels that cause fibrosis of the surrounding connective tissue. Poor blood flow further causes contracture and distortion of the penile axis.⁴ Saxophone penis also has been associated with primary lymphedema, lymphogranuloma venereum, filariasis,⁵ and administration of paraffin injections.⁶ We describe 3 men with HS who presented with saxophone penis.

A 33-year-old man with Hurley stage III HS presented with a medical history of groin lesions and progressive penoscrotal edema of 13 years’ duration. He had a body mass index (BMI) of 37, no family history of HS or comorbidities, and a 15-year history of smoking 20 cigarettes per day. After repeated surgical drainage of the HS lesions as well as antibiotic treatment with clindamycin 600 mg/d and rifampicin 600 mg/d, the patient was kept on a maintenance therapy with adalimumab 40 mg/wk. Due to lack of response, treatment was discontinued at week 16. Clindamycin and ­rifampicin 300 mg were immediately reintroduced with no benefit on the genital lesions. The patient underwent genital reconstruction, including penile degloving, scrotoplasty, infrapubic fat pad removal, and perineoplasty (Figure 1). The patient currently is not undergoing any therapies.

A 55-year-old man presented with Hurley stage II HS of 33 years’ duration. He had a BMI of 52; a history of hypertension, hyperuricemia, severe hip and knee osteoarthritis, and orchiopexy in childhood; a smoking history of 40 cigarettes per day; and an alcohol consumption history of 200 mL per day since 18 years of age. He had radical excision of axillary lesions 8 years prior. One year later, he was treated with concomitant clindamycin and rifampicin 300 mg twice daily for 3 months with no desirable effects. Adalimumab 40 mg/wk was initiated. After 12 weeks of treatment, he experienced 80% improvement in all areas except the genital region. He continued adalimumab for 3 years with good clinical response in all HS-affected sites except the genital region.

A 66-year-old man presented with Hurley stage III HS of 37 years’ duration. He had a smoking history of 10 cigarettes per day for 30 years, a BMI of 24.6, and a medical history of long-standing hypertension and hypothyroidism. A 3-month course of clindamycin and rifampicin 600 mg/d was ineffective; adalimumab 40 mg/wk was initiated. All affected areas improved, except for the saxophone penis. He continues his fifth year of therapy with adalimumab (Figure 2).

Hidradenitis suppurativa is associated with chronic pain, purulent malodor, and scarring with structural deformity. Repetitive inflammation causes fibrosis, scar formation, and soft-tissue destruction of lymphatic vessels, leading to lymphedema; primary lymphedema of the genitals in men has been reported to result in a saxophone penis.⁴

The only approved biologic treatments for moderate to severe HS are the tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor adalimumab and anti-IL-17 secukinumab.¹ All 3 of our patients with HS were treated with adalimumab with reasonable success; however, the penile condition remained refractory, which we speculate may be due to adalimumab’s ability to control only active inflammatory lesions but not scars or fibrotic tissue.⁷ Higher adalimumab dosages were unlikely to be beneficial for their penile condition; some improvements have been reported following fluoroquinolone therapy. To our knowledge, there is no effective medical treatment for saxophone penis. However, surgery showed good results in one of our patients. Among our 3 adalimumab-treated patients, only 1 patient had corrective surgery that resulted in improvement in the penile deformity, further confirming adalimumab’s limited role in genital lymphedema.⁷ Extensive resection of the lymphedematous tissue, scrotoplasty, and Charles procedure are treatment options.⁸

Genital lymphedema has been associated with lymphangiectasia, lymphangioma circumscriptum, infections, and neoplasms such as lymphangiosarcoma and squamous cell carcinoma.⁹ Our patients reported discomfort, hygiene issues, and swelling. One patient reported micturition, and 2 patients reported sexual dysfunction.

Saxophone penis remains a disabling sequela of HS. Early diagnosis and treatment of HS may help prevent development of this condition.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a multifactorial chronic inflammatory skin disease affecting 1% to 4% of Europeans. It is characterized by recurrent inflamed nodules, abscesses, and sinus tracts in intertriginous regions.¹ The genital area is affected in 11% of cases² and usually is connected to severe forms of HS in both men and women.³ The prevalence of HS-associated genital lymphedema remains unknown.

Saxophone penis is a specific penile malformation characterized by a saxophone shape due to inflammation of the major penile lymphatic vessels that cause fibrosis of the surrounding connective tissue. Poor blood flow further causes contracture and distortion of the penile axis.⁴ Saxophone penis also has been associated with primary lymphedema, lymphogranuloma venereum, filariasis,⁵ and administration of paraffin injections.⁶ We describe 3 men with HS who presented with saxophone penis.

A 33-year-old man with Hurley stage III HS presented with a medical history of groin lesions and progressive penoscrotal edema of 13 years’ duration. He had a body mass index (BMI) of 37, no family history of HS or comorbidities, and a 15-year history of smoking 20 cigarettes per day. After repeated surgical drainage of the HS lesions as well as antibiotic treatment with clindamycin 600 mg/d and rifampicin 600 mg/d, the patient was kept on a maintenance therapy with adalimumab 40 mg/wk. Due to lack of response, treatment was discontinued at week 16. Clindamycin and ­rifampicin 300 mg were immediately reintroduced with no benefit on the genital lesions. The patient underwent genital reconstruction, including penile degloving, scrotoplasty, infrapubic fat pad removal, and perineoplasty (Figure 1). The patient currently is not undergoing any therapies.

A 55-year-old man presented with Hurley stage II HS of 33 years’ duration. He had a BMI of 52; a history of hypertension, hyperuricemia, severe hip and knee osteoarthritis, and orchiopexy in childhood; a smoking history of 40 cigarettes per day; and an alcohol consumption history of 200 mL per day since 18 years of age. He had radical excision of axillary lesions 8 years prior. One year later, he was treated with concomitant clindamycin and rifampicin 300 mg twice daily for 3 months with no desirable effects. Adalimumab 40 mg/wk was initiated. After 12 weeks of treatment, he experienced 80% improvement in all areas except the genital region. He continued adalimumab for 3 years with good clinical response in all HS-affected sites except the genital region.

A 66-year-old man presented with Hurley stage III HS of 37 years’ duration. He had a smoking history of 10 cigarettes per day for 30 years, a BMI of 24.6, and a medical history of long-standing hypertension and hypothyroidism. A 3-month course of clindamycin and rifampicin 600 mg/d was ineffective; adalimumab 40 mg/wk was initiated. All affected areas improved, except for the saxophone penis. He continues his fifth year of therapy with adalimumab (Figure 2).

Hidradenitis suppurativa is associated with chronic pain, purulent malodor, and scarring with structural deformity. Repetitive inflammation causes fibrosis, scar formation, and soft-tissue destruction of lymphatic vessels, leading to lymphedema; primary lymphedema of the genitals in men has been reported to result in a saxophone penis.⁴

The only approved biologic treatments for moderate to severe HS are the tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor adalimumab and anti-IL-17 secukinumab.¹ All 3 of our patients with HS were treated with adalimumab with reasonable success; however, the penile condition remained refractory, which we speculate may be due to adalimumab’s ability to control only active inflammatory lesions but not scars or fibrotic tissue.⁷ Higher adalimumab dosages were unlikely to be beneficial for their penile condition; some improvements have been reported following fluoroquinolone therapy. To our knowledge, there is no effective medical treatment for saxophone penis. However, surgery showed good results in one of our patients. Among our 3 adalimumab-treated patients, only 1 patient had corrective surgery that resulted in improvement in the penile deformity, further confirming adalimumab’s limited role in genital lymphedema.⁷ Extensive resection of the lymphedematous tissue, scrotoplasty, and Charles procedure are treatment options.⁸

Genital lymphedema has been associated with lymphangiectasia, lymphangioma circumscriptum, infections, and neoplasms such as lymphangiosarcoma and squamous cell carcinoma.⁹ Our patients reported discomfort, hygiene issues, and swelling. One patient reported micturition, and 2 patients reported sexual dysfunction.

Saxophone penis remains a disabling sequela of HS. Early diagnosis and treatment of HS may help prevent development of this condition.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a multifactorial chronic inflammatory skin disease affecting 1% to 4% of Europeans. It is characterized by recurrent inflamed nodules, abscesses, and sinus tracts in intertriginous regions.¹ The genital area is affected in 11% of cases² and usually is connected to severe forms of HS in both men and women.³ The prevalence of HS-associated genital lymphedema remains unknown.

Saxophone penis is a specific penile malformation characterized by a saxophone shape due to inflammation of the major penile lymphatic vessels that cause fibrosis of the surrounding connective tissue. Poor blood flow further causes contracture and distortion of the penile axis.⁴ Saxophone penis also has been associated with primary lymphedema, lymphogranuloma venereum, filariasis,⁵ and administration of paraffin injections.⁶ We describe 3 men with HS who presented with saxophone penis.

A 33-year-old man with Hurley stage III HS presented with a medical history of groin lesions and progressive penoscrotal edema of 13 years’ duration. He had a body mass index (BMI) of 37, no family history of HS or comorbidities, and a 15-year history of smoking 20 cigarettes per day. After repeated surgical drainage of the HS lesions as well as antibiotic treatment with clindamycin 600 mg/d and rifampicin 600 mg/d, the patient was kept on a maintenance therapy with adalimumab 40 mg/wk. Due to lack of response, treatment was discontinued at week 16. Clindamycin and ­rifampicin 300 mg were immediately reintroduced with no benefit on the genital lesions. The patient underwent genital reconstruction, including penile degloving, scrotoplasty, infrapubic fat pad removal, and perineoplasty (Figure 1). The patient currently is not undergoing any therapies.

A 55-year-old man presented with Hurley stage II HS of 33 years’ duration. He had a BMI of 52; a history of hypertension, hyperuricemia, severe hip and knee osteoarthritis, and orchiopexy in childhood; a smoking history of 40 cigarettes per day; and an alcohol consumption history of 200 mL per day since 18 years of age. He had radical excision of axillary lesions 8 years prior. One year later, he was treated with concomitant clindamycin and rifampicin 300 mg twice daily for 3 months with no desirable effects. Adalimumab 40 mg/wk was initiated. After 12 weeks of treatment, he experienced 80% improvement in all areas except the genital region. He continued adalimumab for 3 years with good clinical response in all HS-affected sites except the genital region.

A 66-year-old man presented with Hurley stage III HS of 37 years’ duration. He had a smoking history of 10 cigarettes per day for 30 years, a BMI of 24.6, and a medical history of long-standing hypertension and hypothyroidism. A 3-month course of clindamycin and rifampicin 600 mg/d was ineffective; adalimumab 40 mg/wk was initiated. All affected areas improved, except for the saxophone penis. He continues his fifth year of therapy with adalimumab (Figure 2).

Hidradenitis suppurativa is associated with chronic pain, purulent malodor, and scarring with structural deformity. Repetitive inflammation causes fibrosis, scar formation, and soft-tissue destruction of lymphatic vessels, leading to lymphedema; primary lymphedema of the genitals in men has been reported to result in a saxophone penis.⁴

The only approved biologic treatments for moderate to severe HS are the tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor adalimumab and anti-IL-17 secukinumab.¹ All 3 of our patients with HS were treated with adalimumab with reasonable success; however, the penile condition remained refractory, which we speculate may be due to adalimumab’s ability to control only active inflammatory lesions but not scars or fibrotic tissue.⁷ Higher adalimumab dosages were unlikely to be beneficial for their penile condition; some improvements have been reported following fluoroquinolone therapy. To our knowledge, there is no effective medical treatment for saxophone penis. However, surgery showed good results in one of our patients. Among our 3 adalimumab-treated patients, only 1 patient had corrective surgery that resulted in improvement in the penile deformity, further confirming adalimumab’s limited role in genital lymphedema.⁷ Extensive resection of the lymphedematous tissue, scrotoplasty, and Charles procedure are treatment options.⁸

Genital lymphedema has been associated with lymphangiectasia, lymphangioma circumscriptum, infections, and neoplasms such as lymphangiosarcoma and squamous cell carcinoma.⁹ Our patients reported discomfort, hygiene issues, and swelling. One patient reported micturition, and 2 patients reported sexual dysfunction.

Saxophone penis remains a disabling sequela of HS. Early diagnosis and treatment of HS may help prevent development of this condition.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) (Tecelra, Adaptimmune LLC) to treat advanced synovial sarcoma. 

Afami-cel — the first engineered cell therapy for a solid tumor — is indicated specifically for adults with unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma who have received prior chemotherapy, are positive for several human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), and whose tumors express melanoma-associated antigen A4, as determined by FDA-authorized companion diagnostic devices.

The single-dose treatment targets solid tumors expressing melanoma-associated antigen A4, a protein highly expressed in synovial sarcoma.

Synovial sarcoma is a rare form of cancer, which affects about 1000 people in the US each year. Malignant cells develop and form a tumor in soft tissues, often in the extremities. 

“Adults with metastatic synovial sarcoma, a life-threatening form of cancer, often face limited treatment options in addition to the risk of cancer spread or recurrence,” Nicole Verdun, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Products in the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the agency press release announcing the approval. “Today’s approval represents a significant milestone in the development of an innovative, safe and effective therapy for patients with this rare but potentially fatal disease.”

T-cell receptor therapy, like chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, involves altering patient T cells to fight cancer. While CAR-T therapy inserts an artificial receptor to target a specific surface protein on cancer cells, the T-cell receptor therapy modifies existing receptors to recognize an array of antigens on the surface of cancer cells — a promising strategy for targeting solid tumors. 

The accelerated approval of afami-cel was based on the phase 2 SPEARHEAD-1 trial in 44 patients with synovial sarcoma who received a single infusion of the therapy. The trial had enrolled 52 patients, but 8 did not receive afami-cel, including 3 who died and 1 who withdrew. 

According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was 43.2%, with a median time to response of 4.9 weeks. The median duration of response was 6 months (95% CI, 4.6 months to not reached). Among patients who responded, 39% had a duration of response of 12 months or longer.

“These results suggest that a one-time treatment with afami-cel has the potential to extend life while allowing responders to go off chemotherapy,” said lead investigator Sandra D’Angelo, MD, a sarcoma specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a company press release.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome.

The most common nonlaboratory adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included cytokine release syndrome, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, infections, pyrexia, constipation, dyspnea, tachycardia, hypotension, diarrhea, and edema. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white cell blood count, red blood cell, and platelet count.

The recommended dose is between 2.68x109 to 10x109 MAGE-A4 T-cell receptor–positive T-cells. The FDA notice specifies not using a leukodepleting filter or prophylactic systemic corticosteroids.

The list price for the one-time therapy is $727,000, according to Fierce Pharma.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) (Tecelra, Adaptimmune LLC) to treat advanced synovial sarcoma. 

Afami-cel — the first engineered cell therapy for a solid tumor — is indicated specifically for adults with unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma who have received prior chemotherapy, are positive for several human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), and whose tumors express melanoma-associated antigen A4, as determined by FDA-authorized companion diagnostic devices.

The single-dose treatment targets solid tumors expressing melanoma-associated antigen A4, a protein highly expressed in synovial sarcoma.

Synovial sarcoma is a rare form of cancer, which affects about 1000 people in the US each year. Malignant cells develop and form a tumor in soft tissues, often in the extremities. 

“Adults with metastatic synovial sarcoma, a life-threatening form of cancer, often face limited treatment options in addition to the risk of cancer spread or recurrence,” Nicole Verdun, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Products in the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the agency press release announcing the approval. “Today’s approval represents a significant milestone in the development of an innovative, safe and effective therapy for patients with this rare but potentially fatal disease.”

T-cell receptor therapy, like chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, involves altering patient T cells to fight cancer. While CAR-T therapy inserts an artificial receptor to target a specific surface protein on cancer cells, the T-cell receptor therapy modifies existing receptors to recognize an array of antigens on the surface of cancer cells — a promising strategy for targeting solid tumors. 

The accelerated approval of afami-cel was based on the phase 2 SPEARHEAD-1 trial in 44 patients with synovial sarcoma who received a single infusion of the therapy. The trial had enrolled 52 patients, but 8 did not receive afami-cel, including 3 who died and 1 who withdrew. 

According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was 43.2%, with a median time to response of 4.9 weeks. The median duration of response was 6 months (95% CI, 4.6 months to not reached). Among patients who responded, 39% had a duration of response of 12 months or longer.

“These results suggest that a one-time treatment with afami-cel has the potential to extend life while allowing responders to go off chemotherapy,” said lead investigator Sandra D’Angelo, MD, a sarcoma specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a company press release.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome.

The most common nonlaboratory adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included cytokine release syndrome, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, infections, pyrexia, constipation, dyspnea, tachycardia, hypotension, diarrhea, and edema. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white cell blood count, red blood cell, and platelet count.

The recommended dose is between 2.68x109 to 10x109 MAGE-A4 T-cell receptor–positive T-cells. The FDA notice specifies not using a leukodepleting filter or prophylactic systemic corticosteroids.

The list price for the one-time therapy is $727,000, according to Fierce Pharma.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) (Tecelra, Adaptimmune LLC) to treat advanced synovial sarcoma. 

Afami-cel — the first engineered cell therapy for a solid tumor — is indicated specifically for adults with unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma who have received prior chemotherapy, are positive for several human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), and whose tumors express melanoma-associated antigen A4, as determined by FDA-authorized companion diagnostic devices.

The single-dose treatment targets solid tumors expressing melanoma-associated antigen A4, a protein highly expressed in synovial sarcoma.

Synovial sarcoma is a rare form of cancer, which affects about 1000 people in the US each year. Malignant cells develop and form a tumor in soft tissues, often in the extremities. 

“Adults with metastatic synovial sarcoma, a life-threatening form of cancer, often face limited treatment options in addition to the risk of cancer spread or recurrence,” Nicole Verdun, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Products in the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the agency press release announcing the approval. “Today’s approval represents a significant milestone in the development of an innovative, safe and effective therapy for patients with this rare but potentially fatal disease.”

T-cell receptor therapy, like chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, involves altering patient T cells to fight cancer. While CAR-T therapy inserts an artificial receptor to target a specific surface protein on cancer cells, the T-cell receptor therapy modifies existing receptors to recognize an array of antigens on the surface of cancer cells — a promising strategy for targeting solid tumors. 

The accelerated approval of afami-cel was based on the phase 2 SPEARHEAD-1 trial in 44 patients with synovial sarcoma who received a single infusion of the therapy. The trial had enrolled 52 patients, but 8 did not receive afami-cel, including 3 who died and 1 who withdrew. 

According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was 43.2%, with a median time to response of 4.9 weeks. The median duration of response was 6 months (95% CI, 4.6 months to not reached). Among patients who responded, 39% had a duration of response of 12 months or longer.

“These results suggest that a one-time treatment with afami-cel has the potential to extend life while allowing responders to go off chemotherapy,” said lead investigator Sandra D’Angelo, MD, a sarcoma specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a company press release.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome.

The most common nonlaboratory adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included cytokine release syndrome, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, infections, pyrexia, constipation, dyspnea, tachycardia, hypotension, diarrhea, and edema. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white cell blood count, red blood cell, and platelet count.

The recommended dose is between 2.68x109 to 10x109 MAGE-A4 T-cell receptor–positive T-cells. The FDA notice specifies not using a leukodepleting filter or prophylactic systemic corticosteroids.

The list price for the one-time therapy is $727,000, according to Fierce Pharma.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

To the Editor:

We read with interest the Case Letter from Wang et al¹ (Cutis. 2023;112:E13-E15) of a 60-year-old man whose metastatic salivary duct adenocarcinoma manifested with the shield sign as well as carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides. Cutaneous metastases have seldom been described in association with salivary duct carcinoma.^2-7 In addition, carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides–associated shield sign has not been commonly reported.^5,8-12

Salivary duct carcinoma—an uncommon head and neck malignancy characterized by androgen receptor expression—rarely is associated with cutaneous metastases. Based on a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms cutaneous, metastatic, salivary duct carcinoma, and/or skin, including the patient described by Wang et al,¹ there have been 8 individuals with cutaneous metastases from this cancer. The morphology of the cutaneous metastases has varied from angiomatous to angiokeratomalike (black and keratotic) papules, bullae, macules (red), papules and nodules (erythematous and scaly), plaques (cellulitislike and confluent that were purpuric, hemorrhagic, and violaceous), pseudovesicles, purpuric papules, subcutaneous nodules, and an ulcer (superficial and mimicked a basal cell carcinoma).^1-7 Remarkably, 4 of 8 patients (50%) with salivary duct carcinoma cutaneous metastases presented with a shield sign,^5,7 including the case reported by Wang et al.¹

The shield sign is a distinctive clinical manifestation of cutaneous metastasis.¹⁰ It was named to describe the skin metastases located predominantly on the chest area that would be covered by a medieval knight’s shield^5,10,12; metastatic lesions also have been noted on the proximal arm and/or the upper back in a similar distribution.^8,9 To date, based on a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms breast cancer, carcinoma, hemorrhagiectoides, metastases, salivary duct carcinoma, shield, and/or sign, the shield sign has been described in 6 patients with cutaneous metastases either from salivary duct carcinoma (4 patients)^1,5,7 or breast cancer (2 patients).^8,9 The shield sign pathologically corresponds to carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides, an inflammatory pattern of cutaneous metastases.^5,11

Inflammatory cutaneous metastatic carcinoma has 3 distinctive clinical and pathologic manifestations.¹¹ Carcinoma erysipelatoides and carcinoma telangiectoides were the earlier described variants.¹¹ In 2012, carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides was described as the third pattern of inflammatory cutaneous metastasis.⁵

Carcinoma erysipelatoides, which clinically mimics cutaneous streptococcal cellulitis, appears as a well-defined erythematous patch or plaque; the tumor cells can be found in the lymphatic vessels and either are absent or minimally present in the dermis. Carcinoma telangiectoides, which clinically mimics idiopathic telangiectases, appears as an erythematous patch with prominent telangiectases; the tumor cells can be found in the blood vessels and are either absent or minimally present in the dermis. Carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides appears as purpuric or violaceous indurated plaques; the tumor cells are not only found in the blood vessels, in the lymphatic vessels, or both, but also can be mildly to extensively present in the dermis.^5,10,11

In conclusion, the shield sign is a unique presentation of inflammatory cutaneous metastatic carcinoma, which is associated with carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides. The clinical features of the infiltrated plaques correspond to the presence of tumor cells in the blood vessels, lymphatic vessels, and the dermis; in addition, the purpuric and violaceous appearance correlates with the presence of extravasated erythrocytes or hemorrhage in the dermis. To date, half of the patients with skin metastases from salivary duct carcinoma have presented with carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides–associated shield sign.

Authors’ Response

We appreciate and welcome the comments provided by the authors. Drawing attention to unusual pathologic manifestations of cutaneous metastatic salivary duct carcinoma manifesting with the shield sign, the authors present a comprehensive review of 3 distinctive presentations: carcinoma erysipelatoides, carcinoma telangiectoides, and carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides. The inclusion of these variants enriches the discussion and makes this letter a valuable addition to the literature on cutaneous metastatic carcinoma, particularly metastatic salivary duct carcinoma.

Xintong Wang, MD; William H. Westra, MD

From the Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

To the Editor:

We read with interest the Case Letter from Wang et al¹ (Cutis. 2023;112:E13-E15) of a 60-year-old man whose metastatic salivary duct adenocarcinoma manifested with the shield sign as well as carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides. Cutaneous metastases have seldom been described in association with salivary duct carcinoma.^2-7 In addition, carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides–associated shield sign has not been commonly reported.^5,8-12

Salivary duct carcinoma—an uncommon head and neck malignancy characterized by androgen receptor expression—rarely is associated with cutaneous metastases. Based on a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms cutaneous, metastatic, salivary duct carcinoma, and/or skin, including the patient described by Wang et al,¹ there have been 8 individuals with cutaneous metastases from this cancer. The morphology of the cutaneous metastases has varied from angiomatous to angiokeratomalike (black and keratotic) papules, bullae, macules (red), papules and nodules (erythematous and scaly), plaques (cellulitislike and confluent that were purpuric, hemorrhagic, and violaceous), pseudovesicles, purpuric papules, subcutaneous nodules, and an ulcer (superficial and mimicked a basal cell carcinoma).^1-7 Remarkably, 4 of 8 patients (50%) with salivary duct carcinoma cutaneous metastases presented with a shield sign,^5,7 including the case reported by Wang et al.¹

The shield sign is a distinctive clinical manifestation of cutaneous metastasis.¹⁰ It was named to describe the skin metastases located predominantly on the chest area that would be covered by a medieval knight’s shield^5,10,12; metastatic lesions also have been noted on the proximal arm and/or the upper back in a similar distribution.^8,9 To date, based on a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms breast cancer, carcinoma, hemorrhagiectoides, metastases, salivary duct carcinoma, shield, and/or sign, the shield sign has been described in 6 patients with cutaneous metastases either from salivary duct carcinoma (4 patients)^1,5,7 or breast cancer (2 patients).^8,9 The shield sign pathologically corresponds to carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides, an inflammatory pattern of cutaneous metastases.^5,11

Inflammatory cutaneous metastatic carcinoma has 3 distinctive clinical and pathologic manifestations.¹¹ Carcinoma erysipelatoides and carcinoma telangiectoides were the earlier described variants.¹¹ In 2012, carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides was described as the third pattern of inflammatory cutaneous metastasis.⁵

Carcinoma erysipelatoides, which clinically mimics cutaneous streptococcal cellulitis, appears as a well-defined erythematous patch or plaque; the tumor cells can be found in the lymphatic vessels and either are absent or minimally present in the dermis. Carcinoma telangiectoides, which clinically mimics idiopathic telangiectases, appears as an erythematous patch with prominent telangiectases; the tumor cells can be found in the blood vessels and are either absent or minimally present in the dermis. Carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides appears as purpuric or violaceous indurated plaques; the tumor cells are not only found in the blood vessels, in the lymphatic vessels, or both, but also can be mildly to extensively present in the dermis.^5,10,11

In conclusion, the shield sign is a unique presentation of inflammatory cutaneous metastatic carcinoma, which is associated with carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides. The clinical features of the infiltrated plaques correspond to the presence of tumor cells in the blood vessels, lymphatic vessels, and the dermis; in addition, the purpuric and violaceous appearance correlates with the presence of extravasated erythrocytes or hemorrhage in the dermis. To date, half of the patients with skin metastases from salivary duct carcinoma have presented with carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides–associated shield sign.

Authors’ Response

We appreciate and welcome the comments provided by the authors. Drawing attention to unusual pathologic manifestations of cutaneous metastatic salivary duct carcinoma manifesting with the shield sign, the authors present a comprehensive review of 3 distinctive presentations: carcinoma erysipelatoides, carcinoma telangiectoides, and carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides. The inclusion of these variants enriches the discussion and makes this letter a valuable addition to the literature on cutaneous metastatic carcinoma, particularly metastatic salivary duct carcinoma.

Xintong Wang, MD; William H. Westra, MD

From the Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

To the Editor:

We read with interest the Case Letter from Wang et al¹ (Cutis. 2023;112:E13-E15) of a 60-year-old man whose metastatic salivary duct adenocarcinoma manifested with the shield sign as well as carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides. Cutaneous metastases have seldom been described in association with salivary duct carcinoma.^2-7 In addition, carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides–associated shield sign has not been commonly reported.^5,8-12

Salivary duct carcinoma—an uncommon head and neck malignancy characterized by androgen receptor expression—rarely is associated with cutaneous metastases. Based on a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms cutaneous, metastatic, salivary duct carcinoma, and/or skin, including the patient described by Wang et al,¹ there have been 8 individuals with cutaneous metastases from this cancer. The morphology of the cutaneous metastases has varied from angiomatous to angiokeratomalike (black and keratotic) papules, bullae, macules (red), papules and nodules (erythematous and scaly), plaques (cellulitislike and confluent that were purpuric, hemorrhagic, and violaceous), pseudovesicles, purpuric papules, subcutaneous nodules, and an ulcer (superficial and mimicked a basal cell carcinoma).^1-7 Remarkably, 4 of 8 patients (50%) with salivary duct carcinoma cutaneous metastases presented with a shield sign,^5,7 including the case reported by Wang et al.¹

The shield sign is a distinctive clinical manifestation of cutaneous metastasis.¹⁰ It was named to describe the skin metastases located predominantly on the chest area that would be covered by a medieval knight’s shield^5,10,12; metastatic lesions also have been noted on the proximal arm and/or the upper back in a similar distribution.^8,9 To date, based on a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms breast cancer, carcinoma, hemorrhagiectoides, metastases, salivary duct carcinoma, shield, and/or sign, the shield sign has been described in 6 patients with cutaneous metastases either from salivary duct carcinoma (4 patients)^1,5,7 or breast cancer (2 patients).^8,9 The shield sign pathologically corresponds to carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides, an inflammatory pattern of cutaneous metastases.^5,11

Inflammatory cutaneous metastatic carcinoma has 3 distinctive clinical and pathologic manifestations.¹¹ Carcinoma erysipelatoides and carcinoma telangiectoides were the earlier described variants.¹¹ In 2012, carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides was described as the third pattern of inflammatory cutaneous metastasis.⁵

Carcinoma erysipelatoides, which clinically mimics cutaneous streptococcal cellulitis, appears as a well-defined erythematous patch or plaque; the tumor cells can be found in the lymphatic vessels and either are absent or minimally present in the dermis. Carcinoma telangiectoides, which clinically mimics idiopathic telangiectases, appears as an erythematous patch with prominent telangiectases; the tumor cells can be found in the blood vessels and are either absent or minimally present in the dermis. Carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides appears as purpuric or violaceous indurated plaques; the tumor cells are not only found in the blood vessels, in the lymphatic vessels, or both, but also can be mildly to extensively present in the dermis.^5,10,11

In conclusion, the shield sign is a unique presentation of inflammatory cutaneous metastatic carcinoma, which is associated with carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides. The clinical features of the infiltrated plaques correspond to the presence of tumor cells in the blood vessels, lymphatic vessels, and the dermis; in addition, the purpuric and violaceous appearance correlates with the presence of extravasated erythrocytes or hemorrhage in the dermis. To date, half of the patients with skin metastases from salivary duct carcinoma have presented with carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides–associated shield sign.

Authors’ Response

We appreciate and welcome the comments provided by the authors. Drawing attention to unusual pathologic manifestations of cutaneous metastatic salivary duct carcinoma manifesting with the shield sign, the authors present a comprehensive review of 3 distinctive presentations: carcinoma erysipelatoides, carcinoma telangiectoides, and carcinoma hemorrhagiectoides. The inclusion of these variants enriches the discussion and makes this letter a valuable addition to the literature on cutaneous metastatic carcinoma, particularly metastatic salivary duct carcinoma.

Xintong Wang, MD; William H. Westra, MD

From the Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Arisa E. Ortiz, MD, began her term as president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS) during the organization’s annual meeting in April 2024.

After earning her medical degree from Albany Medical College, Albany, New York, Dr. Ortiz, a native of Los Angeles, completed her dermatology residency training at the University of California, Irvine, and the university’s Beckman Laser Institute. Next, she completed a laser and cosmetic dermatology fellowship at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, all in Boston, and acquired additional fellowship training in Mohs micrographic surgery at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Dr. Ortiz is currently director of laser and cosmetic dermatology and a clinical professor of dermatology at UCSD.

Dr. Arisa E. Ortiz

She has authored more than 60 publications on new innovations in cutaneous surgery and is a frequent speaker at meetings of the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS), and ASLMS, and she cochairs the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium in San Diego. Dr. Ortiz has received several awards, including the 2024 Castle Connolly Top Doctor Award and the Exceptional Women in Medicine Award; Newsweek America’s Best Dermatologists; the ASLMS Dr. Horace Furumoto Young Investigator Award, the ASLMS Best of Session Award for Cutaneous Applications, and the ASDS President’s Outstanding Service Award. Her primary research focuses on the laser treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer.

In an interview, Dr. Ortiz spoke about her goals as ASLMS president and other topics related to dermatology.

Who inspired you most to become a doctor?

I’ve wanted to become a doctor for as long as I can remember. My fascination with science and the idea of helping people improve their health were driving forces. However, my biggest influence early on was my uncle, who was a pediatrician. His dedication and passion for medicine deeply inspired me and solidified my desire to pursue a career in healthcare.


I understand that a bout with chickenpox as a teenager influenced your decision to specialize in dermatology.

It’s an interesting and somewhat humorous story. When I was 18, I contracted chickenpox and ended up with scars on my face. It was a tough experience as a teenager, but it’s fascinating how such events can shape your life. In my quest for help, I opened the Yellow Pages and randomly chose a dermatologist nearby, who turned out to be Gary Lask, MD, director of lasers at UCLA [University of California, Los Angeles]. During our visit, I mentioned that I was premed, and he encouraged me to consider dermatology. About 6 years later, as a second-year medical student, I realized my passion for dermatology. I reached out to Dr. Lask and told him: “You were right. I want to be a dermatologist. Now, you have to help me get in!” Today, he remains my mentor, and I am deeply grateful for his guidance and support on this journey.



One of the initiatives for your term as ASLMS president includes a focus on safety standards for lasers and energy-based devices. Why is this important now?

courtesy Dr. Arisa E. Ortiz

Working at the university, I frequently encounter severe complications arising from the improper use of lasers and energy-based devices. As these procedures gain popularity, more providers are offering them, yet often without adequate training. As the world’s premier laser society, it is our duty to ensure patient safety. In the ever-evolving field of laser medicine, it is crucial that we continually strive to enhance the regulation of laser usage, ensuring that patients receive the highest standard of care with minimal risk.



One of the suggestions you have for the safety initiative is to offer a rigorous laser safety certification course with continuing education opportunities as a way foster a culture of heightened safety standards. Please explain what would be included in such a course and how it would align with current efforts to report adverse events such as the ASDS-Northwestern University Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting (CAPER) registry and the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch Program.

A laser safety certification task force has been established to determine the best approach for developing a comprehensive course. The task force aims to assess the necessity of a formal safety certification in our industry, identify the resources needed to support such a certification, establish general safety protocols to form the content foundation, address potential legal concerns, and outline the process for formal certification program recognition. This exploratory work is expected to conclude by the end of the year. The proposed course may include modules on the fundamentals of laser physics, safe operation techniques, patient selection and management, and emergency protocols. Continuing education opportunities would be considered to keep practitioners updated on the latest advancements and safety protocols in laser medicine, thereby fostering a culture of heightened safety standards.



Another initiative for your term is the rollout of a tattoo removal program for former gang members based on the UCSD Clean Slate Tattoo Removal Program. Please tell us more about your vision for this national program.

UCSD Dermatology, in collaboration with UCSD Global Health, has been involved in the Clean Slate Tattoo Removal Program for the past decade. This initiative supports and rehabilitates former gang members by offering laser tattoo removal, helping them reintegrate into society. My vision is to equip our members with the necessary protocols to implement this outreach initiative in their own communities. By providing opportunities for reform and growth, we aim to foster safer and more inclusive communities nationwide.



You were one of the first clinicians to use a laser to treat basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Who are the ideal candidates for this procedure? Is the technique ready for wide clinical adoption? If not, what kind of studies are needed to make it so?

My research passion lies in optimizing laser treatments for BCC. During my fellowship with R. Rox Anderson, MD, and Mathew Avram, MD, at the MGH Wellman Center for Photomedicine, we conducted a pilot study using the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser, achieving a 92% clearance rate after one treatment. Inspired by these results, we conducted a larger multicenter study, which demonstrated a 90% clearance rate after a single treatment. I now incorporate this technique into my daily practice. The ideal candidates for this procedure are patients with BCC that do not meet the Mohs Appropriate Use Criteria, such as those with nodular or superficial BCC subtypes on the body, individuals who are poor surgical candidates, or those who are surgically exhausted. However, I do not recommend this treatment for patients who are primarily concerned about facial scarring, particularly younger individuals; in such cases, Mohs surgery still remains the preferred option. While I believe this technique is ready for broader clinical adoption, it requires an understanding of laser endpoints. We are also exploring antibody-targeted gold nanorods to enhance the selectivity and standardization of the treatment.



Who inspires you most in your work today?

My patients are my greatest inspiration. Their trust and dedication motivate me to stay at the forefront of dermatologic advancements, ensuring I provide the most cutting-edge and safe treatments possible. Their commitment drives my relentless pursuit of continuous learning and innovation in the field.

What’s the best advice you can give to female dermatologists seeking leadership positions at the local, state, or national level?

My best advice is to have the courage to ask for what you seek. Societies are always looking for members who are eager to participate and contribute. If you express your interest in becoming more involved, there is likely a position available for you. The more you are willing to contribute to a society, the more likely you will be noticed and excel into higher leadership positions. Take initiative, show your commitment, and don’t hesitate to step forward when opportunities arise.



What’s the one tried-and-true laser- or energy-based procedure that you consider a “must” for your dermatology practice? And why?

Determining a single “must-have” laser- or energy-based procedure is a challenging question as it greatly depends on the specific needs of your patient population. However, one of the most common concerns among patients involves issues like redness and pigmentation. Therefore, having a versatile laser or an intense pulsed light device that effectively targets both red and brown pigmentation is indispensable for most practices.



In your view, what are the top three trends in aesthetic dermatology?

Over the years, I have observed several key trends in aesthetic dermatology:

• Minimally invasive procedures. There is a growing preference for less invasive treatments. Patients increasingly desire minimal downtime while still achieving significant results.
• Advancements in laser and energy-based devices for darker skin. There have been substantial advancements in technologies that are safer and more effective for darker skin tones. These developments play a crucial role in addressing diverse patient needs and providing inclusive dermatologic care.
• Natural aesthetic. I am hopeful that the trend toward an overdone appearance is fading. There seems to be a shift back towards a more natural and conservative aesthetic, emphasizing subtle enhancements over dramatic changes.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

I am most excited to see how artificial intelligence and robotics play a role in energy-based devices.

Dr. Ortiz disclosed having financial relationships with several pharmaceutical and device companies. She is also cochair of the MOAS.

Arisa E. Ortiz, MD, began her term as president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS) during the organization’s annual meeting in April 2024.

After earning her medical degree from Albany Medical College, Albany, New York, Dr. Ortiz, a native of Los Angeles, completed her dermatology residency training at the University of California, Irvine, and the university’s Beckman Laser Institute. Next, she completed a laser and cosmetic dermatology fellowship at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, all in Boston, and acquired additional fellowship training in Mohs micrographic surgery at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Dr. Ortiz is currently director of laser and cosmetic dermatology and a clinical professor of dermatology at UCSD.

Dr. Arisa E. Ortiz

She has authored more than 60 publications on new innovations in cutaneous surgery and is a frequent speaker at meetings of the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS), and ASLMS, and she cochairs the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium in San Diego. Dr. Ortiz has received several awards, including the 2024 Castle Connolly Top Doctor Award and the Exceptional Women in Medicine Award; Newsweek America’s Best Dermatologists; the ASLMS Dr. Horace Furumoto Young Investigator Award, the ASLMS Best of Session Award for Cutaneous Applications, and the ASDS President’s Outstanding Service Award. Her primary research focuses on the laser treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer.

In an interview, Dr. Ortiz spoke about her goals as ASLMS president and other topics related to dermatology.

Who inspired you most to become a doctor?

I’ve wanted to become a doctor for as long as I can remember. My fascination with science and the idea of helping people improve their health were driving forces. However, my biggest influence early on was my uncle, who was a pediatrician. His dedication and passion for medicine deeply inspired me and solidified my desire to pursue a career in healthcare.


I understand that a bout with chickenpox as a teenager influenced your decision to specialize in dermatology.

It’s an interesting and somewhat humorous story. When I was 18, I contracted chickenpox and ended up with scars on my face. It was a tough experience as a teenager, but it’s fascinating how such events can shape your life. In my quest for help, I opened the Yellow Pages and randomly chose a dermatologist nearby, who turned out to be Gary Lask, MD, director of lasers at UCLA [University of California, Los Angeles]. During our visit, I mentioned that I was premed, and he encouraged me to consider dermatology. About 6 years later, as a second-year medical student, I realized my passion for dermatology. I reached out to Dr. Lask and told him: “You were right. I want to be a dermatologist. Now, you have to help me get in!” Today, he remains my mentor, and I am deeply grateful for his guidance and support on this journey.



One of the initiatives for your term as ASLMS president includes a focus on safety standards for lasers and energy-based devices. Why is this important now?

courtesy Dr. Arisa E. Ortiz

Working at the university, I frequently encounter severe complications arising from the improper use of lasers and energy-based devices. As these procedures gain popularity, more providers are offering them, yet often without adequate training. As the world’s premier laser society, it is our duty to ensure patient safety. In the ever-evolving field of laser medicine, it is crucial that we continually strive to enhance the regulation of laser usage, ensuring that patients receive the highest standard of care with minimal risk.



One of the suggestions you have for the safety initiative is to offer a rigorous laser safety certification course with continuing education opportunities as a way foster a culture of heightened safety standards. Please explain what would be included in such a course and how it would align with current efforts to report adverse events such as the ASDS-Northwestern University Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting (CAPER) registry and the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch Program.

A laser safety certification task force has been established to determine the best approach for developing a comprehensive course. The task force aims to assess the necessity of a formal safety certification in our industry, identify the resources needed to support such a certification, establish general safety protocols to form the content foundation, address potential legal concerns, and outline the process for formal certification program recognition. This exploratory work is expected to conclude by the end of the year. The proposed course may include modules on the fundamentals of laser physics, safe operation techniques, patient selection and management, and emergency protocols. Continuing education opportunities would be considered to keep practitioners updated on the latest advancements and safety protocols in laser medicine, thereby fostering a culture of heightened safety standards.



Another initiative for your term is the rollout of a tattoo removal program for former gang members based on the UCSD Clean Slate Tattoo Removal Program. Please tell us more about your vision for this national program.

UCSD Dermatology, in collaboration with UCSD Global Health, has been involved in the Clean Slate Tattoo Removal Program for the past decade. This initiative supports and rehabilitates former gang members by offering laser tattoo removal, helping them reintegrate into society. My vision is to equip our members with the necessary protocols to implement this outreach initiative in their own communities. By providing opportunities for reform and growth, we aim to foster safer and more inclusive communities nationwide.



You were one of the first clinicians to use a laser to treat basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Who are the ideal candidates for this procedure? Is the technique ready for wide clinical adoption? If not, what kind of studies are needed to make it so?

My research passion lies in optimizing laser treatments for BCC. During my fellowship with R. Rox Anderson, MD, and Mathew Avram, MD, at the MGH Wellman Center for Photomedicine, we conducted a pilot study using the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser, achieving a 92% clearance rate after one treatment. Inspired by these results, we conducted a larger multicenter study, which demonstrated a 90% clearance rate after a single treatment. I now incorporate this technique into my daily practice. The ideal candidates for this procedure are patients with BCC that do not meet the Mohs Appropriate Use Criteria, such as those with nodular or superficial BCC subtypes on the body, individuals who are poor surgical candidates, or those who are surgically exhausted. However, I do not recommend this treatment for patients who are primarily concerned about facial scarring, particularly younger individuals; in such cases, Mohs surgery still remains the preferred option. While I believe this technique is ready for broader clinical adoption, it requires an understanding of laser endpoints. We are also exploring antibody-targeted gold nanorods to enhance the selectivity and standardization of the treatment.



Who inspires you most in your work today?

My patients are my greatest inspiration. Their trust and dedication motivate me to stay at the forefront of dermatologic advancements, ensuring I provide the most cutting-edge and safe treatments possible. Their commitment drives my relentless pursuit of continuous learning and innovation in the field.

What’s the best advice you can give to female dermatologists seeking leadership positions at the local, state, or national level?

My best advice is to have the courage to ask for what you seek. Societies are always looking for members who are eager to participate and contribute. If you express your interest in becoming more involved, there is likely a position available for you. The more you are willing to contribute to a society, the more likely you will be noticed and excel into higher leadership positions. Take initiative, show your commitment, and don’t hesitate to step forward when opportunities arise.



What’s the one tried-and-true laser- or energy-based procedure that you consider a “must” for your dermatology practice? And why?

Determining a single “must-have” laser- or energy-based procedure is a challenging question as it greatly depends on the specific needs of your patient population. However, one of the most common concerns among patients involves issues like redness and pigmentation. Therefore, having a versatile laser or an intense pulsed light device that effectively targets both red and brown pigmentation is indispensable for most practices.



In your view, what are the top three trends in aesthetic dermatology?

Over the years, I have observed several key trends in aesthetic dermatology:

• Minimally invasive procedures. There is a growing preference for less invasive treatments. Patients increasingly desire minimal downtime while still achieving significant results.
• Advancements in laser and energy-based devices for darker skin. There have been substantial advancements in technologies that are safer and more effective for darker skin tones. These developments play a crucial role in addressing diverse patient needs and providing inclusive dermatologic care.
• Natural aesthetic. I am hopeful that the trend toward an overdone appearance is fading. There seems to be a shift back towards a more natural and conservative aesthetic, emphasizing subtle enhancements over dramatic changes.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

I am most excited to see how artificial intelligence and robotics play a role in energy-based devices.

Dr. Ortiz disclosed having financial relationships with several pharmaceutical and device companies. She is also cochair of the MOAS.

Arisa E. Ortiz, MD, began her term as president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS) during the organization’s annual meeting in April 2024.

After earning her medical degree from Albany Medical College, Albany, New York, Dr. Ortiz, a native of Los Angeles, completed her dermatology residency training at the University of California, Irvine, and the university’s Beckman Laser Institute. Next, she completed a laser and cosmetic dermatology fellowship at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, all in Boston, and acquired additional fellowship training in Mohs micrographic surgery at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Dr. Ortiz is currently director of laser and cosmetic dermatology and a clinical professor of dermatology at UCSD.

Dr. Arisa E. Ortiz

She has authored more than 60 publications on new innovations in cutaneous surgery and is a frequent speaker at meetings of the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS), and ASLMS, and she cochairs the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium in San Diego. Dr. Ortiz has received several awards, including the 2024 Castle Connolly Top Doctor Award and the Exceptional Women in Medicine Award; Newsweek America’s Best Dermatologists; the ASLMS Dr. Horace Furumoto Young Investigator Award, the ASLMS Best of Session Award for Cutaneous Applications, and the ASDS President’s Outstanding Service Award. Her primary research focuses on the laser treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer.

In an interview, Dr. Ortiz spoke about her goals as ASLMS president and other topics related to dermatology.

Who inspired you most to become a doctor?

I’ve wanted to become a doctor for as long as I can remember. My fascination with science and the idea of helping people improve their health were driving forces. However, my biggest influence early on was my uncle, who was a pediatrician. His dedication and passion for medicine deeply inspired me and solidified my desire to pursue a career in healthcare.


I understand that a bout with chickenpox as a teenager influenced your decision to specialize in dermatology.

It’s an interesting and somewhat humorous story. When I was 18, I contracted chickenpox and ended up with scars on my face. It was a tough experience as a teenager, but it’s fascinating how such events can shape your life. In my quest for help, I opened the Yellow Pages and randomly chose a dermatologist nearby, who turned out to be Gary Lask, MD, director of lasers at UCLA [University of California, Los Angeles]. During our visit, I mentioned that I was premed, and he encouraged me to consider dermatology. About 6 years later, as a second-year medical student, I realized my passion for dermatology. I reached out to Dr. Lask and told him: “You were right. I want to be a dermatologist. Now, you have to help me get in!” Today, he remains my mentor, and I am deeply grateful for his guidance and support on this journey.



One of the initiatives for your term as ASLMS president includes a focus on safety standards for lasers and energy-based devices. Why is this important now?

courtesy Dr. Arisa E. Ortiz

Working at the university, I frequently encounter severe complications arising from the improper use of lasers and energy-based devices. As these procedures gain popularity, more providers are offering them, yet often without adequate training. As the world’s premier laser society, it is our duty to ensure patient safety. In the ever-evolving field of laser medicine, it is crucial that we continually strive to enhance the regulation of laser usage, ensuring that patients receive the highest standard of care with minimal risk.



One of the suggestions you have for the safety initiative is to offer a rigorous laser safety certification course with continuing education opportunities as a way foster a culture of heightened safety standards. Please explain what would be included in such a course and how it would align with current efforts to report adverse events such as the ASDS-Northwestern University Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting (CAPER) registry and the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch Program.

A laser safety certification task force has been established to determine the best approach for developing a comprehensive course. The task force aims to assess the necessity of a formal safety certification in our industry, identify the resources needed to support such a certification, establish general safety protocols to form the content foundation, address potential legal concerns, and outline the process for formal certification program recognition. This exploratory work is expected to conclude by the end of the year. The proposed course may include modules on the fundamentals of laser physics, safe operation techniques, patient selection and management, and emergency protocols. Continuing education opportunities would be considered to keep practitioners updated on the latest advancements and safety protocols in laser medicine, thereby fostering a culture of heightened safety standards.



Another initiative for your term is the rollout of a tattoo removal program for former gang members based on the UCSD Clean Slate Tattoo Removal Program. Please tell us more about your vision for this national program.

UCSD Dermatology, in collaboration with UCSD Global Health, has been involved in the Clean Slate Tattoo Removal Program for the past decade. This initiative supports and rehabilitates former gang members by offering laser tattoo removal, helping them reintegrate into society. My vision is to equip our members with the necessary protocols to implement this outreach initiative in their own communities. By providing opportunities for reform and growth, we aim to foster safer and more inclusive communities nationwide.



You were one of the first clinicians to use a laser to treat basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Who are the ideal candidates for this procedure? Is the technique ready for wide clinical adoption? If not, what kind of studies are needed to make it so?

My research passion lies in optimizing laser treatments for BCC. During my fellowship with R. Rox Anderson, MD, and Mathew Avram, MD, at the MGH Wellman Center for Photomedicine, we conducted a pilot study using the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser, achieving a 92% clearance rate after one treatment. Inspired by these results, we conducted a larger multicenter study, which demonstrated a 90% clearance rate after a single treatment. I now incorporate this technique into my daily practice. The ideal candidates for this procedure are patients with BCC that do not meet the Mohs Appropriate Use Criteria, such as those with nodular or superficial BCC subtypes on the body, individuals who are poor surgical candidates, or those who are surgically exhausted. However, I do not recommend this treatment for patients who are primarily concerned about facial scarring, particularly younger individuals; in such cases, Mohs surgery still remains the preferred option. While I believe this technique is ready for broader clinical adoption, it requires an understanding of laser endpoints. We are also exploring antibody-targeted gold nanorods to enhance the selectivity and standardization of the treatment.



Who inspires you most in your work today?

My patients are my greatest inspiration. Their trust and dedication motivate me to stay at the forefront of dermatologic advancements, ensuring I provide the most cutting-edge and safe treatments possible. Their commitment drives my relentless pursuit of continuous learning and innovation in the field.

What’s the best advice you can give to female dermatologists seeking leadership positions at the local, state, or national level?

My best advice is to have the courage to ask for what you seek. Societies are always looking for members who are eager to participate and contribute. If you express your interest in becoming more involved, there is likely a position available for you. The more you are willing to contribute to a society, the more likely you will be noticed and excel into higher leadership positions. Take initiative, show your commitment, and don’t hesitate to step forward when opportunities arise.



What’s the one tried-and-true laser- or energy-based procedure that you consider a “must” for your dermatology practice? And why?

Determining a single “must-have” laser- or energy-based procedure is a challenging question as it greatly depends on the specific needs of your patient population. However, one of the most common concerns among patients involves issues like redness and pigmentation. Therefore, having a versatile laser or an intense pulsed light device that effectively targets both red and brown pigmentation is indispensable for most practices.



In your view, what are the top three trends in aesthetic dermatology?

Over the years, I have observed several key trends in aesthetic dermatology:

• Minimally invasive procedures. There is a growing preference for less invasive treatments. Patients increasingly desire minimal downtime while still achieving significant results.
• Advancements in laser and energy-based devices for darker skin. There have been substantial advancements in technologies that are safer and more effective for darker skin tones. These developments play a crucial role in addressing diverse patient needs and providing inclusive dermatologic care.
• Natural aesthetic. I am hopeful that the trend toward an overdone appearance is fading. There seems to be a shift back towards a more natural and conservative aesthetic, emphasizing subtle enhancements over dramatic changes.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

I am most excited to see how artificial intelligence and robotics play a role in energy-based devices.

Dr. Ortiz disclosed having financial relationships with several pharmaceutical and device companies. She is also cochair of the MOAS.

Application of an investigative topical cannabidiol (CBD) cream to buttock skin demonstrated protective properties against ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation-induced DNA and mitochondrial DNA damage, results from a small prospective pilot study showed.

“This study hopefully reinvigorates interest in the utilization of whether it be plant-based, human-derived, or synthetic cannabinoids in the management of dermatologic disease,” one of the study investigators, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, told this news organization. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

George Washington University

For the prospective, single-center, pilot trial, which is believed to be the first of its kind, 19 volunteers aged 22-65 with Fitzpatrick skin types I-III applied either a nano-encapsulated CBD cream or a vehicle cream to blind spots on the skin of the buttocks twice daily for 14 days. Next, researchers applied a minimal erythema dose of UV radiation to the treated skin areas for 30 minutes. After 24 hours, they visually inspected the treated areas to clinically compare the erythema. They also performed five 4-mm punch biopsies from UVA- and non-UVA–exposed treatment sites on each buttock, as well as from an untreated control site that was at least 5 cm away from the treated left buttock.

At 24 hours, 21% of study participants showed less redness on CBD-treated skin compared with control-treated skin, while histology showed that CBD-treated skin demonstrated reduced UVA-induced epidermal hyperplasia compared with control-treated skin (a mean 11.3% change from baseline vs 28.7%, respectively; P = .01). In other findings, application of CBD cream reduced DNA damage and DNA mutations associated with UVA-induced skin aging/damage and ultimately skin cancer.

In addition, the CBD-treated skin samples had a reduction in the UVA-associated increase in the premutagenic marker 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase 1 and a reduction of two major UVA-induced mitochondrial DNA deletions associated with skin photoaging.

The research, Dr. Friedman noted, “took a village of collaborators and almost 3 years to pull together,” including collaborating with his long-standing mentor, Brian Berman, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, and a study coauthor. The study “demonstrated that purposeful delivery of CBD using an established nanoparticle platform ... can have a quantifiable impact on preventing the expected DNA damage and cellular injury one should see from UVA exposure,” said Dr. Friedman, who codeveloped the nanoparticle platform with his father, Joel M. Friedman, MD, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City.

“Never before has a dermatologic study on topical cannabinoids dove so deeply into the biological impact of this natural ingredient to highlight its potential, here, as a mitigation strategy for unprotected exposure to prevent the downstream sequelae of UV radiation,” Dr. Friedman said.

In the paper, he and his coauthors acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including its small sample size and the single-center design.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he coinvented the nanoparticle technology used in the trial. Dr. Berman is a consultant at MINO Labs, which funded the study. The remaining authors had no disclosures. The study was done in collaboration with the Center for Clinical and Cosmetic Research in Aventura, Florida.

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

Application of an investigative topical cannabidiol (CBD) cream to buttock skin demonstrated protective properties against ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation-induced DNA and mitochondrial DNA damage, results from a small prospective pilot study showed.

“This study hopefully reinvigorates interest in the utilization of whether it be plant-based, human-derived, or synthetic cannabinoids in the management of dermatologic disease,” one of the study investigators, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, told this news organization. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

George Washington University

For the prospective, single-center, pilot trial, which is believed to be the first of its kind, 19 volunteers aged 22-65 with Fitzpatrick skin types I-III applied either a nano-encapsulated CBD cream or a vehicle cream to blind spots on the skin of the buttocks twice daily for 14 days. Next, researchers applied a minimal erythema dose of UV radiation to the treated skin areas for 30 minutes. After 24 hours, they visually inspected the treated areas to clinically compare the erythema. They also performed five 4-mm punch biopsies from UVA- and non-UVA–exposed treatment sites on each buttock, as well as from an untreated control site that was at least 5 cm away from the treated left buttock.

At 24 hours, 21% of study participants showed less redness on CBD-treated skin compared with control-treated skin, while histology showed that CBD-treated skin demonstrated reduced UVA-induced epidermal hyperplasia compared with control-treated skin (a mean 11.3% change from baseline vs 28.7%, respectively; P = .01). In other findings, application of CBD cream reduced DNA damage and DNA mutations associated with UVA-induced skin aging/damage and ultimately skin cancer.

In addition, the CBD-treated skin samples had a reduction in the UVA-associated increase in the premutagenic marker 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase 1 and a reduction of two major UVA-induced mitochondrial DNA deletions associated with skin photoaging.

The research, Dr. Friedman noted, “took a village of collaborators and almost 3 years to pull together,” including collaborating with his long-standing mentor, Brian Berman, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, and a study coauthor. The study “demonstrated that purposeful delivery of CBD using an established nanoparticle platform ... can have a quantifiable impact on preventing the expected DNA damage and cellular injury one should see from UVA exposure,” said Dr. Friedman, who codeveloped the nanoparticle platform with his father, Joel M. Friedman, MD, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City.

“Never before has a dermatologic study on topical cannabinoids dove so deeply into the biological impact of this natural ingredient to highlight its potential, here, as a mitigation strategy for unprotected exposure to prevent the downstream sequelae of UV radiation,” Dr. Friedman said.

In the paper, he and his coauthors acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including its small sample size and the single-center design.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he coinvented the nanoparticle technology used in the trial. Dr. Berman is a consultant at MINO Labs, which funded the study. The remaining authors had no disclosures. The study was done in collaboration with the Center for Clinical and Cosmetic Research in Aventura, Florida.

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

Application of an investigative topical cannabidiol (CBD) cream to buttock skin demonstrated protective properties against ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation-induced DNA and mitochondrial DNA damage, results from a small prospective pilot study showed.

“This study hopefully reinvigorates interest in the utilization of whether it be plant-based, human-derived, or synthetic cannabinoids in the management of dermatologic disease,” one of the study investigators, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, told this news organization. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

George Washington University

For the prospective, single-center, pilot trial, which is believed to be the first of its kind, 19 volunteers aged 22-65 with Fitzpatrick skin types I-III applied either a nano-encapsulated CBD cream or a vehicle cream to blind spots on the skin of the buttocks twice daily for 14 days. Next, researchers applied a minimal erythema dose of UV radiation to the treated skin areas for 30 minutes. After 24 hours, they visually inspected the treated areas to clinically compare the erythema. They also performed five 4-mm punch biopsies from UVA- and non-UVA–exposed treatment sites on each buttock, as well as from an untreated control site that was at least 5 cm away from the treated left buttock.

At 24 hours, 21% of study participants showed less redness on CBD-treated skin compared with control-treated skin, while histology showed that CBD-treated skin demonstrated reduced UVA-induced epidermal hyperplasia compared with control-treated skin (a mean 11.3% change from baseline vs 28.7%, respectively; P = .01). In other findings, application of CBD cream reduced DNA damage and DNA mutations associated with UVA-induced skin aging/damage and ultimately skin cancer.

In addition, the CBD-treated skin samples had a reduction in the UVA-associated increase in the premutagenic marker 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase 1 and a reduction of two major UVA-induced mitochondrial DNA deletions associated with skin photoaging.

The research, Dr. Friedman noted, “took a village of collaborators and almost 3 years to pull together,” including collaborating with his long-standing mentor, Brian Berman, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, and a study coauthor. The study “demonstrated that purposeful delivery of CBD using an established nanoparticle platform ... can have a quantifiable impact on preventing the expected DNA damage and cellular injury one should see from UVA exposure,” said Dr. Friedman, who codeveloped the nanoparticle platform with his father, Joel M. Friedman, MD, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City.

“Never before has a dermatologic study on topical cannabinoids dove so deeply into the biological impact of this natural ingredient to highlight its potential, here, as a mitigation strategy for unprotected exposure to prevent the downstream sequelae of UV radiation,” Dr. Friedman said.

In the paper, he and his coauthors acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including its small sample size and the single-center design.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he coinvented the nanoparticle technology used in the trial. Dr. Berman is a consultant at MINO Labs, which funded the study. The remaining authors had no disclosures. The study was done in collaboration with the Center for Clinical and Cosmetic Research in Aventura, Florida.

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

Lifetime skin cancer prevalence in sexual minority (SM) Americans varied by race, ethnicity, and individual sexual identity, compared with that in heterosexual peers, according to a large cross-sectional study. Addressing dynamics of each SM subgroup will require increasingly tailored prevention, screening, and research efforts, the study authors said.

“We identified specific subgroups within the sexual minority community who are at higher risk for skin cancer, specifically White gay males and Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black SM men and women — particularly individuals who identify as bisexual,” senior author Matthew Mansh, MD, said in an interview. He is an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Using data of adults in the US general population from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from January 2014 to December 2021, investigators included more than 1.5 million respondents. The proportions of SM women and men (who self-identified as bisexual, lesbian, gay, “something else,” or other) were 2.6% and 2.0%, respectively.

Lifetime skin cancer prevalence was higher among SM men than among heterosexual men (7.4% vs 6.8%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.16). In analyses stratified by racial and ethnic group, AORs for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SM men vs their heterosexual counterparts were 2.18 and 3.81, respectively. The corresponding figures for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SM women were 2.33 and 2.46, respectively.

When investigators combined all minority respondents along gender lines, lifetime skin cancer prevalence was higher in bisexual men (aOR, 3.94), bisexual women (aOR, 1.51), and women identifying as something else or other (aOR, 2.70) than in their heterosexual peers.

“I wasn’t expecting that Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black SMs would be at higher risk for skin cancer,” Dr. Mansh said. Even if these groups have more behavioral risk factors for UV radiation (UVR) exposure, he explained, UVR exposure is less strongly linked with skin cancer in darker skin than in lighter skin. Reasons for the counterintuitive finding could include different screening habits among SM people of different racial and ethnic groups, he said, and analyzing such factors will require further research.

Although some effect sizes were modest, the authors wrote, their findings may have important implications for population-based research and public health efforts aimed at early skin cancer detection and prevention. Presently, the United States lacks established guidelines for skin cancer screening. In a 2023 statement published in JAMA, the US Preventive Services Task Force said that there is insufficient evidence to determine the benefit-harm balance of skin cancer screening in asymptomatic people.

“So there has been a lot of recent talk and a need to identify which subset groups of patients might be higher risk for skin cancer and might benefit from more screening,” Dr. Mansh said in an interview. “Understanding more about the high-risk demographic and clinical features that predispose someone to skin cancer helps identify these high-risk populations that could be used to develop better screening guidelines.”

Identifying groups at a higher risk for skin cancer also allows experts to design more targeted counseling or public health interventions focused on these groups, Dr. Mansh added. Absent screening guidelines, experts emphasize changing modifiable risk factors such as UVR exposure, smoking, and alcohol use. “And we know that the message that might change behaviors in a cisgender heterosexual man might be different than in a gay White male or a Hispanic bisexual male.”

A 2017 review showed that interventions to reduce behaviors involving UVR exposure, such as indoor tanning, among young cisgender women focused largely on aging and appearance-based concerns. A 2019 study showed that messages focused on avoiding skin cancer may help motivate SM men to reduce tanning behaviors.

Furthermore, said Dr. Mansh, all electronic health record products available in the United States must provide data fields for sexual orientation. “I don’t believe many dermatologists, depending on the setting, collect that information routinely. Integrating sexual orientation and/or gender identity data into patient intake forms so that it can be integrated into the electronic health record is probably very helpful, not only for your clinical practice but also for future research studies.”

Asked to comment on the results, Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, MPH, who was not involved with the study, said that its impact on clinical practice will be challenging to ascertain. She is chief of dermatology with the VA Boston Healthcare System, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, and director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, all in Boston, Massachusetts.

“The study found significant adjusted odds ratios,” Dr. Hartman explained, “but for some of the different populations, the overall lifetime rate of skin cancer is still quite low.” For example, 1.0% for SM non-Hispanic Black men or a difference of 2.1% vs 1.8% in SM Hispanic women. “Thus, I am not sure specific screening recommendations are warranted, although some populations, such as Hispanic sexual minority males, seemed to have a much higher risk (3.8-fold on adjusted analysis) that warrants further investigation.”

For now, she advised assessing patients’ risks for skin cancer based on well-established risk factors such as sun exposure/indoor tanning, skin phototype, immunosuppression, and age.

Dr. Mansh reported no relevant conflicts or funding sources for the study. Dr. Hartman reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lifetime skin cancer prevalence in sexual minority (SM) Americans varied by race, ethnicity, and individual sexual identity, compared with that in heterosexual peers, according to a large cross-sectional study. Addressing dynamics of each SM subgroup will require increasingly tailored prevention, screening, and research efforts, the study authors said.

“We identified specific subgroups within the sexual minority community who are at higher risk for skin cancer, specifically White gay males and Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black SM men and women — particularly individuals who identify as bisexual,” senior author Matthew Mansh, MD, said in an interview. He is an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Using data of adults in the US general population from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from January 2014 to December 2021, investigators included more than 1.5 million respondents. The proportions of SM women and men (who self-identified as bisexual, lesbian, gay, “something else,” or other) were 2.6% and 2.0%, respectively.

Lifetime skin cancer prevalence was higher among SM men than among heterosexual men (7.4% vs 6.8%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.16). In analyses stratified by racial and ethnic group, AORs for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SM men vs their heterosexual counterparts were 2.18 and 3.81, respectively. The corresponding figures for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SM women were 2.33 and 2.46, respectively.

When investigators combined all minority respondents along gender lines, lifetime skin cancer prevalence was higher in bisexual men (aOR, 3.94), bisexual women (aOR, 1.51), and women identifying as something else or other (aOR, 2.70) than in their heterosexual peers.

“I wasn’t expecting that Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black SMs would be at higher risk for skin cancer,” Dr. Mansh said. Even if these groups have more behavioral risk factors for UV radiation (UVR) exposure, he explained, UVR exposure is less strongly linked with skin cancer in darker skin than in lighter skin. Reasons for the counterintuitive finding could include different screening habits among SM people of different racial and ethnic groups, he said, and analyzing such factors will require further research.

Although some effect sizes were modest, the authors wrote, their findings may have important implications for population-based research and public health efforts aimed at early skin cancer detection and prevention. Presently, the United States lacks established guidelines for skin cancer screening. In a 2023 statement published in JAMA, the US Preventive Services Task Force said that there is insufficient evidence to determine the benefit-harm balance of skin cancer screening in asymptomatic people.

“So there has been a lot of recent talk and a need to identify which subset groups of patients might be higher risk for skin cancer and might benefit from more screening,” Dr. Mansh said in an interview. “Understanding more about the high-risk demographic and clinical features that predispose someone to skin cancer helps identify these high-risk populations that could be used to develop better screening guidelines.”

Identifying groups at a higher risk for skin cancer also allows experts to design more targeted counseling or public health interventions focused on these groups, Dr. Mansh added. Absent screening guidelines, experts emphasize changing modifiable risk factors such as UVR exposure, smoking, and alcohol use. “And we know that the message that might change behaviors in a cisgender heterosexual man might be different than in a gay White male or a Hispanic bisexual male.”

A 2017 review showed that interventions to reduce behaviors involving UVR exposure, such as indoor tanning, among young cisgender women focused largely on aging and appearance-based concerns. A 2019 study showed that messages focused on avoiding skin cancer may help motivate SM men to reduce tanning behaviors.

Furthermore, said Dr. Mansh, all electronic health record products available in the United States must provide data fields for sexual orientation. “I don’t believe many dermatologists, depending on the setting, collect that information routinely. Integrating sexual orientation and/or gender identity data into patient intake forms so that it can be integrated into the electronic health record is probably very helpful, not only for your clinical practice but also for future research studies.”

Asked to comment on the results, Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, MPH, who was not involved with the study, said that its impact on clinical practice will be challenging to ascertain. She is chief of dermatology with the VA Boston Healthcare System, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, and director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, all in Boston, Massachusetts.

“The study found significant adjusted odds ratios,” Dr. Hartman explained, “but for some of the different populations, the overall lifetime rate of skin cancer is still quite low.” For example, 1.0% for SM non-Hispanic Black men or a difference of 2.1% vs 1.8% in SM Hispanic women. “Thus, I am not sure specific screening recommendations are warranted, although some populations, such as Hispanic sexual minority males, seemed to have a much higher risk (3.8-fold on adjusted analysis) that warrants further investigation.”

For now, she advised assessing patients’ risks for skin cancer based on well-established risk factors such as sun exposure/indoor tanning, skin phototype, immunosuppression, and age.

Dr. Mansh reported no relevant conflicts or funding sources for the study. Dr. Hartman reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lifetime skin cancer prevalence in sexual minority (SM) Americans varied by race, ethnicity, and individual sexual identity, compared with that in heterosexual peers, according to a large cross-sectional study. Addressing dynamics of each SM subgroup will require increasingly tailored prevention, screening, and research efforts, the study authors said.

“We identified specific subgroups within the sexual minority community who are at higher risk for skin cancer, specifically White gay males and Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black SM men and women — particularly individuals who identify as bisexual,” senior author Matthew Mansh, MD, said in an interview. He is an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Using data of adults in the US general population from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from January 2014 to December 2021, investigators included more than 1.5 million respondents. The proportions of SM women and men (who self-identified as bisexual, lesbian, gay, “something else,” or other) were 2.6% and 2.0%, respectively.

Lifetime skin cancer prevalence was higher among SM men than among heterosexual men (7.4% vs 6.8%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.16). In analyses stratified by racial and ethnic group, AORs for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SM men vs their heterosexual counterparts were 2.18 and 3.81, respectively. The corresponding figures for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SM women were 2.33 and 2.46, respectively.

When investigators combined all minority respondents along gender lines, lifetime skin cancer prevalence was higher in bisexual men (aOR, 3.94), bisexual women (aOR, 1.51), and women identifying as something else or other (aOR, 2.70) than in their heterosexual peers.

“I wasn’t expecting that Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black SMs would be at higher risk for skin cancer,” Dr. Mansh said. Even if these groups have more behavioral risk factors for UV radiation (UVR) exposure, he explained, UVR exposure is less strongly linked with skin cancer in darker skin than in lighter skin. Reasons for the counterintuitive finding could include different screening habits among SM people of different racial and ethnic groups, he said, and analyzing such factors will require further research.

Although some effect sizes were modest, the authors wrote, their findings may have important implications for population-based research and public health efforts aimed at early skin cancer detection and prevention. Presently, the United States lacks established guidelines for skin cancer screening. In a 2023 statement published in JAMA, the US Preventive Services Task Force said that there is insufficient evidence to determine the benefit-harm balance of skin cancer screening in asymptomatic people.

“So there has been a lot of recent talk and a need to identify which subset groups of patients might be higher risk for skin cancer and might benefit from more screening,” Dr. Mansh said in an interview. “Understanding more about the high-risk demographic and clinical features that predispose someone to skin cancer helps identify these high-risk populations that could be used to develop better screening guidelines.”

Identifying groups at a higher risk for skin cancer also allows experts to design more targeted counseling or public health interventions focused on these groups, Dr. Mansh added. Absent screening guidelines, experts emphasize changing modifiable risk factors such as UVR exposure, smoking, and alcohol use. “And we know that the message that might change behaviors in a cisgender heterosexual man might be different than in a gay White male or a Hispanic bisexual male.”

A 2017 review showed that interventions to reduce behaviors involving UVR exposure, such as indoor tanning, among young cisgender women focused largely on aging and appearance-based concerns. A 2019 study showed that messages focused on avoiding skin cancer may help motivate SM men to reduce tanning behaviors.

Furthermore, said Dr. Mansh, all electronic health record products available in the United States must provide data fields for sexual orientation. “I don’t believe many dermatologists, depending on the setting, collect that information routinely. Integrating sexual orientation and/or gender identity data into patient intake forms so that it can be integrated into the electronic health record is probably very helpful, not only for your clinical practice but also for future research studies.”

Asked to comment on the results, Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, MPH, who was not involved with the study, said that its impact on clinical practice will be challenging to ascertain. She is chief of dermatology with the VA Boston Healthcare System, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, and director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, all in Boston, Massachusetts.

“The study found significant adjusted odds ratios,” Dr. Hartman explained, “but for some of the different populations, the overall lifetime rate of skin cancer is still quite low.” For example, 1.0% for SM non-Hispanic Black men or a difference of 2.1% vs 1.8% in SM Hispanic women. “Thus, I am not sure specific screening recommendations are warranted, although some populations, such as Hispanic sexual minority males, seemed to have a much higher risk (3.8-fold on adjusted analysis) that warrants further investigation.”

For now, she advised assessing patients’ risks for skin cancer based on well-established risk factors such as sun exposure/indoor tanning, skin phototype, immunosuppression, and age.

Dr. Mansh reported no relevant conflicts or funding sources for the study. Dr. Hartman reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — The chronic, excessive fragility of aging and sun-damaged skin has a name in the medical literature: dermatoporosis. This identification is helpful because it validates patients’ suffering and conveys the skin’s vulnerability to serious medical complications, said Adam Friedman, MD, at the ElderDerm conference on dermatology in the older patient.

Key features of dermatoporosis include atrophic skin, solar purpura, white pseudoscars, easily acquired skin lacerations and tears, bruises, and delayed healing. “We’re going to see more of this, and it will more and more be a chief complaint of patients,” said Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University (GWU) in Washington, and co-chair of the meeting. GWU hosted the conference, describing it as a first-of-its-kind meeting dedicated to improving dermatologic care for older adults.

Likely Pathophysiology

Advancing age and chronic ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure are the chief drivers of dermatoporosis. In addition to UVA and UVB light, other secondary drivers include genetic susceptibility, topical and systematic corticosteroid use, and anticoagulant treatment.

Its pathogenesis is not well described in the literature but is easy to envision, Dr. Friedman said. For one, both advancing age and exposure to UV light lead to a reduction in hygroscopic glycosaminoglycans, including hyaluronate (HA), and the impact of this diminishment is believed to go “beyond [the loss of] buoyancy,” he noted. Researchers have “been showing these are not just water-loving molecules, they also have some biologic properties” relating to keratinocyte production and epidermal turnover that appear to be intricately linked to the pathogenesis of dermatoporosis. 

HAs have been shown to interact with the cell surface receptor CD44 to stimulate keratinocyte proliferation, and low levels of CD44 have been reported in skin with dermatoporosis compared with a younger control population. (A newly characterized organelle, the hyaluronosome, serves as an HA factory and contains CD44 and heparin-binding epidermal growth factor, Dr. Friedman noted. Inadequate functioning may be involved in skin atrophy.) 

Advancing age also brings an increase in matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs)–1, –2, and –3, which are “the demolition workers of the skin,” and downregulation of a tissue inhibitor of MMPs, he said. 

Adding insult to injury, dermis-penetrating UVA also activates MMPs, “obliterating collagen and elastin.” UVB generates DNA photoproducts, including oxidative stress and damaging skin cell DNA. “That UV light induces breakdown [of the skin] through different mechanisms and inhibits buildup is a simple concept I think our patients can understand,” Dr. Friedman said.
 

Multifaceted Treatment

For an older adult, “there is never a wrong time to start sun-protective measures” to prevent or try to halt the progression of dermatoporosis, Dr. Friedman said, noting that “UV radiation is an immunosuppressant, so there are many good reasons to start” if the adult is not already taking measures on a regular basis.

Potential treatments for the syndrome of dermatoporosis are backed by few clinical studies, but dermatologists are skilled at translating the use of products from one disease state to another based on understandings of pathophysiology and mechanistic pathways, Dr. Friedman commented in an interview after the meeting. 

For instance, “from decades of research, we know what retinoids will do to the skin,” he said in the interview. “We know they will turn on collagen-1 and -3 genes in the skin, and that they will increase the production of glycosaminoglycans ... By understanding the biology, we can translate this to dermatoporosis.” These changes were demonstrated, for instance, in a small study of topical retinol in older adults.

Studies of topical alpha hydroxy acid (AHA), moreover, have demonstrated epidermal thickening and firmness, and “some studies show they can limit steroid-induced atrophy,” Dr. Friedman said at the meeting. “And things like lactic acid and urea are super accessible.”

Topical dehydroepiandrosterone is backed by even less data than retinoids or AHAs are, “but it’s still something to consider” as part of a multimechanistic approach to dermatoporosis, Dr. Friedman shared, noting that a small study demonstrated beneficial effects on epidermal atrophy in aging skin. 

The use of vitamin D analogues such as calcipotriene, which is approved for the treatment of psoriasis, may also be promising. “One concept is that [vitamin D analogues] increase calcium concentrations in the epidermis, and calcium is so central to keratinocyte differentiation” and epidermal function that calcipotriene in combination with topical steroid therapy has been shown to limit skin atrophy, he noted.

Nutritionally, low protein intake is a known problem in the older population and is associated with increased skin fragility and poorer healing. From a prevention and treatment standpoint, therefore, patients can be counseled to be attentive to their diets, Dr. Friedman said. Experts have recommended a higher protein intake for older adults than for younger adults; in 2013, an international group recommended a protein intake of 1-1.5 g/kg/d for healthy older adults and more for those with acute or chronic illness.

“Patients love talking about diet and skin disease ... and they love over-the-counter nutraceuticals as well because they want something natural,” Dr. Friedman said. “I like using bioflavonoids in combination with vitamin C, which can be effective especially for solar purpura.”

Courtesy Dr. Adam Friedman

Skin Injury and Wound Prevention

In addition to recommending gentle skin cleansers and daily moisturizing, dermatologists should talk to their older patients with dermatoporosis about their home environments. “What is it like? Is there furniture with sharp edges?” Dr. Friedman advised. If so, could they use sleeves or protectors on their arms or legs “to protect against injury?”

In a later meeting session about lower-extremity wounds on geriatric patients, Michael Stempel, DPM, assistant professor of medicine and surgery and chief of podiatry at GWU, said that he was happy to hear the term dermatoporosis being used because like diabetes, it’s a risk factor for developing lower-extremity wounds and poor wound healing. 

He shared the case of an older woman with dermatoporosis who “tripped and skinned her knee against a step and then self-treated it for over a month by pouring hydrogen peroxide over it and letting air get to it.” The wound developed into “full-thickness tissue loss,” said Dr. Stempel, also medical director of the Wound Healing and Limb Preservation Center at GWU Hospital. 

Misperceptions are common among older patients about how a simple wound should be managed; for instance, the adage “just let it get air” is not uncommon. This makes anticipatory guidance about basic wound care — such as the importance of a moist and occlusive environment and the safe use of hydrogen peroxide — especially important for patients with dermatoporosis, Dr. Friedman commented after the meeting.

Dermatoporosis is quantifiable, Dr. Friedman said during the meeting, with a scoring system having been developed by the researchers in Switzerland who originally coined the term. Its use in practice is unnecessary, but its existence is “nice to share with patients who feel bothered because oftentimes, patients feel it’s been dismissed by other providers,” he said. “Telling your patients there’s an actual name for their problem, and that there are ways to quantify and measure changes over time, is validating.” 

Its recognition as a medical condition, Dr. Friedman added, also enables the dermatologist to bring it up and counsel appropriately — without a patient feeling shame — when it is identified in the context of a skin excision, treatment of a primary inflammatory skin disease, or management of another dermatologic problem.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant/advisory board member for L’Oréal, La Roche-Posay, Galderma, and other companies; a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, Incyte, BMD, and Janssen; and has grants from Pfizer, Lilly, Incyte, and other companies. Dr. Stempel reported no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — The chronic, excessive fragility of aging and sun-damaged skin has a name in the medical literature: dermatoporosis. This identification is helpful because it validates patients’ suffering and conveys the skin’s vulnerability to serious medical complications, said Adam Friedman, MD, at the ElderDerm conference on dermatology in the older patient.

Key features of dermatoporosis include atrophic skin, solar purpura, white pseudoscars, easily acquired skin lacerations and tears, bruises, and delayed healing. “We’re going to see more of this, and it will more and more be a chief complaint of patients,” said Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University (GWU) in Washington, and co-chair of the meeting. GWU hosted the conference, describing it as a first-of-its-kind meeting dedicated to improving dermatologic care for older adults.

Likely Pathophysiology

Advancing age and chronic ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure are the chief drivers of dermatoporosis. In addition to UVA and UVB light, other secondary drivers include genetic susceptibility, topical and systematic corticosteroid use, and anticoagulant treatment.

Its pathogenesis is not well described in the literature but is easy to envision, Dr. Friedman said. For one, both advancing age and exposure to UV light lead to a reduction in hygroscopic glycosaminoglycans, including hyaluronate (HA), and the impact of this diminishment is believed to go “beyond [the loss of] buoyancy,” he noted. Researchers have “been showing these are not just water-loving molecules, they also have some biologic properties” relating to keratinocyte production and epidermal turnover that appear to be intricately linked to the pathogenesis of dermatoporosis. 

HAs have been shown to interact with the cell surface receptor CD44 to stimulate keratinocyte proliferation, and low levels of CD44 have been reported in skin with dermatoporosis compared with a younger control population. (A newly characterized organelle, the hyaluronosome, serves as an HA factory and contains CD44 and heparin-binding epidermal growth factor, Dr. Friedman noted. Inadequate functioning may be involved in skin atrophy.) 

Advancing age also brings an increase in matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs)–1, –2, and –3, which are “the demolition workers of the skin,” and downregulation of a tissue inhibitor of MMPs, he said. 

Adding insult to injury, dermis-penetrating UVA also activates MMPs, “obliterating collagen and elastin.” UVB generates DNA photoproducts, including oxidative stress and damaging skin cell DNA. “That UV light induces breakdown [of the skin] through different mechanisms and inhibits buildup is a simple concept I think our patients can understand,” Dr. Friedman said.
 

Multifaceted Treatment

For an older adult, “there is never a wrong time to start sun-protective measures” to prevent or try to halt the progression of dermatoporosis, Dr. Friedman said, noting that “UV radiation is an immunosuppressant, so there are many good reasons to start” if the adult is not already taking measures on a regular basis.

Potential treatments for the syndrome of dermatoporosis are backed by few clinical studies, but dermatologists are skilled at translating the use of products from one disease state to another based on understandings of pathophysiology and mechanistic pathways, Dr. Friedman commented in an interview after the meeting. 

For instance, “from decades of research, we know what retinoids will do to the skin,” he said in the interview. “We know they will turn on collagen-1 and -3 genes in the skin, and that they will increase the production of glycosaminoglycans ... By understanding the biology, we can translate this to dermatoporosis.” These changes were demonstrated, for instance, in a small study of topical retinol in older adults.

Studies of topical alpha hydroxy acid (AHA), moreover, have demonstrated epidermal thickening and firmness, and “some studies show they can limit steroid-induced atrophy,” Dr. Friedman said at the meeting. “And things like lactic acid and urea are super accessible.”

Topical dehydroepiandrosterone is backed by even less data than retinoids or AHAs are, “but it’s still something to consider” as part of a multimechanistic approach to dermatoporosis, Dr. Friedman shared, noting that a small study demonstrated beneficial effects on epidermal atrophy in aging skin. 

The use of vitamin D analogues such as calcipotriene, which is approved for the treatment of psoriasis, may also be promising. “One concept is that [vitamin D analogues] increase calcium concentrations in the epidermis, and calcium is so central to keratinocyte differentiation” and epidermal function that calcipotriene in combination with topical steroid therapy has been shown to limit skin atrophy, he noted.

Nutritionally, low protein intake is a known problem in the older population and is associated with increased skin fragility and poorer healing. From a prevention and treatment standpoint, therefore, patients can be counseled to be attentive to their diets, Dr. Friedman said. Experts have recommended a higher protein intake for older adults than for younger adults; in 2013, an international group recommended a protein intake of 1-1.5 g/kg/d for healthy older adults and more for those with acute or chronic illness.

“Patients love talking about diet and skin disease ... and they love over-the-counter nutraceuticals as well because they want something natural,” Dr. Friedman said. “I like using bioflavonoids in combination with vitamin C, which can be effective especially for solar purpura.”

Courtesy Dr. Adam Friedman

Skin Injury and Wound Prevention

In addition to recommending gentle skin cleansers and daily moisturizing, dermatologists should talk to their older patients with dermatoporosis about their home environments. “What is it like? Is there furniture with sharp edges?” Dr. Friedman advised. If so, could they use sleeves or protectors on their arms or legs “to protect against injury?”

In a later meeting session about lower-extremity wounds on geriatric patients, Michael Stempel, DPM, assistant professor of medicine and surgery and chief of podiatry at GWU, said that he was happy to hear the term dermatoporosis being used because like diabetes, it’s a risk factor for developing lower-extremity wounds and poor wound healing. 

He shared the case of an older woman with dermatoporosis who “tripped and skinned her knee against a step and then self-treated it for over a month by pouring hydrogen peroxide over it and letting air get to it.” The wound developed into “full-thickness tissue loss,” said Dr. Stempel, also medical director of the Wound Healing and Limb Preservation Center at GWU Hospital. 

Misperceptions are common among older patients about how a simple wound should be managed; for instance, the adage “just let it get air” is not uncommon. This makes anticipatory guidance about basic wound care — such as the importance of a moist and occlusive environment and the safe use of hydrogen peroxide — especially important for patients with dermatoporosis, Dr. Friedman commented after the meeting.

Dermatoporosis is quantifiable, Dr. Friedman said during the meeting, with a scoring system having been developed by the researchers in Switzerland who originally coined the term. Its use in practice is unnecessary, but its existence is “nice to share with patients who feel bothered because oftentimes, patients feel it’s been dismissed by other providers,” he said. “Telling your patients there’s an actual name for their problem, and that there are ways to quantify and measure changes over time, is validating.” 

Its recognition as a medical condition, Dr. Friedman added, also enables the dermatologist to bring it up and counsel appropriately — without a patient feeling shame — when it is identified in the context of a skin excision, treatment of a primary inflammatory skin disease, or management of another dermatologic problem.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant/advisory board member for L’Oréal, La Roche-Posay, Galderma, and other companies; a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, Incyte, BMD, and Janssen; and has grants from Pfizer, Lilly, Incyte, and other companies. Dr. Stempel reported no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — The chronic, excessive fragility of aging and sun-damaged skin has a name in the medical literature: dermatoporosis. This identification is helpful because it validates patients’ suffering and conveys the skin’s vulnerability to serious medical complications, said Adam Friedman, MD, at the ElderDerm conference on dermatology in the older patient.

Key features of dermatoporosis include atrophic skin, solar purpura, white pseudoscars, easily acquired skin lacerations and tears, bruises, and delayed healing. “We’re going to see more of this, and it will more and more be a chief complaint of patients,” said Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University (GWU) in Washington, and co-chair of the meeting. GWU hosted the conference, describing it as a first-of-its-kind meeting dedicated to improving dermatologic care for older adults.

Likely Pathophysiology

Advancing age and chronic ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure are the chief drivers of dermatoporosis. In addition to UVA and UVB light, other secondary drivers include genetic susceptibility, topical and systematic corticosteroid use, and anticoagulant treatment.

Its pathogenesis is not well described in the literature but is easy to envision, Dr. Friedman said. For one, both advancing age and exposure to UV light lead to a reduction in hygroscopic glycosaminoglycans, including hyaluronate (HA), and the impact of this diminishment is believed to go “beyond [the loss of] buoyancy,” he noted. Researchers have “been showing these are not just water-loving molecules, they also have some biologic properties” relating to keratinocyte production and epidermal turnover that appear to be intricately linked to the pathogenesis of dermatoporosis. 

HAs have been shown to interact with the cell surface receptor CD44 to stimulate keratinocyte proliferation, and low levels of CD44 have been reported in skin with dermatoporosis compared with a younger control population. (A newly characterized organelle, the hyaluronosome, serves as an HA factory and contains CD44 and heparin-binding epidermal growth factor, Dr. Friedman noted. Inadequate functioning may be involved in skin atrophy.) 

Advancing age also brings an increase in matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs)–1, –2, and –3, which are “the demolition workers of the skin,” and downregulation of a tissue inhibitor of MMPs, he said. 

Adding insult to injury, dermis-penetrating UVA also activates MMPs, “obliterating collagen and elastin.” UVB generates DNA photoproducts, including oxidative stress and damaging skin cell DNA. “That UV light induces breakdown [of the skin] through different mechanisms and inhibits buildup is a simple concept I think our patients can understand,” Dr. Friedman said.
 

Multifaceted Treatment

For an older adult, “there is never a wrong time to start sun-protective measures” to prevent or try to halt the progression of dermatoporosis, Dr. Friedman said, noting that “UV radiation is an immunosuppressant, so there are many good reasons to start” if the adult is not already taking measures on a regular basis.

Potential treatments for the syndrome of dermatoporosis are backed by few clinical studies, but dermatologists are skilled at translating the use of products from one disease state to another based on understandings of pathophysiology and mechanistic pathways, Dr. Friedman commented in an interview after the meeting. 

For instance, “from decades of research, we know what retinoids will do to the skin,” he said in the interview. “We know they will turn on collagen-1 and -3 genes in the skin, and that they will increase the production of glycosaminoglycans ... By understanding the biology, we can translate this to dermatoporosis.” These changes were demonstrated, for instance, in a small study of topical retinol in older adults.

Studies of topical alpha hydroxy acid (AHA), moreover, have demonstrated epidermal thickening and firmness, and “some studies show they can limit steroid-induced atrophy,” Dr. Friedman said at the meeting. “And things like lactic acid and urea are super accessible.”

Topical dehydroepiandrosterone is backed by even less data than retinoids or AHAs are, “but it’s still something to consider” as part of a multimechanistic approach to dermatoporosis, Dr. Friedman shared, noting that a small study demonstrated beneficial effects on epidermal atrophy in aging skin. 

The use of vitamin D analogues such as calcipotriene, which is approved for the treatment of psoriasis, may also be promising. “One concept is that [vitamin D analogues] increase calcium concentrations in the epidermis, and calcium is so central to keratinocyte differentiation” and epidermal function that calcipotriene in combination with topical steroid therapy has been shown to limit skin atrophy, he noted.

Nutritionally, low protein intake is a known problem in the older population and is associated with increased skin fragility and poorer healing. From a prevention and treatment standpoint, therefore, patients can be counseled to be attentive to their diets, Dr. Friedman said. Experts have recommended a higher protein intake for older adults than for younger adults; in 2013, an international group recommended a protein intake of 1-1.5 g/kg/d for healthy older adults and more for those with acute or chronic illness.

“Patients love talking about diet and skin disease ... and they love over-the-counter nutraceuticals as well because they want something natural,” Dr. Friedman said. “I like using bioflavonoids in combination with vitamin C, which can be effective especially for solar purpura.”

Courtesy Dr. Adam Friedman

Skin Injury and Wound Prevention

In addition to recommending gentle skin cleansers and daily moisturizing, dermatologists should talk to their older patients with dermatoporosis about their home environments. “What is it like? Is there furniture with sharp edges?” Dr. Friedman advised. If so, could they use sleeves or protectors on their arms or legs “to protect against injury?”

In a later meeting session about lower-extremity wounds on geriatric patients, Michael Stempel, DPM, assistant professor of medicine and surgery and chief of podiatry at GWU, said that he was happy to hear the term dermatoporosis being used because like diabetes, it’s a risk factor for developing lower-extremity wounds and poor wound healing. 

He shared the case of an older woman with dermatoporosis who “tripped and skinned her knee against a step and then self-treated it for over a month by pouring hydrogen peroxide over it and letting air get to it.” The wound developed into “full-thickness tissue loss,” said Dr. Stempel, also medical director of the Wound Healing and Limb Preservation Center at GWU Hospital. 

Misperceptions are common among older patients about how a simple wound should be managed; for instance, the adage “just let it get air” is not uncommon. This makes anticipatory guidance about basic wound care — such as the importance of a moist and occlusive environment and the safe use of hydrogen peroxide — especially important for patients with dermatoporosis, Dr. Friedman commented after the meeting.

Dermatoporosis is quantifiable, Dr. Friedman said during the meeting, with a scoring system having been developed by the researchers in Switzerland who originally coined the term. Its use in practice is unnecessary, but its existence is “nice to share with patients who feel bothered because oftentimes, patients feel it’s been dismissed by other providers,” he said. “Telling your patients there’s an actual name for their problem, and that there are ways to quantify and measure changes over time, is validating.” 

Its recognition as a medical condition, Dr. Friedman added, also enables the dermatologist to bring it up and counsel appropriately — without a patient feeling shame — when it is identified in the context of a skin excision, treatment of a primary inflammatory skin disease, or management of another dermatologic problem.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant/advisory board member for L’Oréal, La Roche-Posay, Galderma, and other companies; a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, Incyte, BMD, and Janssen; and has grants from Pfizer, Lilly, Incyte, and other companies. Dr. Stempel reported no disclosures.

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

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.