Melanoma

UV radiation from sun exposure is a risk factor for most types of skin cancer.¹ Despite comprising only 1% of the body's surface area, the periocular region is the location of approximately 5% to 10% of skin cancers described in one US study.² The efficacy of sunscreen in preventing skin cancer is widely accepted, and the American Academy of Dermatology recommends application of broad-spectrum UVA/UVB sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 30 or higher to help prevent skin cancer.^3-5

RELATED ARTICLE: Sun Protection for Infants: Parent Behaviors and Beliefs

Reducing the risk of skin cancer from sun exposure relies on many factors, including completeness of application. A number of studies have demonstrated incomplete sunscreen application on the hairline, ears, neck, and dorsal feet.^6-8 The purpose of this study was to assess the completeness of facial sunscreen self-application in oculofacial surgery patients using UV photography.

Methods

This single-site, cross-sectional, qualitative study assessed the completeness of facial sunscreen self-application among patients from a single surgeon's (J.A.W.) cosmetic and tertiary-care oculofacial surgery practice at the Duke Eye Center (Durham, North Carolina) between March 2016 and May 2016. Approval from the Duke University institutional review board was obtained, and the research adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and complied with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Informed consent was obtained from all patients, and patients could elect to provide specific written consent for publication of photographs in scientific presentations and publications. Patients younger than 18 years of age; those with known sensitivity to sunscreen or its ingredients; and those with an active lesion, rash, or open wound were excluded from the study.

After obtaining informed consent, patients were photographed using a camera with a UV lens in natural outdoor lighting, first without sunscreen and again after self-application of a sunscreen of their choosing using their routine application technique. Completeness of sunscreen application was graded independently by 3 oculofacial surgeons (N.A.L., J.L., J.A.W.) as complete, partial, none, or cannot determine for 15 facial regions. The majority response was used for analysis.

Results

Forty-four patients were enrolled in the study. Six patients were disqualified due to use of mineral-based formulations (zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide), as these sunscreens could not be visualized using UV photography. The age range of the remaining 38 patients was 28 to 74 years; 26% (10/38) were men and 74% (28/38) were women.

Complete sunscreen application was most frequently performed on the cheeks (97% [37/38]), chin (95% [36/38]), forehead (92% [35/38]), and temples (92% [35/38]). Complete absence of sunscreen coverage was most common on the lower eyelid margin (84% [32/38]), upper eyelid margin (82% [31/38]), medial canthus (71% 27/38]), and upper eyelid (66% [25/38])(Table)(Figure).

Comment

UV radiation-related skin cancers frequently occur in the periocular area, presumably because it is a frequent site of UV exposure. Clothing, sunglasses, and hats can be used to aid in protection from UV radiation, but these products are only regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration if the product claims to prevent skin cancer. Sunscreen is a proven method of protection from UV radiation and the prevention of skin cancer but must be properly applied for it to be effective.^1,2,5,6 Incomplete sunscreen application has been demonstrated in numerous studies. Lademann et al7 studied sunscreen application among 60 beachgoers in Germany and found they typically missed the hairline, ears, and dorsal feet. In a study of 10 women with photosensitivity in England who were asked to apply sunscreen in their routine manner, Azurdia et al⁶ found the posterior neck, lateral neck, temples, and ears, respectively, were the most frequently missed sites. Yang et al⁸ assessed sunscreen application in 39 dermatologists and 41 photosensitive patients in China and found the neck, ears, dorsal hands, hairline, temples, and perioral region, respectively, were most commonly left unprotected.

Our study investigated detailed facial self-application of sunscreen and found excellent coverage of the larger facial units such as the forehead, cheeks, chin, and temples. The brow, medial canthus, lateral canthus, and upper and lower eyelids and eyelid margins were infrequently protected with sunscreen during routine application. Our opinion is that patients are unaware that eyelid sunscreen application is important. They may be afraid that the products will sting or cause damage if they get in the eyes. Although some products do sting if they get into the eyes, there is no evidence that sunscreens cause injury to the eyes. The US Food and Drug Administration does not have clear guidelines about applying sunscreens in the periocular area, but in general, mineral blocks are recommended because they have less chance of irritation. Several companies make such products that are designed to be applied to the eyelids.

Limitations of our study included a small sample size and a majority female demographic, which may have affected the results, as women generally are more familiar with the application of lotions to the face. Additionally, the patients were recruited from a tertiary-care clinic and may have had periocular malignancy or may have previously received counseling on the importance of sunscreen use.

Conclusion

Cancer reconstruction of the periocular area is challenging, and even in the best of hands, a patient's quality of life may be negatively affected by postreconstructive appearance or suboptimal function, resulting in ocular exposure. The authors recommend counseling patients on the importance of good sun protection habits, including daily application of sunscreen to the face and periocular region to prevent malignancy in these delicate areas.

UV radiation from sun exposure is a risk factor for most types of skin cancer.¹ Despite comprising only 1% of the body's surface area, the periocular region is the location of approximately 5% to 10% of skin cancers described in one US study.² The efficacy of sunscreen in preventing skin cancer is widely accepted, and the American Academy of Dermatology recommends application of broad-spectrum UVA/UVB sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 30 or higher to help prevent skin cancer.^3-5

RELATED ARTICLE: Sun Protection for Infants: Parent Behaviors and Beliefs

Reducing the risk of skin cancer from sun exposure relies on many factors, including completeness of application. A number of studies have demonstrated incomplete sunscreen application on the hairline, ears, neck, and dorsal feet.^6-8 The purpose of this study was to assess the completeness of facial sunscreen self-application in oculofacial surgery patients using UV photography.

Methods

This single-site, cross-sectional, qualitative study assessed the completeness of facial sunscreen self-application among patients from a single surgeon's (J.A.W.) cosmetic and tertiary-care oculofacial surgery practice at the Duke Eye Center (Durham, North Carolina) between March 2016 and May 2016. Approval from the Duke University institutional review board was obtained, and the research adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and complied with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Informed consent was obtained from all patients, and patients could elect to provide specific written consent for publication of photographs in scientific presentations and publications. Patients younger than 18 years of age; those with known sensitivity to sunscreen or its ingredients; and those with an active lesion, rash, or open wound were excluded from the study.

After obtaining informed consent, patients were photographed using a camera with a UV lens in natural outdoor lighting, first without sunscreen and again after self-application of a sunscreen of their choosing using their routine application technique. Completeness of sunscreen application was graded independently by 3 oculofacial surgeons (N.A.L., J.L., J.A.W.) as complete, partial, none, or cannot determine for 15 facial regions. The majority response was used for analysis.

Results

Forty-four patients were enrolled in the study. Six patients were disqualified due to use of mineral-based formulations (zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide), as these sunscreens could not be visualized using UV photography. The age range of the remaining 38 patients was 28 to 74 years; 26% (10/38) were men and 74% (28/38) were women.

Complete sunscreen application was most frequently performed on the cheeks (97% [37/38]), chin (95% [36/38]), forehead (92% [35/38]), and temples (92% [35/38]). Complete absence of sunscreen coverage was most common on the lower eyelid margin (84% [32/38]), upper eyelid margin (82% [31/38]), medial canthus (71% 27/38]), and upper eyelid (66% [25/38])(Table)(Figure).

Comment

UV radiation-related skin cancers frequently occur in the periocular area, presumably because it is a frequent site of UV exposure. Clothing, sunglasses, and hats can be used to aid in protection from UV radiation, but these products are only regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration if the product claims to prevent skin cancer. Sunscreen is a proven method of protection from UV radiation and the prevention of skin cancer but must be properly applied for it to be effective.^1,2,5,6 Incomplete sunscreen application has been demonstrated in numerous studies. Lademann et al7 studied sunscreen application among 60 beachgoers in Germany and found they typically missed the hairline, ears, and dorsal feet. In a study of 10 women with photosensitivity in England who were asked to apply sunscreen in their routine manner, Azurdia et al⁶ found the posterior neck, lateral neck, temples, and ears, respectively, were the most frequently missed sites. Yang et al⁸ assessed sunscreen application in 39 dermatologists and 41 photosensitive patients in China and found the neck, ears, dorsal hands, hairline, temples, and perioral region, respectively, were most commonly left unprotected.

Our study investigated detailed facial self-application of sunscreen and found excellent coverage of the larger facial units such as the forehead, cheeks, chin, and temples. The brow, medial canthus, lateral canthus, and upper and lower eyelids and eyelid margins were infrequently protected with sunscreen during routine application. Our opinion is that patients are unaware that eyelid sunscreen application is important. They may be afraid that the products will sting or cause damage if they get in the eyes. Although some products do sting if they get into the eyes, there is no evidence that sunscreens cause injury to the eyes. The US Food and Drug Administration does not have clear guidelines about applying sunscreens in the periocular area, but in general, mineral blocks are recommended because they have less chance of irritation. Several companies make such products that are designed to be applied to the eyelids.

Limitations of our study included a small sample size and a majority female demographic, which may have affected the results, as women generally are more familiar with the application of lotions to the face. Additionally, the patients were recruited from a tertiary-care clinic and may have had periocular malignancy or may have previously received counseling on the importance of sunscreen use.

Conclusion

Cancer reconstruction of the periocular area is challenging, and even in the best of hands, a patient's quality of life may be negatively affected by postreconstructive appearance or suboptimal function, resulting in ocular exposure. The authors recommend counseling patients on the importance of good sun protection habits, including daily application of sunscreen to the face and periocular region to prevent malignancy in these delicate areas.

UV radiation from sun exposure is a risk factor for most types of skin cancer.¹ Despite comprising only 1% of the body's surface area, the periocular region is the location of approximately 5% to 10% of skin cancers described in one US study.² The efficacy of sunscreen in preventing skin cancer is widely accepted, and the American Academy of Dermatology recommends application of broad-spectrum UVA/UVB sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 30 or higher to help prevent skin cancer.^3-5

RELATED ARTICLE: Sun Protection for Infants: Parent Behaviors and Beliefs

Reducing the risk of skin cancer from sun exposure relies on many factors, including completeness of application. A number of studies have demonstrated incomplete sunscreen application on the hairline, ears, neck, and dorsal feet.^6-8 The purpose of this study was to assess the completeness of facial sunscreen self-application in oculofacial surgery patients using UV photography.

Methods

This single-site, cross-sectional, qualitative study assessed the completeness of facial sunscreen self-application among patients from a single surgeon's (J.A.W.) cosmetic and tertiary-care oculofacial surgery practice at the Duke Eye Center (Durham, North Carolina) between March 2016 and May 2016. Approval from the Duke University institutional review board was obtained, and the research adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and complied with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Informed consent was obtained from all patients, and patients could elect to provide specific written consent for publication of photographs in scientific presentations and publications. Patients younger than 18 years of age; those with known sensitivity to sunscreen or its ingredients; and those with an active lesion, rash, or open wound were excluded from the study.

After obtaining informed consent, patients were photographed using a camera with a UV lens in natural outdoor lighting, first without sunscreen and again after self-application of a sunscreen of their choosing using their routine application technique. Completeness of sunscreen application was graded independently by 3 oculofacial surgeons (N.A.L., J.L., J.A.W.) as complete, partial, none, or cannot determine for 15 facial regions. The majority response was used for analysis.

Results

Forty-four patients were enrolled in the study. Six patients were disqualified due to use of mineral-based formulations (zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide), as these sunscreens could not be visualized using UV photography. The age range of the remaining 38 patients was 28 to 74 years; 26% (10/38) were men and 74% (28/38) were women.

Complete sunscreen application was most frequently performed on the cheeks (97% [37/38]), chin (95% [36/38]), forehead (92% [35/38]), and temples (92% [35/38]). Complete absence of sunscreen coverage was most common on the lower eyelid margin (84% [32/38]), upper eyelid margin (82% [31/38]), medial canthus (71% 27/38]), and upper eyelid (66% [25/38])(Table)(Figure).

Comment

UV radiation-related skin cancers frequently occur in the periocular area, presumably because it is a frequent site of UV exposure. Clothing, sunglasses, and hats can be used to aid in protection from UV radiation, but these products are only regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration if the product claims to prevent skin cancer. Sunscreen is a proven method of protection from UV radiation and the prevention of skin cancer but must be properly applied for it to be effective.^1,2,5,6 Incomplete sunscreen application has been demonstrated in numerous studies. Lademann et al7 studied sunscreen application among 60 beachgoers in Germany and found they typically missed the hairline, ears, and dorsal feet. In a study of 10 women with photosensitivity in England who were asked to apply sunscreen in their routine manner, Azurdia et al⁶ found the posterior neck, lateral neck, temples, and ears, respectively, were the most frequently missed sites. Yang et al⁸ assessed sunscreen application in 39 dermatologists and 41 photosensitive patients in China and found the neck, ears, dorsal hands, hairline, temples, and perioral region, respectively, were most commonly left unprotected.

Our study investigated detailed facial self-application of sunscreen and found excellent coverage of the larger facial units such as the forehead, cheeks, chin, and temples. The brow, medial canthus, lateral canthus, and upper and lower eyelids and eyelid margins were infrequently protected with sunscreen during routine application. Our opinion is that patients are unaware that eyelid sunscreen application is important. They may be afraid that the products will sting or cause damage if they get in the eyes. Although some products do sting if they get into the eyes, there is no evidence that sunscreens cause injury to the eyes. The US Food and Drug Administration does not have clear guidelines about applying sunscreens in the periocular area, but in general, mineral blocks are recommended because they have less chance of irritation. Several companies make such products that are designed to be applied to the eyelids.

Limitations of our study included a small sample size and a majority female demographic, which may have affected the results, as women generally are more familiar with the application of lotions to the face. Additionally, the patients were recruited from a tertiary-care clinic and may have had periocular malignancy or may have previously received counseling on the importance of sunscreen use.

Conclusion

Cancer reconstruction of the periocular area is challenging, and even in the best of hands, a patient's quality of life may be negatively affected by postreconstructive appearance or suboptimal function, resulting in ocular exposure. The authors recommend counseling patients on the importance of good sun protection habits, including daily application of sunscreen to the face and periocular region to prevent malignancy in these delicate areas.

CHICAGO – Immune therapy shows promise for use in the treatment of melanoma brain metastases, especially for treatment-naive patients, judging from the findings of a new phase II randomized study.

For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases from melanoma who had not had prior treatment, nivolumab combined with ipilimumab produced a 50% intracranial response rate after at least 12 weeks of therapy. When nivolumab alone was given to untreated patients, the intracranial response rate was 21%, Georgina Long MD, PhD, co–medical director of the Melanoma Institute Australia , said during a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“If you look at progression-free survival by response, none of our complete responders have progressed,” said Dr. Long. “And this is with a median follow-up of 16.4 months.” The partial responders have also done well, with little progression, she said. “Remember, these patients usually survive only a few weeks.”

The Anti-PD1 Brain Collaboration study, a phase II clinical trial, enrolled patients with melanoma brain metastases at least 5 mm but less than 40 mm in diameter who had not received previous anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4), anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1), or anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) therapies. Patients were permitted to have had previous BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapies. Asymptomatic patients who had no previous local brain therapy (i.e., radiation treatment or surgery) were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab alone, or nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

The nivolumab arm received 3 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks. The combination arm began with nivolumab 1 mg/kg and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. After this, they also received nivolumab 3 mg/kg monotherapy every 2 weeks.

The third cohort – a small group of 15 patients who received nivolumab alone – either had symptomatic brain metastases or leptomeningeal disease and could have had previous brain surgery or radiotherapy. Unlike the first two cohorts, they were also permitted to be on up to 10 mg/day of prednisone; these patients received nivolumab alone at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks.

For all patients, immune therapy was given until the disease progressed, consent was withdrawn, or patients experienced unacceptable toxicity or they died.

“We were most interested in the randomized cohorts,” said Dr. Long. Interestingly, she said, ipilimumab became available in Australia when 27 patients were enrolled in the nivolumab arm and 26 to the combination arm. “So we stopped the monotherapy arm, and the rest of the 60 patients to be recruited all went into the combination arm,” she said. A total of 76 patients were recruited, 33 into the combination arm, 27 to the asymptomatic nivolumab monotherapy arm, and 16 to the symptomatic and/or previously treated arm.

Data analysis from the point of the data cut included 67 patients who were followed for a period ranging from 5 to 34 months. Intracranial disease was evaluated by gadolinium-enhanced MRI and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria.

“The results of the trial were very interesting,” said Dr. Long. The nivolumab plus ipilimumab combo resulted in an overall 42% intracranial response rate, while nivolumab alone produced an overall intracranial response rate of 21%. However, patients in either arm who had prior BRAF or MEK inhibitor exposure “didn’t do too well on immunotherapy,” said Dr. Long, noting that the response rate was just 16% for these patients. These were, she said, “small numbers, but still, an interesting signal there.”

When comparing the secondary endpoint of extracranial response to intracranial response on a per-patient basis, Dr. Long and her collaborators could see that “the intracranial and extracranial results were mostly concordant.”

Analysis of the additional secondary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) also showed an interesting pattern, said Dr. Long. After an initial drop-off period of about 5 months, the curves for patients in all arms have stabilized, so that patients who were responders are maintaining that response. The overall 6-month PFS rate for the combination cohort was 47%, with a durable response: “If you look at the curve, it’s flattened out since that stage, and we haven’t had any progression since that time,” said Dr. Long. The PFS rate was 29% for the cohort receiving nivolumab alone. “Activity is highest when nivolumab and ipilimumab are given upfront,” said Dr. Long.

For asymptomatic patients pretreated with BRAF or MEK inhibitors, “activity is low,” said Dr. Long, with an intracranial response rate of 16% in both cohorts.

Symptomatic patients who were more heavily pretreated fared even worse: “The activity of nivolumab monotherapy is low after multiple modality therapy or in leptomeningeal melanoma,” said Dr. Long. The intracranial response rate in the third cohort was just 6%.

The combination therapy cohort had the most treatment-related adverse events, with 96% of patients experiencing some adverse event. About half (12/26, 46%) had grade 3 or 4 events, and the same number had a serious adverse event. Seven patients (27%) discontinued therapy because of treatment-related adverse events in the combination study arm. However, said Dr. Long, this side effect profile is in keeping with what has been seen in other studies of combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab. “There were not unexpected adverse events,” she said.

Dr. Long reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Roche.

koakes@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @karioakes

CHICAGO – Immune therapy shows promise for use in the treatment of melanoma brain metastases, especially for treatment-naive patients, judging from the findings of a new phase II randomized study.

For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases from melanoma who had not had prior treatment, nivolumab combined with ipilimumab produced a 50% intracranial response rate after at least 12 weeks of therapy. When nivolumab alone was given to untreated patients, the intracranial response rate was 21%, Georgina Long MD, PhD, co–medical director of the Melanoma Institute Australia , said during a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“If you look at progression-free survival by response, none of our complete responders have progressed,” said Dr. Long. “And this is with a median follow-up of 16.4 months.” The partial responders have also done well, with little progression, she said. “Remember, these patients usually survive only a few weeks.”

The Anti-PD1 Brain Collaboration study, a phase II clinical trial, enrolled patients with melanoma brain metastases at least 5 mm but less than 40 mm in diameter who had not received previous anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4), anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1), or anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) therapies. Patients were permitted to have had previous BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapies. Asymptomatic patients who had no previous local brain therapy (i.e., radiation treatment or surgery) were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab alone, or nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

The nivolumab arm received 3 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks. The combination arm began with nivolumab 1 mg/kg and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. After this, they also received nivolumab 3 mg/kg monotherapy every 2 weeks.

The third cohort – a small group of 15 patients who received nivolumab alone – either had symptomatic brain metastases or leptomeningeal disease and could have had previous brain surgery or radiotherapy. Unlike the first two cohorts, they were also permitted to be on up to 10 mg/day of prednisone; these patients received nivolumab alone at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks.

For all patients, immune therapy was given until the disease progressed, consent was withdrawn, or patients experienced unacceptable toxicity or they died.

“We were most interested in the randomized cohorts,” said Dr. Long. Interestingly, she said, ipilimumab became available in Australia when 27 patients were enrolled in the nivolumab arm and 26 to the combination arm. “So we stopped the monotherapy arm, and the rest of the 60 patients to be recruited all went into the combination arm,” she said. A total of 76 patients were recruited, 33 into the combination arm, 27 to the asymptomatic nivolumab monotherapy arm, and 16 to the symptomatic and/or previously treated arm.

Data analysis from the point of the data cut included 67 patients who were followed for a period ranging from 5 to 34 months. Intracranial disease was evaluated by gadolinium-enhanced MRI and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria.

“The results of the trial were very interesting,” said Dr. Long. The nivolumab plus ipilimumab combo resulted in an overall 42% intracranial response rate, while nivolumab alone produced an overall intracranial response rate of 21%. However, patients in either arm who had prior BRAF or MEK inhibitor exposure “didn’t do too well on immunotherapy,” said Dr. Long, noting that the response rate was just 16% for these patients. These were, she said, “small numbers, but still, an interesting signal there.”

When comparing the secondary endpoint of extracranial response to intracranial response on a per-patient basis, Dr. Long and her collaborators could see that “the intracranial and extracranial results were mostly concordant.”

Analysis of the additional secondary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) also showed an interesting pattern, said Dr. Long. After an initial drop-off period of about 5 months, the curves for patients in all arms have stabilized, so that patients who were responders are maintaining that response. The overall 6-month PFS rate for the combination cohort was 47%, with a durable response: “If you look at the curve, it’s flattened out since that stage, and we haven’t had any progression since that time,” said Dr. Long. The PFS rate was 29% for the cohort receiving nivolumab alone. “Activity is highest when nivolumab and ipilimumab are given upfront,” said Dr. Long.

For asymptomatic patients pretreated with BRAF or MEK inhibitors, “activity is low,” said Dr. Long, with an intracranial response rate of 16% in both cohorts.

Symptomatic patients who were more heavily pretreated fared even worse: “The activity of nivolumab monotherapy is low after multiple modality therapy or in leptomeningeal melanoma,” said Dr. Long. The intracranial response rate in the third cohort was just 6%.

The combination therapy cohort had the most treatment-related adverse events, with 96% of patients experiencing some adverse event. About half (12/26, 46%) had grade 3 or 4 events, and the same number had a serious adverse event. Seven patients (27%) discontinued therapy because of treatment-related adverse events in the combination study arm. However, said Dr. Long, this side effect profile is in keeping with what has been seen in other studies of combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab. “There were not unexpected adverse events,” she said.

Dr. Long reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Roche.

koakes@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @karioakes

CHICAGO – Immune therapy shows promise for use in the treatment of melanoma brain metastases, especially for treatment-naive patients, judging from the findings of a new phase II randomized study.

For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases from melanoma who had not had prior treatment, nivolumab combined with ipilimumab produced a 50% intracranial response rate after at least 12 weeks of therapy. When nivolumab alone was given to untreated patients, the intracranial response rate was 21%, Georgina Long MD, PhD, co–medical director of the Melanoma Institute Australia , said during a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“If you look at progression-free survival by response, none of our complete responders have progressed,” said Dr. Long. “And this is with a median follow-up of 16.4 months.” The partial responders have also done well, with little progression, she said. “Remember, these patients usually survive only a few weeks.”

The Anti-PD1 Brain Collaboration study, a phase II clinical trial, enrolled patients with melanoma brain metastases at least 5 mm but less than 40 mm in diameter who had not received previous anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4), anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1), or anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) therapies. Patients were permitted to have had previous BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapies. Asymptomatic patients who had no previous local brain therapy (i.e., radiation treatment or surgery) were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab alone, or nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

The nivolumab arm received 3 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks. The combination arm began with nivolumab 1 mg/kg and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. After this, they also received nivolumab 3 mg/kg monotherapy every 2 weeks.

The third cohort – a small group of 15 patients who received nivolumab alone – either had symptomatic brain metastases or leptomeningeal disease and could have had previous brain surgery or radiotherapy. Unlike the first two cohorts, they were also permitted to be on up to 10 mg/day of prednisone; these patients received nivolumab alone at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks.

For all patients, immune therapy was given until the disease progressed, consent was withdrawn, or patients experienced unacceptable toxicity or they died.

“We were most interested in the randomized cohorts,” said Dr. Long. Interestingly, she said, ipilimumab became available in Australia when 27 patients were enrolled in the nivolumab arm and 26 to the combination arm. “So we stopped the monotherapy arm, and the rest of the 60 patients to be recruited all went into the combination arm,” she said. A total of 76 patients were recruited, 33 into the combination arm, 27 to the asymptomatic nivolumab monotherapy arm, and 16 to the symptomatic and/or previously treated arm.

Data analysis from the point of the data cut included 67 patients who were followed for a period ranging from 5 to 34 months. Intracranial disease was evaluated by gadolinium-enhanced MRI and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria.

“The results of the trial were very interesting,” said Dr. Long. The nivolumab plus ipilimumab combo resulted in an overall 42% intracranial response rate, while nivolumab alone produced an overall intracranial response rate of 21%. However, patients in either arm who had prior BRAF or MEK inhibitor exposure “didn’t do too well on immunotherapy,” said Dr. Long, noting that the response rate was just 16% for these patients. These were, she said, “small numbers, but still, an interesting signal there.”

When comparing the secondary endpoint of extracranial response to intracranial response on a per-patient basis, Dr. Long and her collaborators could see that “the intracranial and extracranial results were mostly concordant.”

Analysis of the additional secondary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) also showed an interesting pattern, said Dr. Long. After an initial drop-off period of about 5 months, the curves for patients in all arms have stabilized, so that patients who were responders are maintaining that response. The overall 6-month PFS rate for the combination cohort was 47%, with a durable response: “If you look at the curve, it’s flattened out since that stage, and we haven’t had any progression since that time,” said Dr. Long. The PFS rate was 29% for the cohort receiving nivolumab alone. “Activity is highest when nivolumab and ipilimumab are given upfront,” said Dr. Long.

For asymptomatic patients pretreated with BRAF or MEK inhibitors, “activity is low,” said Dr. Long, with an intracranial response rate of 16% in both cohorts.

Symptomatic patients who were more heavily pretreated fared even worse: “The activity of nivolumab monotherapy is low after multiple modality therapy or in leptomeningeal melanoma,” said Dr. Long. The intracranial response rate in the third cohort was just 6%.

The combination therapy cohort had the most treatment-related adverse events, with 96% of patients experiencing some adverse event. About half (12/26, 46%) had grade 3 or 4 events, and the same number had a serious adverse event. Seven patients (27%) discontinued therapy because of treatment-related adverse events in the combination study arm. However, said Dr. Long, this side effect profile is in keeping with what has been seen in other studies of combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab. “There were not unexpected adverse events,” she said.

Dr. Long reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Roche.

koakes@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @karioakes

In patients who have melanoma with sentinel node metastasis, immediate-completion lymph node dissection doesn’t improve melanoma-specific survival, compared with nodal observation using ultrasound, according to a report published online June 8 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Immediate-completion lymph node dissection – removal of the remaining regional lymph nodes after sentinel node excision – is usually recommended for patients found to have sentinel node metastasis, even though the evidence supporting this practice is inconclusive. A large prospective phase III trial was performed to compare outcomes with this approach against outcomes in patients who instead underwent observation using frequent nodal ultrasound and had lymph node dissection only if nodal recurrence developed, said Mark B. Faries, MD, of the John Wayne Cancer Institute at Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., and his associates.

The second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-II) involved 1,939 adults at 63 medical centers who had clinically localized cutaneous melanoma of intermediate thickness, at least one tumor-positive sentinel node as determined by standard pathological assessment or a quantitative reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction assay, and a life expectancy of 10 years or more. These participants were randomly assigned to immediate-completion node dissection (971 patients) or nodal observation (931 patients).

At 3 years of follow-up, the primary end point – the rate of melanoma-specific survival – was the same in the immediate-dissection group as in the observation group (86%). Further analyses showed that no subgroup of patients, including those defined by tumor burden, showed a significant melanoma-specific benefit from immediate completion lymph node dissection. However, the immediate-dissection group had a significant disadvantage regarding adverse events; 24.1% developed lymphedema, compared with only 6.3% of the observation group.

Secondary end points slightly favored immediate dissection. At 3 years, the rate of disease-free survival was slightly higher in that group (68%) than in the observation group (63%), and the rate of disease control in the regional nodes was higher (92% vs. 77%). However, “differences with respect to the secondary end points must be interpreted with caution,” Dr. Faries and his associates said (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613210).

“Overall, some value may be derived from immediate-completion lymph node dissection with regard to staging and an increased rate of regional disease control. However, this value comes at the cost of increased complications,” the investigators said.

This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Borstein Family Foundation, Amy’s Foundation, the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation, and the John Wayne Cancer Institute Auxiliary. Dr. Faries reported serving on advisory boards for Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Amgen, and Immune Design; his associates reported ties to numerous industry sources.

dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com

In patients who have melanoma with sentinel node metastasis, immediate-completion lymph node dissection doesn’t improve melanoma-specific survival, compared with nodal observation using ultrasound, according to a report published online June 8 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Immediate-completion lymph node dissection – removal of the remaining regional lymph nodes after sentinel node excision – is usually recommended for patients found to have sentinel node metastasis, even though the evidence supporting this practice is inconclusive. A large prospective phase III trial was performed to compare outcomes with this approach against outcomes in patients who instead underwent observation using frequent nodal ultrasound and had lymph node dissection only if nodal recurrence developed, said Mark B. Faries, MD, of the John Wayne Cancer Institute at Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., and his associates.

The second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-II) involved 1,939 adults at 63 medical centers who had clinically localized cutaneous melanoma of intermediate thickness, at least one tumor-positive sentinel node as determined by standard pathological assessment or a quantitative reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction assay, and a life expectancy of 10 years or more. These participants were randomly assigned to immediate-completion node dissection (971 patients) or nodal observation (931 patients).

At 3 years of follow-up, the primary end point – the rate of melanoma-specific survival – was the same in the immediate-dissection group as in the observation group (86%). Further analyses showed that no subgroup of patients, including those defined by tumor burden, showed a significant melanoma-specific benefit from immediate completion lymph node dissection. However, the immediate-dissection group had a significant disadvantage regarding adverse events; 24.1% developed lymphedema, compared with only 6.3% of the observation group.

Secondary end points slightly favored immediate dissection. At 3 years, the rate of disease-free survival was slightly higher in that group (68%) than in the observation group (63%), and the rate of disease control in the regional nodes was higher (92% vs. 77%). However, “differences with respect to the secondary end points must be interpreted with caution,” Dr. Faries and his associates said (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613210).

“Overall, some value may be derived from immediate-completion lymph node dissection with regard to staging and an increased rate of regional disease control. However, this value comes at the cost of increased complications,” the investigators said.

This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Borstein Family Foundation, Amy’s Foundation, the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation, and the John Wayne Cancer Institute Auxiliary. Dr. Faries reported serving on advisory boards for Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Amgen, and Immune Design; his associates reported ties to numerous industry sources.

dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com

In patients who have melanoma with sentinel node metastasis, immediate-completion lymph node dissection doesn’t improve melanoma-specific survival, compared with nodal observation using ultrasound, according to a report published online June 8 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Immediate-completion lymph node dissection – removal of the remaining regional lymph nodes after sentinel node excision – is usually recommended for patients found to have sentinel node metastasis, even though the evidence supporting this practice is inconclusive. A large prospective phase III trial was performed to compare outcomes with this approach against outcomes in patients who instead underwent observation using frequent nodal ultrasound and had lymph node dissection only if nodal recurrence developed, said Mark B. Faries, MD, of the John Wayne Cancer Institute at Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., and his associates.

The second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-II) involved 1,939 adults at 63 medical centers who had clinically localized cutaneous melanoma of intermediate thickness, at least one tumor-positive sentinel node as determined by standard pathological assessment or a quantitative reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction assay, and a life expectancy of 10 years or more. These participants were randomly assigned to immediate-completion node dissection (971 patients) or nodal observation (931 patients).

At 3 years of follow-up, the primary end point – the rate of melanoma-specific survival – was the same in the immediate-dissection group as in the observation group (86%). Further analyses showed that no subgroup of patients, including those defined by tumor burden, showed a significant melanoma-specific benefit from immediate completion lymph node dissection. However, the immediate-dissection group had a significant disadvantage regarding adverse events; 24.1% developed lymphedema, compared with only 6.3% of the observation group.

Secondary end points slightly favored immediate dissection. At 3 years, the rate of disease-free survival was slightly higher in that group (68%) than in the observation group (63%), and the rate of disease control in the regional nodes was higher (92% vs. 77%). However, “differences with respect to the secondary end points must be interpreted with caution,” Dr. Faries and his associates said (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613210).

“Overall, some value may be derived from immediate-completion lymph node dissection with regard to staging and an increased rate of regional disease control. However, this value comes at the cost of increased complications,” the investigators said.

This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Borstein Family Foundation, Amy’s Foundation, the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation, and the John Wayne Cancer Institute Auxiliary. Dr. Faries reported serving on advisory boards for Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Amgen, and Immune Design; his associates reported ties to numerous industry sources.

dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com

The number of skin cancer procedures in 2016 was up by 10.5% since 2015 and by 35% since 2012, according to the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

Of the estimated 3.5 million skin cancer treatments provided by dermatologic surgeons in 2016, just over 227,000, or 6.5%, were for melanoma – a 4% increase over those diagnosed in 2015. Since 2012, the annual number of melanoma procedures has risen by 55%. The 3.29 million nonmelanoma procedures performed in 2016 represent a 10% increase over 2015, the ASDS said in a report on its 2016 Survey on Dermatologic Procedures.

“The public is increasingly aware of the need to have any new or suspicious lesions checked,” ASDS President Thomas Rohrer, MD, said in a written statement.

In addition to the skin cancer treatments, ASDS members also performed over 7 million cosmetic procedures in 2016, including 2.8 million involving laser, light, and energy-based devices. Additionally, 1.7 million involving neuromodulators, and 1.35 million involved soft-tissue fillers, the ASDS said.

The procedures survey was conducted Jan. 4 to Feb. 8, 2017, and included 627 physicians’ responses, which were then generalized to represent all of the almost 6,100 ASDS members.

The number of skin cancer procedures in 2016 was up by 10.5% since 2015 and by 35% since 2012, according to the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

Of the estimated 3.5 million skin cancer treatments provided by dermatologic surgeons in 2016, just over 227,000, or 6.5%, were for melanoma – a 4% increase over those diagnosed in 2015. Since 2012, the annual number of melanoma procedures has risen by 55%. The 3.29 million nonmelanoma procedures performed in 2016 represent a 10% increase over 2015, the ASDS said in a report on its 2016 Survey on Dermatologic Procedures.

“The public is increasingly aware of the need to have any new or suspicious lesions checked,” ASDS President Thomas Rohrer, MD, said in a written statement.

In addition to the skin cancer treatments, ASDS members also performed over 7 million cosmetic procedures in 2016, including 2.8 million involving laser, light, and energy-based devices. Additionally, 1.7 million involving neuromodulators, and 1.35 million involved soft-tissue fillers, the ASDS said.

The procedures survey was conducted Jan. 4 to Feb. 8, 2017, and included 627 physicians’ responses, which were then generalized to represent all of the almost 6,100 ASDS members.

The number of skin cancer procedures in 2016 was up by 10.5% since 2015 and by 35% since 2012, according to the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

Of the estimated 3.5 million skin cancer treatments provided by dermatologic surgeons in 2016, just over 227,000, or 6.5%, were for melanoma – a 4% increase over those diagnosed in 2015. Since 2012, the annual number of melanoma procedures has risen by 55%. The 3.29 million nonmelanoma procedures performed in 2016 represent a 10% increase over 2015, the ASDS said in a report on its 2016 Survey on Dermatologic Procedures.

“The public is increasingly aware of the need to have any new or suspicious lesions checked,” ASDS President Thomas Rohrer, MD, said in a written statement.

In addition to the skin cancer treatments, ASDS members also performed over 7 million cosmetic procedures in 2016, including 2.8 million involving laser, light, and energy-based devices. Additionally, 1.7 million involving neuromodulators, and 1.35 million involved soft-tissue fillers, the ASDS said.

The procedures survey was conducted Jan. 4 to Feb. 8, 2017, and included 627 physicians’ responses, which were then generalized to represent all of the almost 6,100 ASDS members.

CHICAGO – Larotrectinib, an oral inhibitor of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK), has durable efficacy across diverse adult and pediatric cancers that harbor a genetic aberration known as TRK fusion, finds an analysis of three trials reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Fusion of a TRK gene with an unrelated gene leads to uncontrolled signaling in the TRK pathway, potentially causing tumor growth and addiction to this input, lead author David Hyman, MD, chief of early drug development at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York explained in a press briefing.

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

Expert perspective

The data for larotrectinib “really bring us into a new era where treatment is truly based on mutation, not location,” said Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope, in Duarte, Calif. “When I was in training, which was not too long ago, it really would have been a pipe dream to think that we could have treated cancers independent of their site of origin. … With the data presented by Dr. Hyman for larotrectinib, we may now be poised to treat many cancers in a manner that is agnostic of their site of origin and that is instead based on molecular criteria.

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

TRK testing

Several next-generation sequencing–based tests already available clinically can pick up TRK fusions, Dr. Hyman pointed out. “But it is important for the ordering physician to understand whether the tests they are ordering includes fusion detection and, if it’s an option, to select it. Otherwise, they will not find TRK fusions.

“The list price for these tests is in the kind of low thousands of dollars, which equates essentially to a PET scan for the cancer patient,” he noted. In cancers where sequential single-gene testing is already being done as standard of care, there is “minimal” incremental cost of instead using comprehensive testing that would detect TRK fusions.

Oncologists should be aware that obtaining test results can take weeks, Dr. Hyman stressed. “My personal opinion is that this [testing] should be more broadly adopted and should be adopted at a point in the patient’s treatment … [so that they] don’t become too sick, as we see in our own experience as well, and don’t have an opportunity to be treated even when the test results come back positive. So I would generally advocate early testing.”

Study details

For the study, which was funded by Loxo Oncology, the investigators analyzed data from three trials in which patients with advanced TRK fusion–positive solid cancers received larotrectinib (LOXO-101): a phase I trial among 8 adult patients, a phase I/II trial among 12 pediatric patients (SCOUT), and a phase II “basket” trial among 35 adult and adolescent patients (NAVIGATE).

“I want to emphasize that these patients were identified by local testing,” Dr. Hyman noted. “We did not perform central screening to find the TRK fusions, and in fact, 50 different laboratories identified the 55 patients. So this in a sense really represents the real-world identification of these patients.”

In an integrated analysis, the overall rate of confirmed response as assessed by investigators was 76%, with complete response in 12% of patients and partial response in 64%. Two patients had such deep tumor regression that they experienced downstaging enabling them to undergo potentially curative surgery. Efficacy was consistent regardless of tumor type, which TRK gene was affected, and the fusion partner gene.

Median time to response was 1.8 months. “This is actually just a reflection of when the first scan was obtained. But in the clinic, patients reported dramatic improvement of their symptoms within days of beginning therapy,” Dr. Hyman said.

With a median follow-up of 5.8 months, the median duration of response was not yet reached. Fully 79% of responses were still ongoing at 12 months. Median progression-free survival was likewise not reached; the 12-month rate was 63%.

The leading treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (38%), dizziness (27%), nausea (26%), and anemia (26%). “This is an extremely well tolerated therapy with only 13% of patients requiring any form of dose modification and not a single patient discontinuing due to adverse events,” he said.

It is unclear why some patients had apparent primary resistance to larotrectinib, but their TRK fusion test results may have been incorrect, Dr. Hyman speculated. Six patients developed acquired resistance to larotrectinib; five of them were found to have an identical resistance mutation, and two went on to receive and have a response to LOXO-195, a next-generation TRK inhibitor that appears to retain activity in the presence of this mutation (Cancer Discov. 2017 June 3. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-0507).

Dr. Hyman disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Atara Biotherapeutics, Chugai Pharma, and CytomX Therapeutics, and that he receives research funding from AstraZeneca and Puma Biotechnology.

CHICAGO – Larotrectinib, an oral inhibitor of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK), has durable efficacy across diverse adult and pediatric cancers that harbor a genetic aberration known as TRK fusion, finds an analysis of three trials reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Fusion of a TRK gene with an unrelated gene leads to uncontrolled signaling in the TRK pathway, potentially causing tumor growth and addiction to this input, lead author David Hyman, MD, chief of early drug development at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York explained in a press briefing.

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

Expert perspective

The data for larotrectinib “really bring us into a new era where treatment is truly based on mutation, not location,” said Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope, in Duarte, Calif. “When I was in training, which was not too long ago, it really would have been a pipe dream to think that we could have treated cancers independent of their site of origin. … With the data presented by Dr. Hyman for larotrectinib, we may now be poised to treat many cancers in a manner that is agnostic of their site of origin and that is instead based on molecular criteria.

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

TRK testing

Several next-generation sequencing–based tests already available clinically can pick up TRK fusions, Dr. Hyman pointed out. “But it is important for the ordering physician to understand whether the tests they are ordering includes fusion detection and, if it’s an option, to select it. Otherwise, they will not find TRK fusions.

“The list price for these tests is in the kind of low thousands of dollars, which equates essentially to a PET scan for the cancer patient,” he noted. In cancers where sequential single-gene testing is already being done as standard of care, there is “minimal” incremental cost of instead using comprehensive testing that would detect TRK fusions.

Oncologists should be aware that obtaining test results can take weeks, Dr. Hyman stressed. “My personal opinion is that this [testing] should be more broadly adopted and should be adopted at a point in the patient’s treatment … [so that they] don’t become too sick, as we see in our own experience as well, and don’t have an opportunity to be treated even when the test results come back positive. So I would generally advocate early testing.”

Study details

For the study, which was funded by Loxo Oncology, the investigators analyzed data from three trials in which patients with advanced TRK fusion–positive solid cancers received larotrectinib (LOXO-101): a phase I trial among 8 adult patients, a phase I/II trial among 12 pediatric patients (SCOUT), and a phase II “basket” trial among 35 adult and adolescent patients (NAVIGATE).

“I want to emphasize that these patients were identified by local testing,” Dr. Hyman noted. “We did not perform central screening to find the TRK fusions, and in fact, 50 different laboratories identified the 55 patients. So this in a sense really represents the real-world identification of these patients.”

In an integrated analysis, the overall rate of confirmed response as assessed by investigators was 76%, with complete response in 12% of patients and partial response in 64%. Two patients had such deep tumor regression that they experienced downstaging enabling them to undergo potentially curative surgery. Efficacy was consistent regardless of tumor type, which TRK gene was affected, and the fusion partner gene.

Median time to response was 1.8 months. “This is actually just a reflection of when the first scan was obtained. But in the clinic, patients reported dramatic improvement of their symptoms within days of beginning therapy,” Dr. Hyman said.

With a median follow-up of 5.8 months, the median duration of response was not yet reached. Fully 79% of responses were still ongoing at 12 months. Median progression-free survival was likewise not reached; the 12-month rate was 63%.

The leading treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (38%), dizziness (27%), nausea (26%), and anemia (26%). “This is an extremely well tolerated therapy with only 13% of patients requiring any form of dose modification and not a single patient discontinuing due to adverse events,” he said.

It is unclear why some patients had apparent primary resistance to larotrectinib, but their TRK fusion test results may have been incorrect, Dr. Hyman speculated. Six patients developed acquired resistance to larotrectinib; five of them were found to have an identical resistance mutation, and two went on to receive and have a response to LOXO-195, a next-generation TRK inhibitor that appears to retain activity in the presence of this mutation (Cancer Discov. 2017 June 3. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-0507).

Dr. Hyman disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Atara Biotherapeutics, Chugai Pharma, and CytomX Therapeutics, and that he receives research funding from AstraZeneca and Puma Biotechnology.

CHICAGO – Larotrectinib, an oral inhibitor of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK), has durable efficacy across diverse adult and pediatric cancers that harbor a genetic aberration known as TRK fusion, finds an analysis of three trials reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Fusion of a TRK gene with an unrelated gene leads to uncontrolled signaling in the TRK pathway, potentially causing tumor growth and addiction to this input, lead author David Hyman, MD, chief of early drug development at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York explained in a press briefing.

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

Expert perspective

The data for larotrectinib “really bring us into a new era where treatment is truly based on mutation, not location,” said Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope, in Duarte, Calif. “When I was in training, which was not too long ago, it really would have been a pipe dream to think that we could have treated cancers independent of their site of origin. … With the data presented by Dr. Hyman for larotrectinib, we may now be poised to treat many cancers in a manner that is agnostic of their site of origin and that is instead based on molecular criteria.

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

TRK testing

Several next-generation sequencing–based tests already available clinically can pick up TRK fusions, Dr. Hyman pointed out. “But it is important for the ordering physician to understand whether the tests they are ordering includes fusion detection and, if it’s an option, to select it. Otherwise, they will not find TRK fusions.

“The list price for these tests is in the kind of low thousands of dollars, which equates essentially to a PET scan for the cancer patient,” he noted. In cancers where sequential single-gene testing is already being done as standard of care, there is “minimal” incremental cost of instead using comprehensive testing that would detect TRK fusions.

Oncologists should be aware that obtaining test results can take weeks, Dr. Hyman stressed. “My personal opinion is that this [testing] should be more broadly adopted and should be adopted at a point in the patient’s treatment … [so that they] don’t become too sick, as we see in our own experience as well, and don’t have an opportunity to be treated even when the test results come back positive. So I would generally advocate early testing.”

Study details

For the study, which was funded by Loxo Oncology, the investigators analyzed data from three trials in which patients with advanced TRK fusion–positive solid cancers received larotrectinib (LOXO-101): a phase I trial among 8 adult patients, a phase I/II trial among 12 pediatric patients (SCOUT), and a phase II “basket” trial among 35 adult and adolescent patients (NAVIGATE).

“I want to emphasize that these patients were identified by local testing,” Dr. Hyman noted. “We did not perform central screening to find the TRK fusions, and in fact, 50 different laboratories identified the 55 patients. So this in a sense really represents the real-world identification of these patients.”

In an integrated analysis, the overall rate of confirmed response as assessed by investigators was 76%, with complete response in 12% of patients and partial response in 64%. Two patients had such deep tumor regression that they experienced downstaging enabling them to undergo potentially curative surgery. Efficacy was consistent regardless of tumor type, which TRK gene was affected, and the fusion partner gene.

Median time to response was 1.8 months. “This is actually just a reflection of when the first scan was obtained. But in the clinic, patients reported dramatic improvement of their symptoms within days of beginning therapy,” Dr. Hyman said.

With a median follow-up of 5.8 months, the median duration of response was not yet reached. Fully 79% of responses were still ongoing at 12 months. Median progression-free survival was likewise not reached; the 12-month rate was 63%.

The leading treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (38%), dizziness (27%), nausea (26%), and anemia (26%). “This is an extremely well tolerated therapy with only 13% of patients requiring any form of dose modification and not a single patient discontinuing due to adverse events,” he said.

It is unclear why some patients had apparent primary resistance to larotrectinib, but their TRK fusion test results may have been incorrect, Dr. Hyman speculated. Six patients developed acquired resistance to larotrectinib; five of them were found to have an identical resistance mutation, and two went on to receive and have a response to LOXO-195, a next-generation TRK inhibitor that appears to retain activity in the presence of this mutation (Cancer Discov. 2017 June 3. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-0507).

Dr. Hyman disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Atara Biotherapeutics, Chugai Pharma, and CytomX Therapeutics, and that he receives research funding from AstraZeneca and Puma Biotechnology.

CHICAGO – A combination of the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with an experimental immune-enhancing monoclonal antibody induced clinical responses in patients with several different solid tumor types, including some patients who had disease progression on a PD-1 inhibitor, investigators reported.

The investigational agent, euphoniously named BMS-986156 (986156), is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 agonist monoclonal antibody with high affinity binding for the glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor–related gene (GITR).

Safe and well tolerated

There were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related deaths in either study arm, and patients tolerated both BMS-986156 monotherapy and the combination well. There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the monotherapy arm.

“In the combination arm, the toxicity is very consistent with that observed with nivolumab monotherapy alone,” Dr. Siu said.

The only grade 4 event in this group was an increase in blood creatine phosphokinase. In this group, there were six grade 3 adverse events, including one each of colitis, dehydration, fatigue and increases in hepatic enzymes, lipase increase, and lung infection.

In pharmacokinetic studies, the action of the combinations was linear, with dose-related increases in exposure, and the combination had low immunogenicity, with no patients developing persistent antidrug antibodies.

The combination was also associated with increases in natural killer and CD8 cells in peripheral blood. Immunophenotyping of patients treated with the 240/240-mg dose of the combination showed increased proliferation and activation of CD8 effector cells, central memory cells, and CD4 cells.

Early promise

Dr. Siu reviewed interim efficacy results for the five patients treated with the combination who had responses.

For example, a 44-year-old woman with metastatic cervical cancer – a tumor type known to have high levels of GITR expression – had received more than three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy with a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor. She had a partial response with the combination, with an approximately 62% reduction in tumor burden. She had an ongoing response to the combination at the time of data cutoff in March 2017.

CHICAGO – A combination of the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with an experimental immune-enhancing monoclonal antibody induced clinical responses in patients with several different solid tumor types, including some patients who had disease progression on a PD-1 inhibitor, investigators reported.

The investigational agent, euphoniously named BMS-986156 (986156), is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 agonist monoclonal antibody with high affinity binding for the glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor–related gene (GITR).

Safe and well tolerated

There were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related deaths in either study arm, and patients tolerated both BMS-986156 monotherapy and the combination well. There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the monotherapy arm.

“In the combination arm, the toxicity is very consistent with that observed with nivolumab monotherapy alone,” Dr. Siu said.

The only grade 4 event in this group was an increase in blood creatine phosphokinase. In this group, there were six grade 3 adverse events, including one each of colitis, dehydration, fatigue and increases in hepatic enzymes, lipase increase, and lung infection.

In pharmacokinetic studies, the action of the combinations was linear, with dose-related increases in exposure, and the combination had low immunogenicity, with no patients developing persistent antidrug antibodies.

The combination was also associated with increases in natural killer and CD8 cells in peripheral blood. Immunophenotyping of patients treated with the 240/240-mg dose of the combination showed increased proliferation and activation of CD8 effector cells, central memory cells, and CD4 cells.

Early promise

Dr. Siu reviewed interim efficacy results for the five patients treated with the combination who had responses.

For example, a 44-year-old woman with metastatic cervical cancer – a tumor type known to have high levels of GITR expression – had received more than three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy with a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor. She had a partial response with the combination, with an approximately 62% reduction in tumor burden. She had an ongoing response to the combination at the time of data cutoff in March 2017.

CHICAGO – A combination of the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with an experimental immune-enhancing monoclonal antibody induced clinical responses in patients with several different solid tumor types, including some patients who had disease progression on a PD-1 inhibitor, investigators reported.

The investigational agent, euphoniously named BMS-986156 (986156), is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 agonist monoclonal antibody with high affinity binding for the glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor–related gene (GITR).

Safe and well tolerated

There were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related deaths in either study arm, and patients tolerated both BMS-986156 monotherapy and the combination well. There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the monotherapy arm.

“In the combination arm, the toxicity is very consistent with that observed with nivolumab monotherapy alone,” Dr. Siu said.

The only grade 4 event in this group was an increase in blood creatine phosphokinase. In this group, there were six grade 3 adverse events, including one each of colitis, dehydration, fatigue and increases in hepatic enzymes, lipase increase, and lung infection.

In pharmacokinetic studies, the action of the combinations was linear, with dose-related increases in exposure, and the combination had low immunogenicity, with no patients developing persistent antidrug antibodies.

The combination was also associated with increases in natural killer and CD8 cells in peripheral blood. Immunophenotyping of patients treated with the 240/240-mg dose of the combination showed increased proliferation and activation of CD8 effector cells, central memory cells, and CD4 cells.

Early promise

Dr. Siu reviewed interim efficacy results for the five patients treated with the combination who had responses.

For example, a 44-year-old woman with metastatic cervical cancer – a tumor type known to have high levels of GITR expression – had received more than three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy with a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor. She had a partial response with the combination, with an approximately 62% reduction in tumor burden. She had an ongoing response to the combination at the time of data cutoff in March 2017.

To the Editor:

Melanoma-associated hypopigmentation frequently has been reported during the disease course and can include different characteristics such as regression of the primary melanoma and/or its metastases as well as common vitiligolike hypopigmentation at sites distant from the melanoma.^1,2 Among patients who present with hypopigmentation, the most common clinical presentation is hypopigmented patches in a bilateral symmetric distribution that is similar to vitiligo.¹ We report a case of segmental vitiligo–like hypopigmentation associated with melanoma.

RELATED ARTICLE: Novel Melanoma Therapies and Their Side Effects

A 37-year-old man presented with achromic patches on the right side of the neck and lower face of 2 months’ duration. He had a history of melanoma (Breslow thickness, 1.37 mm; mitotic rate, 4/mm²) on the right retroauricular region that was treated by wide local excision 12 years prior; after 10 years, he began to have headaches. At that time, imaging studies including computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography–computed tomography revealed multiple nodules on the brain, lungs, pancreas, left scapula, and left suprarenal gland. A lung biopsy confirmed metastatic melanoma. Intravenous fotemustine (100 mg/m² weekly for 3 weeks) was initiated, followed by maintenance treatment (100 mg/m² once daily for 5 days) every 4 weeks.

On physical examination using a Wood lamp at the current presentation 2 months later, the achromic patches were linearly distributed on the inferior portion of the right cheek (Figure). A 2×3-cm atrophic scar was present on the right retroauricular region. No regional or distant lymph nodes were enlarged or hard on examination. Although vitiligo is diagnosed using clinical findings,³ a biopsy was performed and showed absence of melanocytes at the dermoepidermal junction (hematoxylin and eosin stain) and complete absence of melanin pigment (Fontana-Masson stain). The patient was treated with topical tacrolimus with poor improvement after 2 months.

The relationship between melanoma and vitiligolike hypopigmentation is a fascinating and controversial topic. Its association is considered to be a consequence of the immune-mediated response against antigens shared by normal melanocytes and melanoma cells.⁴ Vitiligolike hypopigmentation occurs in 2.8%² of melanoma patients and is reported in metastatic disease¹ as well as those undergoing immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy.⁵ Its development in patients with stage III or IV melanoma seems to represent an independent positive prognostic factor² and correlates with a better therapeutic outcome in patients undergoing treatment with biotherapy.⁵

In most cases, the onset of achromic lesions follows the diagnosis of melanoma. Hypopigmentation appears on average 4.8 years after the initial diagnosis and approximately 1 to 2 years after lymph node or distant metastasis.¹ In our case, it occurred 12 years after the initial diagnosis and 2 years after metastatic disease was diagnosed.

Despite having widespread metastatic melanoma, our patient only developed achromic patches on the area near the prior melanoma. However, most affected patients present with hypopigmented patches in a bilateral symmetric distribution pattern similar to common vitiligo. No correlation has been found between the hypopigmentation distribution and the location of the primary tumor.¹

Because fotemustine is not likely to induce hypopigmentation, we believe that the vitiligolike hypopigmentation in our patient was related to an immune-mediated response associated with melanoma. To help explain our findings, one hypothesis considered was that cutaneous mosaicism may be involved in segmental vitiligo.⁶ The tumor may have triggered an immune response that affected a close susceptible area of mosaic vitiligo, leading to these clinical findings.

To the Editor:

Melanoma-associated hypopigmentation frequently has been reported during the disease course and can include different characteristics such as regression of the primary melanoma and/or its metastases as well as common vitiligolike hypopigmentation at sites distant from the melanoma.^1,2 Among patients who present with hypopigmentation, the most common clinical presentation is hypopigmented patches in a bilateral symmetric distribution that is similar to vitiligo.¹ We report a case of segmental vitiligo–like hypopigmentation associated with melanoma.

RELATED ARTICLE: Novel Melanoma Therapies and Their Side Effects

A 37-year-old man presented with achromic patches on the right side of the neck and lower face of 2 months’ duration. He had a history of melanoma (Breslow thickness, 1.37 mm; mitotic rate, 4/mm²) on the right retroauricular region that was treated by wide local excision 12 years prior; after 10 years, he began to have headaches. At that time, imaging studies including computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography–computed tomography revealed multiple nodules on the brain, lungs, pancreas, left scapula, and left suprarenal gland. A lung biopsy confirmed metastatic melanoma. Intravenous fotemustine (100 mg/m² weekly for 3 weeks) was initiated, followed by maintenance treatment (100 mg/m² once daily for 5 days) every 4 weeks.

On physical examination using a Wood lamp at the current presentation 2 months later, the achromic patches were linearly distributed on the inferior portion of the right cheek (Figure). A 2×3-cm atrophic scar was present on the right retroauricular region. No regional or distant lymph nodes were enlarged or hard on examination. Although vitiligo is diagnosed using clinical findings,³ a biopsy was performed and showed absence of melanocytes at the dermoepidermal junction (hematoxylin and eosin stain) and complete absence of melanin pigment (Fontana-Masson stain). The patient was treated with topical tacrolimus with poor improvement after 2 months.

The relationship between melanoma and vitiligolike hypopigmentation is a fascinating and controversial topic. Its association is considered to be a consequence of the immune-mediated response against antigens shared by normal melanocytes and melanoma cells.⁴ Vitiligolike hypopigmentation occurs in 2.8%² of melanoma patients and is reported in metastatic disease¹ as well as those undergoing immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy.⁵ Its development in patients with stage III or IV melanoma seems to represent an independent positive prognostic factor² and correlates with a better therapeutic outcome in patients undergoing treatment with biotherapy.⁵

In most cases, the onset of achromic lesions follows the diagnosis of melanoma. Hypopigmentation appears on average 4.8 years after the initial diagnosis and approximately 1 to 2 years after lymph node or distant metastasis.¹ In our case, it occurred 12 years after the initial diagnosis and 2 years after metastatic disease was diagnosed.

Despite having widespread metastatic melanoma, our patient only developed achromic patches on the area near the prior melanoma. However, most affected patients present with hypopigmented patches in a bilateral symmetric distribution pattern similar to common vitiligo. No correlation has been found between the hypopigmentation distribution and the location of the primary tumor.¹

Because fotemustine is not likely to induce hypopigmentation, we believe that the vitiligolike hypopigmentation in our patient was related to an immune-mediated response associated with melanoma. To help explain our findings, one hypothesis considered was that cutaneous mosaicism may be involved in segmental vitiligo.⁶ The tumor may have triggered an immune response that affected a close susceptible area of mosaic vitiligo, leading to these clinical findings.

To the Editor:

Melanoma-associated hypopigmentation frequently has been reported during the disease course and can include different characteristics such as regression of the primary melanoma and/or its metastases as well as common vitiligolike hypopigmentation at sites distant from the melanoma.^1,2 Among patients who present with hypopigmentation, the most common clinical presentation is hypopigmented patches in a bilateral symmetric distribution that is similar to vitiligo.¹ We report a case of segmental vitiligo–like hypopigmentation associated with melanoma.

RELATED ARTICLE: Novel Melanoma Therapies and Their Side Effects

A 37-year-old man presented with achromic patches on the right side of the neck and lower face of 2 months’ duration. He had a history of melanoma (Breslow thickness, 1.37 mm; mitotic rate, 4/mm²) on the right retroauricular region that was treated by wide local excision 12 years prior; after 10 years, he began to have headaches. At that time, imaging studies including computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography–computed tomography revealed multiple nodules on the brain, lungs, pancreas, left scapula, and left suprarenal gland. A lung biopsy confirmed metastatic melanoma. Intravenous fotemustine (100 mg/m² weekly for 3 weeks) was initiated, followed by maintenance treatment (100 mg/m² once daily for 5 days) every 4 weeks.

On physical examination using a Wood lamp at the current presentation 2 months later, the achromic patches were linearly distributed on the inferior portion of the right cheek (Figure). A 2×3-cm atrophic scar was present on the right retroauricular region. No regional or distant lymph nodes were enlarged or hard on examination. Although vitiligo is diagnosed using clinical findings,³ a biopsy was performed and showed absence of melanocytes at the dermoepidermal junction (hematoxylin and eosin stain) and complete absence of melanin pigment (Fontana-Masson stain). The patient was treated with topical tacrolimus with poor improvement after 2 months.

The relationship between melanoma and vitiligolike hypopigmentation is a fascinating and controversial topic. Its association is considered to be a consequence of the immune-mediated response against antigens shared by normal melanocytes and melanoma cells.⁴ Vitiligolike hypopigmentation occurs in 2.8%² of melanoma patients and is reported in metastatic disease¹ as well as those undergoing immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy.⁵ Its development in patients with stage III or IV melanoma seems to represent an independent positive prognostic factor² and correlates with a better therapeutic outcome in patients undergoing treatment with biotherapy.⁵

In most cases, the onset of achromic lesions follows the diagnosis of melanoma. Hypopigmentation appears on average 4.8 years after the initial diagnosis and approximately 1 to 2 years after lymph node or distant metastasis.¹ In our case, it occurred 12 years after the initial diagnosis and 2 years after metastatic disease was diagnosed.

Despite having widespread metastatic melanoma, our patient only developed achromic patches on the area near the prior melanoma. However, most affected patients present with hypopigmented patches in a bilateral symmetric distribution pattern similar to common vitiligo. No correlation has been found between the hypopigmentation distribution and the location of the primary tumor.¹

Because fotemustine is not likely to induce hypopigmentation, we believe that the vitiligolike hypopigmentation in our patient was related to an immune-mediated response associated with melanoma. To help explain our findings, one hypothesis considered was that cutaneous mosaicism may be involved in segmental vitiligo.⁶ The tumor may have triggered an immune response that affected a close susceptible area of mosaic vitiligo, leading to these clinical findings.

Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) imaging received Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in January 2016 and can now be submitted to insurance companies with reimbursement comparable to a skin biopsy or a global skin pathology service.¹ This fairly new technology is a US Food and Drug Administration–cleared noninvasive imaging modality that provides high-resolution in vivo cellular images of the skin. It has been shown to be efficacious in differentiating benign and malignant skin lesions, increasing diagnostic accuracy, and reducing the number of unnecessary skin biopsies that are performed. In addition to skin cancer diagnosis, RCM imaging also can help guide management of malignant lesions by detecting lateral margins prior to surgery as well as monitoring the lesion over time for treatment efficacy or recurrence. The potential impact of RCM imaging is tremendous, and reimbursement may lead to increased use in clinical practice to the benefit of our patients. Herein, we present a brief review of RCM imaging and reimbursement as well as the benefits and limitations of this new technology for dermatologists.

Reflectance Confocal Microscopy

In vivo RCM allows us to visualize the epidermis in real time on a cellular level down to the papillary dermis at a high resolution (×30) comparable to histologic examination. With optical sections 3- to 5-µm thick and a lateral resolution of 0.5 to 1.0 µm, RCM produces a stack of 500×500-µm² images up to a depth of approximately 200 µm.^2,3 At any chosen depth, these smaller images are stitched together with sophisticated software into a block, or mosaic, increasing the field of view to up to 8×8 mm². Imaging is performed in en face planes oriented parallel to the skin surface, similar to dermoscopy.

Current CPT Guidelines and Reimbursement

The CPT codes for RCM imaging provide reimbursement on a per-lesion basis and are similar to those used for skin biopsy and pathology (Table).¹ Codes 96931 through 96933 are used for imaging of a single lesion on a patient. The first code—96931—is used when image acquisition, interpretation, and report creation are carried out by a single clinician. The next 2 codes are used when one clinician acquires the image—96932—comparable to the technical component of a pathology code, while another reads it and creates the report—96933—similar to a dermatopathologist billing for the professional component of a pathology report. For patients presenting with multiple lesions, the next 3 codes—96934, 96935, and 96936—are used in conjunction with the applicable first code for each additional lesion with similar global, technical, and professional components. Because these codes are not in the radiology or pathology sections of CPT, a single code cannot be used with modifier -TC (technical component) and modifier -26, as they are in those sections.

The wide-probe VivaScope 1500 (Caliber I.D., Inc) currently is the only confocal device that can be reported with a CPT code and routinely reimbursed. The handheld VivaScope 3000 (Caliber I.D., Inc) can only view a small stack and does not have the ability to acquire a full mosaic image; it is not covered by these codes.

Images can be viewed as a stack captured at the same horizontal position but at sequential depths or as a mosaic, which has a larger field of view but is limited to a single plane. To appropriately assess a lesion, clinicians must obtain a mosaic that needs to be assessed at multiple layers for a diagnosis to be made because it is a cross-section view.

Diagnosis

Studies have demonstrated the usefulness of RCM imaging in the diagnosis of a wide range of skin diseases, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers, infectious diseases, and inflammatory and autoimmune conditions, as well as wound healing and skin aging. Reflectance confocal microscopy imaging is not limited to the skin; it can be used to evaluate the hair, nails, oral mucosa, and other organs.

According to several studies, RCM imaging notably increases the diagnostic accuracy and detection rate of skin cancers over clinical and dermoscopic examination alone and therefore can act as an aid in differentiating lesions that are benign versus those that are suspicious and should be biopsied.

Reflectance confocal microscopy has been shown to have a mean sensitivity of 94% (range, 92%–96%) and specificity of 83% (range, 81%–84%) for all types of skin cancer when used with dermoscopy.⁴ In particular, for melanocytic lesions that are ambiguous on dermoscopy, RCM used in addition to dermoscopy increases the mean sensitivity and specificity for melanoma diagnosis to 93% (range, 89%–96%) and 76% (range, 68%–83%), respectively.⁵ Although these reported sensitivities are comparable to dermoscopy, the specificity is superior, especially for detecting hypomelanotic and amelanotic melanomas, which often lack specific features on dermoscopy.^6-8

The combination of RCM with dermoscopy has reduced the number of unnecessary excisions of benign nevi by more than 50% when compared to dermoscopy alone.⁹ One study showed that the number needed to treat (ie, excise) a melanoma decreased from 14.6 with dermoscopy alone to 6.8 when guided by dermoscopy and RCM imaging.⁹ In a similar study, the number needed to treat dropped from 19.41 with dermoscopy alone to 6.25 with dermoscopy and RCM.¹⁰

These studies were not looking to evaluate RCM as a replacement test but rather as an add-on test to dermoscopy. Reflectance confocal microscopy imaging takes longer than dermoscopy for each lesion; therefore, RCM should only be used as an adjunctive tool to dermoscopy and not as an initial screening test. Consequentially, a dermatologist skilled in dermoscopy is essential in deciding which lesions would be appropriate for subsequent RCM imaging.

In Vivo Margin Mapping as an Adjunct to Surgery

Oftentimes, tumor margins are poorly defined and can be difficult to map clinically and dermoscopically. Studies have demonstrated the use of RCM in delineation of surgical margins prior to surgery or excisional biopsies.^11,12 Alternatively, when complete removal at biopsy would be impractical (eg, for extremely large lesions or lesions located in cosmetically sensitive areas such as the face), RCM can be used to pick the best site for an appropriate biopsy, which decreases the chance of sampling error due to skip lesions and increases histologic accuracy.

Nonsurgical Treatment Monitoring

One advantage of RCM over conventional histology is that RCM imaging leaves the tissue intact, allowing dynamic changes to be studied over time, which is useful for monitoring nonmelanoma skin cancers and lentigo maligna being treated with noninvasive therapeutic modalities.¹³ If not as a definitive treatment, RCM can act as an adjunct for surgery by monitoring reduction in lesion size prior to Mohs micrographic surgery, thereby decreasing the resulting surgical defect.¹⁴

Limitations

Imaging Depth
Although RCM is a revolutionary device in the field of dermatology, it has several limitations. With a maximal imaging depth of 350 µm, the imaging resolution decreases substantially with depth, limiting accurate interpretation to 200 µm. Reflectance confocal microscopy can only image the superficial portion of a lesion; therefore, deep tumor margins cannot be assessed. Hypertrophic or hyperkeratotic lesions, including lesions on the palms and soles, also are unable to be imaged with RCM. This limitation in depth penetration makes treatment monitoring impossible for invasive lesions that extend into the dermal layer.

Difficult-to-Reach Areas
Another limitation is the difficulty imaging areas such as the ocular canthi, nasal alae, or helices of the ear due to the wide probe size on the VivaScope 1500. The advent of the smaller handheld VivaScope 3000 device allows for improved imaging of concave services and difficult lesions at the risk of less accurate imaging, low field of view, and no reimbursement at present.

False-Positive Results
Although RCM has been shown to be helpful in reducing unnecessary biopsies, there still is the issue of false-positives on imaging. False-positives most commonly occur in nevi with severe atypia or when Langerhans cells are present that cannot always be differentiated from melanocytic cells.^3,15,16 One prospective study found 7 false-positive results from 63 sites using RCM for the diagnosis of lentigo malignas.¹⁶ False-negatives can occur in the presence of inflammatory infiltrates and scar tissue that can hide cellular morphology or in sampling errors due to skip lesions.^3,16

Time Efficiency
The time required for acquisition of RCM mosaics and stacks followed by reading and interpretation can be substantial depending on the size and complexity of the lesion, which is a major limitation for use of RCM in busy dermatology practices; therefore, RCM should be reserved for lesions selected to undergo biopsy that are clinically equivocal for malignancy prior to RCM examination.¹⁷ It would not be cost-effective or time effective to evaluate lesions that either clinically or dermoscopically have a high probability of malignancy; however, patients and physicians may opt for increased specificity at the expense of time, particularly when a lesion is located on a cosmetically sensitive area, as patients can avoid initial histologic biopsy and gain the cosmetic benefit of going straight to surgery versus obtaining an initial diagnostic biopsy.

Cost
Lastly, the high cost involved in purchasing an RCM device and the training involved to use and interpret RCM images currently limits RCM to large academic centers. Reimbursement may make more widespread use feasible. In any event, RCM imaging should be part of the curriculum for both dermatology and pathology trainees.

Future Directions

In vivo RCM is a noninvasive imaging modality that allows for real-time evaluation of the skin. Used in conjunction with dermoscopy, RCM can substantially improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies. Now that RCM has finally gained foundational CPT codes and insurance reimbursement, there may be a growing demand for clinicians to incorporate this technology into their clinical practice.

Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) imaging received Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in January 2016 and can now be submitted to insurance companies with reimbursement comparable to a skin biopsy or a global skin pathology service.¹ This fairly new technology is a US Food and Drug Administration–cleared noninvasive imaging modality that provides high-resolution in vivo cellular images of the skin. It has been shown to be efficacious in differentiating benign and malignant skin lesions, increasing diagnostic accuracy, and reducing the number of unnecessary skin biopsies that are performed. In addition to skin cancer diagnosis, RCM imaging also can help guide management of malignant lesions by detecting lateral margins prior to surgery as well as monitoring the lesion over time for treatment efficacy or recurrence. The potential impact of RCM imaging is tremendous, and reimbursement may lead to increased use in clinical practice to the benefit of our patients. Herein, we present a brief review of RCM imaging and reimbursement as well as the benefits and limitations of this new technology for dermatologists.

Reflectance Confocal Microscopy

In vivo RCM allows us to visualize the epidermis in real time on a cellular level down to the papillary dermis at a high resolution (×30) comparable to histologic examination. With optical sections 3- to 5-µm thick and a lateral resolution of 0.5 to 1.0 µm, RCM produces a stack of 500×500-µm² images up to a depth of approximately 200 µm.^2,3 At any chosen depth, these smaller images are stitched together with sophisticated software into a block, or mosaic, increasing the field of view to up to 8×8 mm². Imaging is performed in en face planes oriented parallel to the skin surface, similar to dermoscopy.

Current CPT Guidelines and Reimbursement

The CPT codes for RCM imaging provide reimbursement on a per-lesion basis and are similar to those used for skin biopsy and pathology (Table).¹ Codes 96931 through 96933 are used for imaging of a single lesion on a patient. The first code—96931—is used when image acquisition, interpretation, and report creation are carried out by a single clinician. The next 2 codes are used when one clinician acquires the image—96932—comparable to the technical component of a pathology code, while another reads it and creates the report—96933—similar to a dermatopathologist billing for the professional component of a pathology report. For patients presenting with multiple lesions, the next 3 codes—96934, 96935, and 96936—are used in conjunction with the applicable first code for each additional lesion with similar global, technical, and professional components. Because these codes are not in the radiology or pathology sections of CPT, a single code cannot be used with modifier -TC (technical component) and modifier -26, as they are in those sections.

The wide-probe VivaScope 1500 (Caliber I.D., Inc) currently is the only confocal device that can be reported with a CPT code and routinely reimbursed. The handheld VivaScope 3000 (Caliber I.D., Inc) can only view a small stack and does not have the ability to acquire a full mosaic image; it is not covered by these codes.

Images can be viewed as a stack captured at the same horizontal position but at sequential depths or as a mosaic, which has a larger field of view but is limited to a single plane. To appropriately assess a lesion, clinicians must obtain a mosaic that needs to be assessed at multiple layers for a diagnosis to be made because it is a cross-section view.

Diagnosis

Studies have demonstrated the usefulness of RCM imaging in the diagnosis of a wide range of skin diseases, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers, infectious diseases, and inflammatory and autoimmune conditions, as well as wound healing and skin aging. Reflectance confocal microscopy imaging is not limited to the skin; it can be used to evaluate the hair, nails, oral mucosa, and other organs.

According to several studies, RCM imaging notably increases the diagnostic accuracy and detection rate of skin cancers over clinical and dermoscopic examination alone and therefore can act as an aid in differentiating lesions that are benign versus those that are suspicious and should be biopsied.

Reflectance confocal microscopy has been shown to have a mean sensitivity of 94% (range, 92%–96%) and specificity of 83% (range, 81%–84%) for all types of skin cancer when used with dermoscopy.⁴ In particular, for melanocytic lesions that are ambiguous on dermoscopy, RCM used in addition to dermoscopy increases the mean sensitivity and specificity for melanoma diagnosis to 93% (range, 89%–96%) and 76% (range, 68%–83%), respectively.⁵ Although these reported sensitivities are comparable to dermoscopy, the specificity is superior, especially for detecting hypomelanotic and amelanotic melanomas, which often lack specific features on dermoscopy.^6-8

The combination of RCM with dermoscopy has reduced the number of unnecessary excisions of benign nevi by more than 50% when compared to dermoscopy alone.⁹ One study showed that the number needed to treat (ie, excise) a melanoma decreased from 14.6 with dermoscopy alone to 6.8 when guided by dermoscopy and RCM imaging.⁹ In a similar study, the number needed to treat dropped from 19.41 with dermoscopy alone to 6.25 with dermoscopy and RCM.¹⁰

These studies were not looking to evaluate RCM as a replacement test but rather as an add-on test to dermoscopy. Reflectance confocal microscopy imaging takes longer than dermoscopy for each lesion; therefore, RCM should only be used as an adjunctive tool to dermoscopy and not as an initial screening test. Consequentially, a dermatologist skilled in dermoscopy is essential in deciding which lesions would be appropriate for subsequent RCM imaging.

In Vivo Margin Mapping as an Adjunct to Surgery

Oftentimes, tumor margins are poorly defined and can be difficult to map clinically and dermoscopically. Studies have demonstrated the use of RCM in delineation of surgical margins prior to surgery or excisional biopsies.^11,12 Alternatively, when complete removal at biopsy would be impractical (eg, for extremely large lesions or lesions located in cosmetically sensitive areas such as the face), RCM can be used to pick the best site for an appropriate biopsy, which decreases the chance of sampling error due to skip lesions and increases histologic accuracy.

Nonsurgical Treatment Monitoring

One advantage of RCM over conventional histology is that RCM imaging leaves the tissue intact, allowing dynamic changes to be studied over time, which is useful for monitoring nonmelanoma skin cancers and lentigo maligna being treated with noninvasive therapeutic modalities.¹³ If not as a definitive treatment, RCM can act as an adjunct for surgery by monitoring reduction in lesion size prior to Mohs micrographic surgery, thereby decreasing the resulting surgical defect.¹⁴

Limitations

Imaging Depth
Although RCM is a revolutionary device in the field of dermatology, it has several limitations. With a maximal imaging depth of 350 µm, the imaging resolution decreases substantially with depth, limiting accurate interpretation to 200 µm. Reflectance confocal microscopy can only image the superficial portion of a lesion; therefore, deep tumor margins cannot be assessed. Hypertrophic or hyperkeratotic lesions, including lesions on the palms and soles, also are unable to be imaged with RCM. This limitation in depth penetration makes treatment monitoring impossible for invasive lesions that extend into the dermal layer.

Difficult-to-Reach Areas
Another limitation is the difficulty imaging areas such as the ocular canthi, nasal alae, or helices of the ear due to the wide probe size on the VivaScope 1500. The advent of the smaller handheld VivaScope 3000 device allows for improved imaging of concave services and difficult lesions at the risk of less accurate imaging, low field of view, and no reimbursement at present.

False-Positive Results
Although RCM has been shown to be helpful in reducing unnecessary biopsies, there still is the issue of false-positives on imaging. False-positives most commonly occur in nevi with severe atypia or when Langerhans cells are present that cannot always be differentiated from melanocytic cells.^3,15,16 One prospective study found 7 false-positive results from 63 sites using RCM for the diagnosis of lentigo malignas.¹⁶ False-negatives can occur in the presence of inflammatory infiltrates and scar tissue that can hide cellular morphology or in sampling errors due to skip lesions.^3,16

Time Efficiency
The time required for acquisition of RCM mosaics and stacks followed by reading and interpretation can be substantial depending on the size and complexity of the lesion, which is a major limitation for use of RCM in busy dermatology practices; therefore, RCM should be reserved for lesions selected to undergo biopsy that are clinically equivocal for malignancy prior to RCM examination.¹⁷ It would not be cost-effective or time effective to evaluate lesions that either clinically or dermoscopically have a high probability of malignancy; however, patients and physicians may opt for increased specificity at the expense of time, particularly when a lesion is located on a cosmetically sensitive area, as patients can avoid initial histologic biopsy and gain the cosmetic benefit of going straight to surgery versus obtaining an initial diagnostic biopsy.

Cost
Lastly, the high cost involved in purchasing an RCM device and the training involved to use and interpret RCM images currently limits RCM to large academic centers. Reimbursement may make more widespread use feasible. In any event, RCM imaging should be part of the curriculum for both dermatology and pathology trainees.

Future Directions

In vivo RCM is a noninvasive imaging modality that allows for real-time evaluation of the skin. Used in conjunction with dermoscopy, RCM can substantially improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies. Now that RCM has finally gained foundational CPT codes and insurance reimbursement, there may be a growing demand for clinicians to incorporate this technology into their clinical practice.

Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) imaging received Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in January 2016 and can now be submitted to insurance companies with reimbursement comparable to a skin biopsy or a global skin pathology service.¹ This fairly new technology is a US Food and Drug Administration–cleared noninvasive imaging modality that provides high-resolution in vivo cellular images of the skin. It has been shown to be efficacious in differentiating benign and malignant skin lesions, increasing diagnostic accuracy, and reducing the number of unnecessary skin biopsies that are performed. In addition to skin cancer diagnosis, RCM imaging also can help guide management of malignant lesions by detecting lateral margins prior to surgery as well as monitoring the lesion over time for treatment efficacy or recurrence. The potential impact of RCM imaging is tremendous, and reimbursement may lead to increased use in clinical practice to the benefit of our patients. Herein, we present a brief review of RCM imaging and reimbursement as well as the benefits and limitations of this new technology for dermatologists.

Reflectance Confocal Microscopy

In vivo RCM allows us to visualize the epidermis in real time on a cellular level down to the papillary dermis at a high resolution (×30) comparable to histologic examination. With optical sections 3- to 5-µm thick and a lateral resolution of 0.5 to 1.0 µm, RCM produces a stack of 500×500-µm² images up to a depth of approximately 200 µm.^2,3 At any chosen depth, these smaller images are stitched together with sophisticated software into a block, or mosaic, increasing the field of view to up to 8×8 mm². Imaging is performed in en face planes oriented parallel to the skin surface, similar to dermoscopy.

Current CPT Guidelines and Reimbursement

The CPT codes for RCM imaging provide reimbursement on a per-lesion basis and are similar to those used for skin biopsy and pathology (Table).¹ Codes 96931 through 96933 are used for imaging of a single lesion on a patient. The first code—96931—is used when image acquisition, interpretation, and report creation are carried out by a single clinician. The next 2 codes are used when one clinician acquires the image—96932—comparable to the technical component of a pathology code, while another reads it and creates the report—96933—similar to a dermatopathologist billing for the professional component of a pathology report. For patients presenting with multiple lesions, the next 3 codes—96934, 96935, and 96936—are used in conjunction with the applicable first code for each additional lesion with similar global, technical, and professional components. Because these codes are not in the radiology or pathology sections of CPT, a single code cannot be used with modifier -TC (technical component) and modifier -26, as they are in those sections.

The wide-probe VivaScope 1500 (Caliber I.D., Inc) currently is the only confocal device that can be reported with a CPT code and routinely reimbursed. The handheld VivaScope 3000 (Caliber I.D., Inc) can only view a small stack and does not have the ability to acquire a full mosaic image; it is not covered by these codes.

Images can be viewed as a stack captured at the same horizontal position but at sequential depths or as a mosaic, which has a larger field of view but is limited to a single plane. To appropriately assess a lesion, clinicians must obtain a mosaic that needs to be assessed at multiple layers for a diagnosis to be made because it is a cross-section view.

Diagnosis

Studies have demonstrated the usefulness of RCM imaging in the diagnosis of a wide range of skin diseases, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers, infectious diseases, and inflammatory and autoimmune conditions, as well as wound healing and skin aging. Reflectance confocal microscopy imaging is not limited to the skin; it can be used to evaluate the hair, nails, oral mucosa, and other organs.

According to several studies, RCM imaging notably increases the diagnostic accuracy and detection rate of skin cancers over clinical and dermoscopic examination alone and therefore can act as an aid in differentiating lesions that are benign versus those that are suspicious and should be biopsied.

Reflectance confocal microscopy has been shown to have a mean sensitivity of 94% (range, 92%–96%) and specificity of 83% (range, 81%–84%) for all types of skin cancer when used with dermoscopy.⁴ In particular, for melanocytic lesions that are ambiguous on dermoscopy, RCM used in addition to dermoscopy increases the mean sensitivity and specificity for melanoma diagnosis to 93% (range, 89%–96%) and 76% (range, 68%–83%), respectively.⁵ Although these reported sensitivities are comparable to dermoscopy, the specificity is superior, especially for detecting hypomelanotic and amelanotic melanomas, which often lack specific features on dermoscopy.^6-8

The combination of RCM with dermoscopy has reduced the number of unnecessary excisions of benign nevi by more than 50% when compared to dermoscopy alone.⁹ One study showed that the number needed to treat (ie, excise) a melanoma decreased from 14.6 with dermoscopy alone to 6.8 when guided by dermoscopy and RCM imaging.⁹ In a similar study, the number needed to treat dropped from 19.41 with dermoscopy alone to 6.25 with dermoscopy and RCM.¹⁰

These studies were not looking to evaluate RCM as a replacement test but rather as an add-on test to dermoscopy. Reflectance confocal microscopy imaging takes longer than dermoscopy for each lesion; therefore, RCM should only be used as an adjunctive tool to dermoscopy and not as an initial screening test. Consequentially, a dermatologist skilled in dermoscopy is essential in deciding which lesions would be appropriate for subsequent RCM imaging.

In Vivo Margin Mapping as an Adjunct to Surgery

Oftentimes, tumor margins are poorly defined and can be difficult to map clinically and dermoscopically. Studies have demonstrated the use of RCM in delineation of surgical margins prior to surgery or excisional biopsies.^11,12 Alternatively, when complete removal at biopsy would be impractical (eg, for extremely large lesions or lesions located in cosmetically sensitive areas such as the face), RCM can be used to pick the best site for an appropriate biopsy, which decreases the chance of sampling error due to skip lesions and increases histologic accuracy.

Nonsurgical Treatment Monitoring

One advantage of RCM over conventional histology is that RCM imaging leaves the tissue intact, allowing dynamic changes to be studied over time, which is useful for monitoring nonmelanoma skin cancers and lentigo maligna being treated with noninvasive therapeutic modalities.¹³ If not as a definitive treatment, RCM can act as an adjunct for surgery by monitoring reduction in lesion size prior to Mohs micrographic surgery, thereby decreasing the resulting surgical defect.¹⁴

Limitations

Imaging Depth
Although RCM is a revolutionary device in the field of dermatology, it has several limitations. With a maximal imaging depth of 350 µm, the imaging resolution decreases substantially with depth, limiting accurate interpretation to 200 µm. Reflectance confocal microscopy can only image the superficial portion of a lesion; therefore, deep tumor margins cannot be assessed. Hypertrophic or hyperkeratotic lesions, including lesions on the palms and soles, also are unable to be imaged with RCM. This limitation in depth penetration makes treatment monitoring impossible for invasive lesions that extend into the dermal layer.

Difficult-to-Reach Areas
Another limitation is the difficulty imaging areas such as the ocular canthi, nasal alae, or helices of the ear due to the wide probe size on the VivaScope 1500. The advent of the smaller handheld VivaScope 3000 device allows for improved imaging of concave services and difficult lesions at the risk of less accurate imaging, low field of view, and no reimbursement at present.

False-Positive Results
Although RCM has been shown to be helpful in reducing unnecessary biopsies, there still is the issue of false-positives on imaging. False-positives most commonly occur in nevi with severe atypia or when Langerhans cells are present that cannot always be differentiated from melanocytic cells.^3,15,16 One prospective study found 7 false-positive results from 63 sites using RCM for the diagnosis of lentigo malignas.¹⁶ False-negatives can occur in the presence of inflammatory infiltrates and scar tissue that can hide cellular morphology or in sampling errors due to skip lesions.^3,16

Time Efficiency
The time required for acquisition of RCM mosaics and stacks followed by reading and interpretation can be substantial depending on the size and complexity of the lesion, which is a major limitation for use of RCM in busy dermatology practices; therefore, RCM should be reserved for lesions selected to undergo biopsy that are clinically equivocal for malignancy prior to RCM examination.¹⁷ It would not be cost-effective or time effective to evaluate lesions that either clinically or dermoscopically have a high probability of malignancy; however, patients and physicians may opt for increased specificity at the expense of time, particularly when a lesion is located on a cosmetically sensitive area, as patients can avoid initial histologic biopsy and gain the cosmetic benefit of going straight to surgery versus obtaining an initial diagnostic biopsy.

Cost
Lastly, the high cost involved in purchasing an RCM device and the training involved to use and interpret RCM images currently limits RCM to large academic centers. Reimbursement may make more widespread use feasible. In any event, RCM imaging should be part of the curriculum for both dermatology and pathology trainees.

Future Directions

In vivo RCM is a noninvasive imaging modality that allows for real-time evaluation of the skin. Used in conjunction with dermoscopy, RCM can substantially improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies. Now that RCM has finally gained foundational CPT codes and insurance reimbursement, there may be a growing demand for clinicians to incorporate this technology into their clinical practice.

Children often present for evaluation of a melanocytic lesion that is new, evolving, or worrisome to parents and caregivers.

“In the pediatric health care system, malignant melanoma is considered an especially heinous crime. In San Diego, dedicated pediatric providers who identify this disease are members of an elite squad known as the mole patrol unit.” Dr. Sheila Fallon Friedlander opened her presentation on pediatric moles with this tongue-in-cheek statement, adapted from the popular TV show “Law and Order SVU,” at a pediatric dermatology meeting sponsored by Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego and University of California, San Diego.

The National Cancer Institute

Children often present for evaluation of a melanocytic lesion that is new, evolving, or worrisome to parents and caregivers.

“In the pediatric health care system, malignant melanoma is considered an especially heinous crime. In San Diego, dedicated pediatric providers who identify this disease are members of an elite squad known as the mole patrol unit.” Dr. Sheila Fallon Friedlander opened her presentation on pediatric moles with this tongue-in-cheek statement, adapted from the popular TV show “Law and Order SVU,” at a pediatric dermatology meeting sponsored by Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego and University of California, San Diego.

The National Cancer Institute

Children often present for evaluation of a melanocytic lesion that is new, evolving, or worrisome to parents and caregivers.

“In the pediatric health care system, malignant melanoma is considered an especially heinous crime. In San Diego, dedicated pediatric providers who identify this disease are members of an elite squad known as the mole patrol unit.” Dr. Sheila Fallon Friedlander opened her presentation on pediatric moles with this tongue-in-cheek statement, adapted from the popular TV show “Law and Order SVU,” at a pediatric dermatology meeting sponsored by Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego and University of California, San Diego.

The National Cancer Institute

PORTLAND, ORE. – Among white men, the presence of at least one cutaneous nevus measuring 3 mm or more significantly predicted death from melanoma, in an adjusted analysis of a large prospective cohort study.

Mole count also predicted melanoma death among white women, but the association reached statistical significance only when women had at least three cutaneous nevi measuring 3 mm or more, Eunyoung Cho, ScD, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology. The reasons why these associations varied by sex is unclear, although previous studies have documented higher rates of melanoma death among men than among women, and even male physicians tend to seek health care less frequently than their female counterparts, Dr. Cho said in her poster presentation.

PORTLAND, ORE. – Among white men, the presence of at least one cutaneous nevus measuring 3 mm or more significantly predicted death from melanoma, in an adjusted analysis of a large prospective cohort study.

Mole count also predicted melanoma death among white women, but the association reached statistical significance only when women had at least three cutaneous nevi measuring 3 mm or more, Eunyoung Cho, ScD, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology. The reasons why these associations varied by sex is unclear, although previous studies have documented higher rates of melanoma death among men than among women, and even male physicians tend to seek health care less frequently than their female counterparts, Dr. Cho said in her poster presentation.

PORTLAND, ORE. – Among white men, the presence of at least one cutaneous nevus measuring 3 mm or more significantly predicted death from melanoma, in an adjusted analysis of a large prospective cohort study.

Mole count also predicted melanoma death among white women, but the association reached statistical significance only when women had at least three cutaneous nevi measuring 3 mm or more, Eunyoung Cho, ScD, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology. The reasons why these associations varied by sex is unclear, although previous studies have documented higher rates of melanoma death among men than among women, and even male physicians tend to seek health care less frequently than their female counterparts, Dr. Cho said in her poster presentation.