Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence of dermatological toxicities associated with vemurafenib treatment in patients with melanoma

New emerging treatment options for metastatic melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of skin cancer therapies

Skin cancer, notably melanoma, poses a significant global health burden, with rising incidence and mortality rates. While therapeutic advancements have improved outcomes, metastatic melanoma remains challenging to treat. This study aims to systematically review systemic treatment options for advanced melanoma, focusing on efficacy and safety in the first-line setting. Through a comprehensive search and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials conducted from 2013 to 2023, 11 studies encompassing 2816 participants were analyzed. Treatment options included BRAF inhibitors (vemurafenib, dabrafenib), MEK inhibitors (trametinib, cobimetinib), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ipilimumab). Combined therapy with vemurafenib, cobimetinib, and ipilimumab demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared to monotherapy, with a significant odds ratio (OR) of 6.95 (95% CI: 4.25-9.64, p < 0.00001) for OS and 2.49 (95% CI: 1.42-3.56, p < 0.00001) for PFS. Additionally, dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy showed improved outcomes with favorable tolerability, including a significant reduction in adverse event (AE) risk, with an OR of 2.20 (95% CI: 1.72-2.81). Furthermore, our analysis highlighted vemurafenib-associated dermatological toxicities, emphasizing the need for effective management strategies. The study underscores the evolving treatment landscape in melanoma management, with a potential shift towards immune checkpoint inhibitors in the adjuvant setting, particularly for BRAF-mutated disease. However, limitations in meta-analysis methodologies and the need for long-term investigations into treatment implications on survival and quality of life underscore the importance of continued research.

Cutaneous adverse reactions resulting from targeted cancer therapies: histopathologic and clinical findings

Targeted cancer treatments-designed to interfere with specific molecular signals responsible for tumor survival and progression-have shown benefit over conventional chemotherapies but may lead to diverse cutaneous adverse effects. This review highlights clinically significant dermatologic toxicities and their associated histopathologic findings, resulting from various targeted cancer drugs. Case reports and series, clinical trials, reviews, and meta-analyses are included for analysis and summarized herein. Cutaneous side effects resulting from targeted cancer therapies were reported with incidences as high as 90% for certain medications, and reactions are often predictable based on mechanism(s) of action of a given drug. Common and important reaction patterns included: acneiform eruptions, neutrophilic dermatoses, hand-foot skin reaction, secondary cutaneous malignancies, and alopecia. Clinical and histopathologic recognition of these toxicities remains impactful for patient care.

Targeting ferroptosis as a cell death pathway in Melanoma: From molecular mechanisms to skin cancer treatment

Melanoma, the most aggressive form of human skin cancer, has been under investigation to reach the most efficient treatment. Surgical resection for early-diagnosed primary melanoma, targeted therapies, and immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced/metastatic melanoma is the best clinical approach. Ferroptosis, a newly identified iron-dependent cell death pathway, which is morphologically and biochemically different from apoptosis and necrosis, has been reported to be involved in several cancers. Ferroptosis inducers could provide therapeutic options in case of resistance to conventional therapies for advanced/metastatic melanoma. Recently developed ferroptosis inducers, MEK and BRAF inhibitors, miRNAs such as miR-137 and miR-9, and novel strategies for targeting major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II in melanoma can provide new opportunities for melanoma treatment. Combining ferroptosis inducers with targeted therapies or immune checkpoint inhibitors increases patient response rates. Here we review the mechanisms of ferroptosis and its environmental triggers. We also discuss the pathogenesis and current treatments of melanoma. Moreover, we aim to elucidate the relationship between ferroptosis and melanoma and ferroptosis implications to develop new therapeutic strategies against melanoma.

Cutaneous side effects and types of dermatological reactions in metastatic melanoma patients treated by immunotherapies or targeted therapies: A retrospective single center study

Immunotherapy and target therapy have revolutionized treatment of stage III/IV melanoma. Both treatments show a favorable toxicity profile even if cutaneous adverse events (AEs) are frequent (30%-40% of cases). This is a retrospective single center cohort study that included patients with stage IV or inoperable stage III metastatic melanoma (AJCC 8th) who received BRAFi + MEKi therapy or immunotherapy with Checkpoint inhibitors. All cutaneous AEs were ascertained by a dermatologist based on clinical and histological findings. The primary outcome was to provide a detailed clinical dermatological classification of cutaneous adverse events and an evaluation of the incidence of skin toxicity in the two arms of therapy (immunotherapy and target therapy). A total of 286 patients with stages III-IV metastatic melanoma were included: 146 received immunotherapy and 140 target therapy. In the immunotherapy cohort, 63 (43.1%) cutaneous reactions were observed while 33 skin reactions (23.6%) were identified in patients treated with target therapy. All the skin toxicities observed were grade I, excepted four cases: an erythema multiforme-like eruption, a grade III psoriasis and two grade III maculopapular rashes. Immunotherapy in older age resulted statistically related to skin toxicities (p = 0.011), meanly in metastatic setting (p = 0.011). Cumulative incidence of skin toxicities was 65.63% in immunotherapy cohort (p = 0.001). Also multivariate logistic regression shows a significant association between skin adverse events and immunotherapy (odds ratio [OR] = 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-0.85, p: 0.01) and between cutaneous AEs and metastatic setting (OR = 1.97; 95% CI: 1.04-3.74, p: 0.04). We have also shown that as the age of initiation of therapy increases the probability of developing skin toxicity grows. However, stratifying by type of therapies the effect of age persists only in immunotherapy (OD: 1.04; CI: 1.01-1.06; p: 0.04) while for target therapy age does not affect the onset of skin toxicity (OD 1.01; CI 0.98-1.04; p = 0.42). No differences were shown between patients on target therapy and immunotherapy regarding gender. Patients were also evaluated regarding concomitant therapies and seems that Levotyroxine may be involved in AEs during immunotherapy treatment. More studies are needed to deepen this aspect, also considering the medical history and diverse drug associations. Cutaneous adverse events are characterized by heterogeneous manifestations, are more often seen in patients on immunotherapy and dermatologists can play a crucial role in multidisciplinary care.

Biology and Treatment Advances in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is the second most common skin cancer diagnosed worldwide. CSCC is generally localized and managed with local therapies such as excision and/or radiotherapy. For patients with unresectable or metastatic disease, recent improvements in our understanding of the underlying biology have led to significant advancements in treatment approaches-including the use of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI)-which have resulted in substantial gains in response and survival compared to traditional cytotoxic approaches. However, there is a lack of understanding of the biology underpinning CSCC in immunocompromised patients, in whom the risk of developing CSCC is hundreds of times higher compared to immunocompetent patients. Furthermore, current ICI approaches are associated with significant risk of graft rejection in organ transplant recipients who make up a significant proportion of immunocompromised patients. Ongoing scientific and clinical research efforts are needed in order to maintain momentum to increase our understanding and refine our therapeutic approaches for patients with CSCC.

[Treatment of psoriasis with secukinumab : Practical guidance]

BACKGROUND

Moderate to severe plaque psoriasis can be treated effectively with immunomodulating biologicals such as the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab. In practice, however, questions often arise as to how to proceed in special situations, such as infections, comorbidity, pregnancy, or surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To address frequent questions about the treatment of plaque psoriasis with secukinumab in a consensus document of German psoriasis experts that supplements current guidelines.

METHODS

In a virtual expert meeting in May 2020, practical aspects of the treatment of psoriasis were discussed based on the experience of the participants and on current literature. The results of this discussion were summarized in the present consensus document.

RESULTS

This article provides practical guidance on case history, documentation of previous therapies, severity of psoriasis, and comorbidities before starting therapy with secukinumab. For patients treated with secukinumab, the course of action in case of vaccinations, chronic or acute infections, surgical interventions, special manifestations of psoriasis, and comorbidities including history of cancer and autoimmune disorders is discussed. Questions regarding family planning and health policy regulations are also addressed.

DISCUSSION

The recommendations for the treatment of psoriasis with secukinumab summarized in this consensus document may contribute to achieve optimal therapy for patients and to improve their quality of life.

Cutaneous adverse events in children treated with vemurafenib for refractory BRAFV600E mutated Langerhans cell histiocytosis

BACKGROUND

The somatic BRAF^V600E mutation occurs in 38-64% of pediatric cases of Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH). Vemurafenib (VMF), a BRAF inhibitor, was approved for refractory BRAF^V600E mutated LCH. In adults, VMF causes frequent cutaneous adverse events (CAE) including skin tumors (squamous cell carcinomas, melanomas), but little is known in children. The objective of this study was to evaluate the frequency, clinical spectrum, and severity of CAEs in children treated with VMF for LCH. In addition, a correlation between CAE occurrence and VMF dose, residual plasma levels (RPLs), and efficacy was searched for.

PROCEDURE

Multicentric retrospective observational study including patients <18 years treated with VMF alone for refractory BRAF^V600E mutated LCH in 13 countries between October 1, 2013 and December 31, 2018.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients: 56% female, median age 2.1 years (0.2-14.6), median treatment duration 4.1 months (1.4-29.7). Forty-one patients (72%) had at least one CAE: photosensitivity (40%), keratosis pilaris (32%), rash (26%), xerosis (21%), and neutrophilic panniculitis (16%). No skin tumor was observed. Five percent of CAEs were grade 3. None were grade 4 or led to permanent VMF discontinuation. Dose reduction was necessary for 12% of patients, temporary treatment discontinuation for 16%, none leading to loss of efficacy. VMF dose, median RPL, and efficacy were not correlated with CAE occurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

At doses used for pediatric LCH, CAEs are frequent but rarely severe and have little impact on the continuation of treatment when managed appropriately. Regular dermatological follow-up is essential to manage CAEs and screen for possible induced skin tumors.

The incidence and risk of cutaneous toxicities associated with dabrafenib in melanoma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Dabrafenib, an inhibitor of mutated BRAF, has significant clinical activity in melanoma patients but is linked to a spectrum of cutaneous toxicities. Thus, our meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the type, incidence and risks of dermatological toxicities from dabrafenib.

METHODS

Systematic searches were performed using electronic databases such as Embase and PubMed and conference abstracts published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Eligible studies were limited to prospective phase I, II and III clinical trials and expanded-access (ie, outside clinical trials) programmes of melanoma patients receiving dabrafenib monotherapy (150 mg, twice daily) or combination therapy of dabrafenib (150 mg, twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg, once daily). The outcomes were mainly the incidence rate and risk of all-grade cutaneous toxicities associated with dabrafenib in melanoma patients.

RESULTS

Twenty trials comprising a total of 3359 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that the overall incidence of all-grade rash for melanoma patients assigned dabrafenib was 30.00% (95% CI 0.07 to 0.71), cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (cSCC) 16.00% (95% CI 0.11 to 0.24), alopecia 21% (95% CI 0.11 to 0.37), keratoacanthoma (KA) 20.00% (95% CI 0.12 to 0.31), hyperkeratosis (HK) 14.00% (95% CI 0.09 to 0.22) and pruritus 8.00% (95% CI 0.05 to 0.12). All-grade rash occurred in 19.00% (95% CI 0.15 to 0.25), cSCC in 10.00% (95% CI 0.04 to 0.22), alopecia in 6.00% (95% CI 0.03 to 0.12), KA in 6.00% (95% CI 0.04 to 0.09) and pruritus in 2/1265 patients assigned dabrafenib plus trametinib. The summary risk ratio (RR) showed that the combination of dabrafenib with trametinib versus dabrafenib was associated with a significantly increased risk of all-grade rash (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.80) and a decreased risk of cSCC (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.89), alopecia (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.30) and HK (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62).

CONCLUSION

In summary, the most frequent cutaneous adverse reactions from dabrafenib were rash, cSCC, alopecia, KA, HK and pruritus. There was a significantly decreased risk of cSCC, alopecia and HK with the combination of dabrafenib with trametinib versus dabrafenib alone. Clinicians should be aware of these risks and perform regular clinical monitoring.

A clinical and biological review of keratoacanthoma

Keratoacanthoma (KA) is a common skin tumour that remains controversial regarding classification, epidemiology, diagnosis, prognosis and management. Classically, a KA manifests as a rapidly growing, well-differentiated, squamoid lesion with a predilection for sun-exposed sites in elderly people and a tendency to spontaneously regress. Historically, KAs have been considered a variant of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and are often reported as KA-type cSCC. However, the penchant for regression has led many to categorize KAs as biologically benign tumours with distinct pathophysiological mechanisms from malignant cSCC. The clinical and histopathological similarities between KA and cSCC, particularly the well-differentiated variant of cSCC, have made definitive differentiation difficult or impossible in many cases. The ambiguity between entities has led to the general recommendation for surgical excision of KAs to ensure a potentially malignant cSCC is not left untreated. This current standard creates unnecessary surgical morbidity and financial strain for patients, especially the at-risk elderly population. There have been no reports of death from a definitive KA to date, while cSCC has an approximate mortality rate of 1·5%. Reliably distinguishing cSCC from KA would shift management strategies for KAs towards less-invasive treatment modalities, prevent unnecessary surgical morbidity, and likely reduce associated healthcare costs. Herein, we review the pathophysiology and clinical characteristics of KA, and conclude on the balance of current evidence that KA is a benign lesion and distinct from cSCC.

Photosensitizing Medications and Skin Cancer: A Comprehensive Review

(1) The incidence of skin cancer is increasing in the United States (US) despite scientific advances in our understanding of skin cancer risk factors and treatments. In vitro and in vivo studies have provided evidence that suggests that certain photosensitizing medications (PSMs) increase skin cancer risk. This review summarizes current epidemiological evidence on the association between common PSMs and skin cancer. (2) A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify meta-analyses, observational studies and clinical trials that report on skin cancer events in PSM users. The associated risks of keratinocyte carcinoma (squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma) and melanoma are summarized, for each PSM. (3) There are extensive reports on antihypertensives and statins relative to other PSMs, with positive and null findings, respectively. Fewer studies have explored amiodarone, metformin, antimicrobials and vemurafenib. No studies report on the individual skin cancer risks in glyburide, naproxen, piroxicam, chlorpromazine, thioridazine and nalidixic acid users. (4) The research gaps in understanding the relationship between PSMs and skin cancer outlined in this review should be prioritized because the US population is aging. Thus the number of patients prescribed PSMs is likely to continue to rise.

How to conduct integrated pharmaceutical care for patients with hand-foot syndrome associated with chemotherapeutic agents and targeted drugs

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article was to offer practical operational process for pharmacists to successfully conduct integrated pharmaceutical care for patients with hand-foot syndrome associated with chemotherapeutic agents and targeted drugs which may facilitate the work of first-line clinical pharmacist.Data sources: A literature review was conducted in March 2020 of Pubmed, Medline, and EMBASE (2010-2020) using terms such as: hand-foot syndrome, hand-foot skin reaction, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, chemotherapeutic agent, and multikinase inhibitor. Appropriate references from selected articles were also used.Data summary: This paper involves 81 articles including review articles, meta-analysis, and clinical trials which focused on every aspect of hand-foot syndrome, such as manifestation, mechanism, occurrence rate, onset time, patient education, self-monitor scale, and management. Studies were thematically divided into four parts (clinical presentation of HFS, risk stratification, initiation of pharmaceutic care, and management of the adverse reaction).

CONCLUSION

HFS is one of the common adverse events which was associated with many chemotherapeutic agents and multikinase inhibitor drugs. Although the mechanisms and histopathology may be different, they due share some common clinical manifestations. As part of integrated pharmaceutical care for cancer patients, it is important to conduct patient education about the risk of hand-foot syndrome and basic knowledge about hand-foot syndrome management before initiating anticancer therapy. Once hand-foot syndrome happens, evidence-based management could try. If the hand-foot syndrome is intolerable, dose reduction or discontinuation of the anticancer therapy should be considered.

Dermatological side effects rarely interfere with the continuation of checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) is an emerging anticancer treatment strategy, which may cause a variety of skin reactions. In this study, we sought to analyze and classify the cutaneous side effects (CSE) of the CPIs nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and ipilimumab with respect to prevalence, type, and severity, and to review their potential interference with CPI immunotherapy.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, medical records were analyzed with respect to incidence, type, and severity of CSE in patients on CPI immunotherapy for cancer. The implications for immunotherapy maintenance were scrutinized.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2019, 352 consecutive patients were treated with CPIs for cancer, of which 46 patients (13.1%) experienced CSE. The incidence of CSE was less with nivolumab (n = 16; 9.5%) and pembrolizumab monotherapy (n = 9; 9.6%) as compared to ipilimumab (n = 10; 23.3%) and combination therapy (n = 11; 23.9%); P < 0.05. Skin toxicity could be stratified by rash/eczema (n = 28; 60.9%), autoimmune (n = 8; 17.4%, vitiligo n = 5, lichen sclerosus n = 2, psoriasis guttata n = 1), lichenoid reaction (n = 5; 10.9%), pruritus (n = 4; 8.7%), and a miscellaneous group (n = 3; 6.5%). The limited severity grades of CSE caused immunotherapy disruption in only three (0.9%) cases. Interestingly, 80% of melanoma patients who developed vitiligo during immunotherapy had stable disease or disease remission.

CONCLUSION

CPIs in cancer patients may result in a distinct set of CSE, with drug rash and eczematous rash being the most common. CTLA-4 blocker ipilimumab and combination therapy are more prone to elicit skin toxicity than the PD-1 inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab, although this rarely interferes with the continuation of immunotherapy.

Cutaneous Adverse Events of Anti-PD-1 Therapy and BRAF Inhibitors

OPINION STATEMENT

The treatment of advanced melanoma has undergone a dramatic transformation over the last decade with the advent of targeted and immunomodulatory therapies. This transition from cytotoxic chemotherapy has yielded improvements in both survival and quality of life; yet despite their therapeutic advantages, these treatments have been associated with a diverse range of cutaneous adverse events (AEs). These range from relatively benign eczematous conditions to more severe inflammatory and bullous disorders, and can include induction of second malignancies. AEs can result in serious morbidity and risk of mortality if not recognised and managed early. As a consequence of their novelty, and rapid uptake, these agents have been subject to intense scrutiny and there is a general understanding that cutaneous AEs should be anticipated in treatment plans. Dermatologists should be integrated into management teams to assist in the development of treatment protocols for anticipated common AEs and to provide expert management of more severe, rare or unusual AEs. Our experience has shown a reduction in treatment interruptions, more rapid recognition of unusual AEs and improved management pathways for patients suffering cutaneous AEs.

Cryosurgery, Intralesional Methotrexate and Imiquimod for Keratoacanthoma: Tuning the Combination

Keratoacanthomas (KA) are self-regressing, destructively expanding keratinocyte skin neoplasms typically characterized by sudden onset of explosive growth followed by complete involution. Cryosurgery, intralesional methotrexate and imiquimod have been used alone or in combination of two for the treatment of KA. Presently 3 patients (49, 60, and 65 years old; two females, one suspected with Ferguson-Smith syndrome), with 5 KA (6–24 mm maximal diameter) were treated with the combination of cryosurgery (liquid N₂, open spray, 2 cycles of 15 sec each) and intralesional methotrexate (2.5–30 mg cumulative dose) and subsequent daily application of imiquimod (14–35 days). Starting with 4 cryosurgery/intralesional methotrexate sessions and 5 weeks daily imiquimod, to document feasibility and efficacy we progressively reduced the intensity of the treatment to one cryosurgery/intralesional methotrexate (total dose: 5 mg) session and 14 days of daily imiquimod without compromising efficacy. KA stopped growing promptly with sustained clearance after 6–24 months follow up, implicating a huge potential of therapeutic synergy of the employed modalities in the management of KA. We suggest that, optimized, the present three modalities combination (one session mild cryosurgery/low dose, 5 mg intralesional methotrexate and 2 weeks once daily imiquimod) is a promising treatment for KA that merits evaluation in further studies.