2
|
Stratigos AJ, Garbe C, Dessinioti C, Lebbe C, van Akkooi A, Bataille V, Bastholt L, Dreno B, Dummer R, Fargnoli MC, Forsea AM, Harwood CA, Hauschild A, Hoeller C, Kandolf-Sekulovic L, Kaufmann R, Kelleners-Smeets NW, Lallas A, Leiter U, Malvehy J, Del Marmol V, Moreno-Ramirez D, Pellacani G, Peris K, Saiag P, Tagliaferri L, Trakatelli M, Ioannides D, Vieira R, Zalaudek I, Arenberger P, Eggermont AMM, Röcken M, Grob JJ, Lorigan P. European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: Part 2. Treatment-Update 2023. Eur J Cancer 2023; 193:113252. [PMID: 37708630 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113252] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2023] [Accepted: 07/18/2023] [Indexed: 09/16/2023]
Abstract
In order to update recommendations on treatment, supportive care, education, and follow-up of patients with invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), a multidisciplinary panel of experts from the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), and the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed. Recommendations were based on an evidence-based literature review, guidelines, and expert consensus. Treatment recommendations are presented for common primary cSCC (low risk, high risk), locally advanced cSCC, regional metastatic cSCC (operable or inoperable), and distant metastatic cSCC. For common primary cSCC, the first-line treatment is surgical excision with postoperative margin assessment or micrographically controlled surgery. Achieving clear surgical margins is the most important treatment consideration for patients with cSCCs amenable to surgery. Regarding adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with high-risk localised cSCC with clear surgical margins, current evidence has not shown significant benefit for those with at least one high-risk factor. Radiotherapy should be considered as the primary treatment for non-surgical candidates/tumours. For cSCC with cytologically or histologically confirmed regional nodal metastasis, lymph node dissection is recommended. For patients with metastatic or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiotherapy, anti-PD-1 agents are the first-line systemic treatment, with cemiplimab being the first approved systemic agent for advanced cSCC by the Food and Drugs Administration/European Medicines Agency. Second-line systemic treatments for advanced cSCC, include epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab) combined with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Multidisciplinary board decisions are mandatory for all patients with advanced cSCC, considering the risks of toxicity, the age and frailty of patients, and co-morbidities, including immunosuppression. Patients should be engaged in informed, shared decision-making on management and be provided with the best supportive care to improve symptom management and quality of life. The frequency of follow-up visits and investigations for subsequent new cSCC depends on underlying risk characteristics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander J Stratigos
- First Department of Dermatology-Venereology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Andreas Sygros Hospital, Athens, Greece.
| | - Claus Garbe
- Centre for Dermatooncology, Department of Dermatology, Eberhard Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Clio Dessinioti
- First Department of Dermatology-Venereology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Andreas Sygros Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Celeste Lebbe
- Université Paris Cite, Dermato-Oncology AP-HP Hôpital Saint Louis, Cancer Institute APHP. Nord-Université Paris Cite, INSERM U976, Paris, France
| | - Alexander van Akkooi
- Department of Melanoma and Surgical Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Lars Bastholt
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Brigitte Dreno
- Nantes Université, INSERM, CNRS, Immunology and New Concepts in ImmunoTherapy, INCIT, UMR 1302/EMR6001, Nantes, France
| | - Reinhard Dummer
- Skin Cancer Centre at University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Maria Concetta Fargnoli
- Dermatology Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Ana Maria Forsea
- Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy Bucharest, Department of Oncologic Dermatology, Elias University Hospital Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
| | - Catherine A Harwood
- Centre for Cell Biology and Cutaneous Research, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Axel Hauschild
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital (UKSH), Kiel, Germany
| | - Christoph Hoeller
- Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | | - Roland Kaufmann
- Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Frankfurt University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Nicole Wj Kelleners-Smeets
- GROW-School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Dermatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Aimilios Lallas
- First Department of Dermatology, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Ulrike Leiter
- Centre for Dermatooncology, Department of Dermatology, Eberhard Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Josep Malvehy
- Dermatology Department of Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBER de enfermedades raras, Instituto Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Veronique Del Marmol
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - David Moreno-Ramirez
- Department of Medical and Surgical Dermatology Service, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain
| | | | - Ketty Peris
- UOC di Dermatologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche Addominali ed Endocrino Metaboliche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli-IRCCS, Rome, Italy; Dermatologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Philippe Saiag
- Department of General and Oncologic Dermatology, Ambroise-Paré hospital, APHP, and EA 4340 'Biomarkers in Cancerology and Hemato-oncology', UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, Boulogne-Billancourt, France
| | - Luca Tagliaferri
- UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A, Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Myrto Trakatelli
- Department of Dermatology, Papageorgiou Hospital, Aristotle University Department of Medicine, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | | | - Ricardo Vieira
- Department of Dermatology, Coimbra Hospital and University Centre, Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Iris Zalaudek
- Department of Dermatology, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
| | - Petr Arenberger
- Department of Dermatovenereology, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Alexander M M Eggermont
- University Medical Center Utrecht and Princess Máxima Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich, Technical University Munich and Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
| | - Martin Röcken
- Centre for Dermatooncology, Department of Dermatology, Eberhard Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany
| | | | - Paul Lorigan
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Department of Medical Oncology, Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ji S, Liu H, Pachella L, Stephenson RD, Groisberg R, Weiss SA. Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in solid organ transplant recipients with advanced cutaneous malignancies. FRONTIERS IN TRANSPLANTATION 2023; 2:1284740. [PMID: 38993910 PMCID: PMC11235332 DOI: 10.3389/frtra.2023.1284740] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2023] [Accepted: 10/13/2023] [Indexed: 07/13/2024]
Abstract
Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are standard of care therapy for patients with cutaneous malignancies, the most frequently diagnosed cancers in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. The activity and rate of allograft rejection in SOT recipients with advanced skin cancers treated with ICI is understudied. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of SOT recipients with advanced melanoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), and merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) who were treated with ICI. Unpublished cases from our institution and published cases from the literature were aggregated. Demographics, type of immunosuppressive therapy, type of ICI(s) administered, prior systemic therapies, tumor response to ICI, and evidence of organ rejection and/or failure were recorded. Objective response rates (ORR) and rates of graft rejection and failure are reported. Results Ninety patients were identified; four patients from our institution and 86 unique patients from a literature review. ORR to first-line ICI for the entire cohort was 41.1% (37/90). ORR by tumor type was 31% (18/58), 64.3% (18/28), and 25.0% (1/4) for melanoma, cSCC, and MCC, respectively. The rate of graft rejection was 37.8% (34/90) with 61.8% (21/34) of these cases progressing to graft failure. Number of immunosuppressive agents (0, 1, 2, or 3) was inversely associated with rate of graft failure. Conclusions In this retrospective analysis, ICIs demonstrate clinical activity in SOT recipients with cutaneous malignancies; however, the rate of graft rejection is high. Treatment plans should be individualized through thorough interdisciplinary discussion. Immunosuppressive modifications may be considered prior to starting treatment, but when feasible, enrollment on clinical trials is preferred.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Ji
- Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, United States
| | - Hao Liu
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, New Brunswick, NJ, United States
| | - Laura Pachella
- Division of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States
| | - Ryan D Stephenson
- Division of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States
| | - Roman Groisberg
- Division of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States
| | - Sarah A Weiss
- Division of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Mortaja M, Demehri S. Skin cancer prevention - Recent advances and unmet challenges. Cancer Lett 2023; 575:216406. [PMID: 37734530 DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2023.216406] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2023] [Revised: 09/01/2023] [Accepted: 09/18/2023] [Indexed: 09/23/2023]
Abstract
Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is the second most common malignancy in the world. Among many identified risk factors, immunosuppression is a major factor that contributes to cSCC development. Organ transplant recipients (OTRs) are at markedly increased risk of developing multiple cSCCs with a propensity for advanced metastatic disease, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. The severity of the cSCC phenotype in OTRs highlights the urgent need to identify effective preventive modalities in this population. Despite recent advances in skin cancer prevention (e.g., nicotinamide) and treatment (e.g., immune checkpoint blockade), these modalities have limited utility in OTRs due to the lack of efficacy or significant side effect. Topical treatments against precancerous skin lesions, actinic keratosis (AK), remain the primary strategy to prevent cSCC in OTRs, which also have significant deficiencies in this population. Herein, we review the epidemiology, risk factors, and current cSCC prevention strategies. We highlight the gaps and future clinical strategies to address cSCC risk in high-risk populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahsa Mortaja
- Center for Cancer Immunology and Cutaneous Biology Research Center, Department of Dermatology and Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02114, USA
| | - Shadmehr Demehri
- Center for Cancer Immunology and Cutaneous Biology Research Center, Department of Dermatology and Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ferrándiz-Pulido C, Leiter U, Harwood C, Proby CM, Guthoff M, Scheel CH, Westhoff TH, Bouwes Bavinck JN, Meyer T, Nägeli MC, Del Marmol V, Lebbé C, Geusau A. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With Advanced Skin Cancers-Emerging Strategies for Clinical Management. Transplantation 2023; 107:1452-1462. [PMID: 36706163 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000004459] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) with advanced skin cancers presents a significant clinical management dilemma. SOTRs and other immunosuppressed patients have been routinely excluded from ICI clinical trials with good reason: immune checkpoints play an important role in self- and allograft-tolerance and risk of acute allograft rejection reported in retrospective studies affects 10% to 65% of cases. These reports also confirm that cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma respond to ICI therapy, although response rates are generally lower than those observed in immunocompetent populations. Prospective trials are now of critical importance in further establishing ICI efficacy and safety. However, based on current knowledge, we recommend that ICIs should be offered to kidney transplant recipients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, or Merkel cell carcinoma if surgery and/or radiotherapy have failed. For kidney transplant recipients, this should be first line ahead of chemotherapy and targeted therapies. In SOTRs, the use of ICIs should be carefully considered with the benefits of ICIs versus risks of allograft rejection weighed up on a case-by-case basis as part of shared decision-making with patients. In all cases, parallel management of immunosuppression may be key to ICI responsiveness. We recommend maintaining immunosuppression before ICI initiation with a dual immunosuppressive regimen combining mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and either corticosteroids or calcineurin inhibitors. Such modification of immunosuppression must be considered in the context of allograft risk (both rejection and also its subsequent treatment) and risk of tumor progression. Ultimately, a multidisciplinary approach should underpin all clinical decision-making in this challenging scenario.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carla Ferrándiz-Pulido
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Ulrike Leiter
- Department of Dermatology, Eberhard-Karls University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Catherine Harwood
- Centre for Cell Biology and Cutaneous Research, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Charlotte M Proby
- Department of Dermatology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, United Kingdom
| | - Martina Guthoff
- Department of Diabetology, Endocrinology, Nephrology, Section of Nephrology and Hypertension, Eberhard-Karls-University, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Christina H Scheel
- Department of Dermatology, Skin Cancer Center, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | - Timm H Westhoff
- Medical Department I, University Hospital Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | | | - Thomas Meyer
- Department of Dermatology, Skin Cancer Center, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | - Mirjam C Nägeli
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Veronique Del Marmol
- Service de Dermatologie, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Celeste Lebbé
- Dermato-Oncology Department, Université Paris Cite, AP-HP Hôpital Saint Louis, Cancer Institute APHP. Nord-Université Paris CiteINSERM U976, HIPI, Paris, France
| | - Alexandra Geusau
- Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hanania HL, Lewis DJ. Systematic Review of Programmed Cell Death-1 Inhibitor Therapy for Advanced-Stage Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Solid-organ Transplant Recipients. J DERMATOL TREAT 2022; 33:3119-3126. [PMID: 36018250 DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2022.2118516] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors represent an effective treatment option for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). However, solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with cSCC have traditionally been excluded from clinical trials. OBJECTIVE To assess the safety and efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors for stage III-IV cSCC in SOT recipients. MATERIALS & METHODS A systematic review was performed using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases. RESULTS We identified 21 articles describing 33 SOT recipients (26 kidney, four liver, two lung, and one heart) with stage III-IV cSCC treated with PD-1 inhibitors. Eleven patients (33.3%) experienced allograft rejection. Of the 25 cases with iRECIST scores, twelve patients (48.0%) had a complete response (CR), eight (32.0%) showed a partial response (PR), three (12.0%) progressive disease, and two (8.0%) stable disease (SD). Including patients without available iRECIST scores, 21 patients (63.6%) showed tumor response. Eleven patients died, with six (50.0%) due to tumor progression and one (11.1%) due to allograft rejection after foregoing dialysis. CONCLUSION PD-1 inhibitors demonstrate efficacy for advanced cSCC and confer a risk of allograft rejection in SOT recipients, requiring careful assessment of risks and benefits. If anti-PD-1 therapy is pursued, use of mTOR inhibitors, prophylactic steroids, and donor-derived cell-free DNA monitoring may mitigate the risk of rejection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah L Hanania
- Baylor College of Medicine, School of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Daniel J Lewis
- Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Dermatology, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|