Current Perspectives in the Treatment of Locally Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma

Efficacy and Safety of Cemiplimab for the Management of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: A Drug Safety Evaluation

Non-melanoma skin cancer includes several types of cutaneous tumors, with basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) as the commonest. Among the available therapeutic options, surgical excision is the mainstay of treatment for both tumors. However, tumor features and patients' comorbidities may limit the use of these techniques, making the treatment challenging. As regards BCC, even if hedgehog inhibitors revolutionized the therapeutic scenario, there are still patients unresponsive or intolerant to these drugs. In this context, cemiplimab has been approved as second-line treatment. As regards SCC, cemiplimab was the first systemic therapy approved. The objective of this manuscript was to investigate the efficacy and safety of cemiplimab for the management of BCC and cSCC. Cemiplimab has a durable and significant effect for the management of BCC and CSCC, with a favorable safety profile. Different specialists including oncologists, radiologists, dermatologists, and surgeons are required to guarantee an integrated approach, leading to the best management of patients. Moreover, the collaboration among specialists will allow them to best manage the TEAEs, reducing the risk of treatment suspension or discontinuation. Certainly, ongoing studies and more and more emerging real-world evidence, will allow us to better characterize the role of cemiplimab for the management of advanced non-melanoma skin cancer.

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for diagnosis and treatment of basal cell carcinoma-update 2023

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common malignant tumour in white populations. Multidisciplinary experts from European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), European Dermatology Forum, European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), Union Européenne des Médecins Spécialistes, and the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology developed updated recommendations on diagnosis and treatment of BCC. BCCs were categorised into 'easy-to-treat' (common) and 'difficult-to-treat' according to the new EADO clinical classification. Diagnosis is based on clinico-dermatoscopic features, although histopathological confirmation is mandatory in equivocal lesions. The first-line treatment of BCC is complete surgery. Micrographically controlled surgery shall be offered in high-risk and recurrent BCC, and BCC located on critical anatomical sites. Topical therapies and destructive approaches can be considered in patients with low-risk superficial BCC. Photodynamic therapy is an effective treatment for superficial and low-risk nodular BCCs. Management of 'difficult-to-treat' BCCs should be discussed by a multidisciplinary tumour board. Hedgehog inhibitors (HHIs), vismodegib or sonidegib, should be offered to patients with locally advanced and metastatic BCC. Immunotherapy with anti-PD1 antibodies (cemiplimab) is a second-line treatment in patients with a progression of disease, contraindication, or intolerance to HHI therapy. Radiotherapy represents a valid alternative in patients who are not candidates for or decline surgery, especially elderly patients. Electrochemotherapy may be offered when surgery or radiotherapy is contraindicated. In Gorlin patients, regular skin examinations are required to diagnose and treat BCCs at an early stage. Long-term follow-up is recommended in patients with high-risk BCC, multiple BCCs, and Gorlin syndrome.

Retrospective Real-Life Data, Efficacy and Safety of Vismodegib Treatment in Patients with Advanced and Multiple Basal Cell Carcinoma: 3-Year Experience from a Spanish Center

BACKGROUND

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common type of skin cancer and can represent a therapeutic challenge in patients with locally advanced disease. Vismodegib is a hedgehog pathway inhibitor approved by the FDA for use in this type of tumor. We present a case series to describe our experience with the use of vismodegib.

METHODS

A retrospective study that included patients treated with vismodegib at our dermatology unit was conducted. Monthly follow-up was performed, and we registered the clinical evolution and adverse reactions.

RESULTS

A total of six patients with locally advanced BCCs were included (50% males and 50% females), with a mean age of 78.5 years old. The treatment was administered over a mean of 5 months. A complete response was observed in four cases and partial response in two cases. No recurrence was detected, with a median follow-up duration after discontinuation of 18 months. Most patients (83%) had at least one adverse event, and two needed dose adjustment temporarily or permanently to continue. The main adverse effect was muscle spasms (66.7%). The main limitation of our study was the small sample, which was not representative of the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

Vismodegib is a safe and effective treatment for locally advanced BCC, and its role in unresectable BCC seems to be an important option in these challenging cases.

Angiotensinogen, Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme, and Chymase Gene Polymorphisms as Biomarkers for Basal Cell Carcinoma Susceptibility

INTRODUCTION

The intake of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and specific antagonists of angiotensin II receptors, widely used as antihypertensive drugs, significantly reduces the risk of developing basal cell carcinoma (BCC), highlighting the possible tumorigenic role of angiotensin II (AngII). We present here the investigated genetic association between the development of BCC and functional DNA polymorphisms M235T, I/D, and A1903G in the genes of angiotensinogen (AGT), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), and chymase (CMA1), which mediate AngII production levels.

METHODS

DNA samples of 203 unrelated Greeks were studied, including 100 patients with BCC and 103 matched healthy controls.

RESULTS

The MT genotype of the AGT-M235T polymorphism was significantly more prevalent in the patient group (78.0%) versus the healthy control group (28.3%; p < 0.001). The DD genotype of the ACE-I/D polymorphism was also increased in BCC patients (72.8%) compared to controls (46.2%; p = 0.001). The heterozygous AG genotype of CMA1-A1903G was significantly more frequent in the BCC group (86%) than in the healthy controls (50.5%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The MT, DD, and AG genotypes of the AGT- M235T, ACE-I/D, and CMA1-A1903G polymorphisms, respectively, were significantly increased in frequency within the group of cancer patients compared to the healthy controls. All three genotypes correspond to increased enzyme levels or activity and result in increased levels of AngII; therefore, they may be potentially utilized as reliable biomarkers associated with an individual's increased risk for BCC development.

Reinduction of Hedgehog Inhibitors after Checkpoint Inhibition in Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Series of 12 Patients

For patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma (aBCC) first-line treatment with hedgehog inhibitors (HHIs) and second-line treatment with PD1 inhibitors (PD1i) is available, offering combination and sequencing options. Here, we focus on the efficacy and safety of HHI reinduction after PD1i failure. Retrospective data analysis was performed with 12 patients with aBCC (locally advanced (n = 8)/metastatic (n = 4)). These patients (male:female 6:6, median age 68 years) initially received HHIs, leading to complete/partial response (66%) or stable disease (33%). Median treatment duration was 20.8 (2-64.5) months until discontinuation due to progression (n = 8), adverse events (n = 3), or patient request (n = 1). Subsequent PD1 inhibition (pembrolizumab 42%, cemiplimab 58%) yielded a partial response (8%), stable disease (33%), or progression (59%). Median treatment duration was 4.1 (0.8-16.3) months until discontinuation due to progression (n = 9), adverse events (n = 1), patient request (n = 1), or missing drug approval (n = 1). HHI reinduction resulted in complete/partial response (33%), stable disease (50%), or progression (17%). Median treatment duration was 3.6 (1-29) months. Response duration in the four responding patients was 2-29+ months. Thus, a subgroup of patients with aBCC responded to reinduction of HHI following PD1i failure. Therefore, this sequential treatment represents a feasible treatment option.