Clinical associations and classification of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced cutaneous toxicities: a multicentre study from the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Force of Dermatology for Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous immune-related adverse events (irAEs) represent the most frequent toxicities induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

OBJECTIVES

To investigate clinical associations of cutaneous toxicities induced by different ICI therapies.

METHODS

This was a multicentre retrospective international cohort study of patients with cancer who developed cutaneous irAEs under ICI therapy. Analysis was performed of the rates and basic characteristics of all cutaneous toxicities, and identification of any associations was performed using univariate and multivariate models.

RESULTS

In total, 762 patients were included, who developed 993 cutaneous toxicities. Forty different types of skin toxicities were identified. Psoriasis (175 patients, 23·0%) and pruritus (171 patients, 22·4%) were the most common toxicities, followed by macular rash (161 patients, 21·1%) and eczematous-type reactions (150 patients, 19·7%). Multivariate analysis showed that among patients with macular rash, vitiligo or multiple toxicities, patients received ICIs more frequently for melanoma than for NSCLC. Moreover, anti-CTLA4 was less frequent than anti-programmed death 1 treatment in patients with macular rash [odds ratio (OR) 0·11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·01-0·76] and vitiligo (OR 0·07, 95% CI 0·006-0·78). A significant association was also seen in patients treated with a combination of ICI and chemotherapy vs. ICI monotherapy. They less frequently developed psoriasis (OR 0·08, 95% CI 0·02-0·31), lichenoid reactions (OR 0·15, 95% CI 0·03-0·77) and eczematous reactions (OR 0·24, 95% CI 0·07-0·78), all compared with pruritic rash.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that skin-oriented toxicities do not share a single pattern and are related to several factors, including the specific agent administered and the underlying malignancy treated. Follow-up plans should be individualized in order to minimize the risk for severe reactions that could compromise optimum therapeutic outcome. What is already known about this topic? Patients with cancer treated with different immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) carry an increased risk of developing various types of skin toxicities. What are the clinical implications of this work? In this multicentre cohort study we showed that ICI-related skin toxicities do not share a single pattern and may depend on several factors, including the specific agent administered and the underlying malignancy. Among patients with macular rash, vitiligo or multiple skin toxicities, patients received ICIs more frequently for melanoma than for non-small cell lung cancer. The combination of ICI and chemotherapy compared with ICI monotherapy occurred to a lesser extent in patients with psoriatic rash lichenoid and eczematous reactions, compared with patients with pruritus. Clinical awareness and specialized dermatological consultation should be advocated.

Timeline of Adverse Events during Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Advanced Melanoma and Their Impacts on Survival

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are frequent and could be associated with improved response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). A prospective cohort of advanced melanoma patients receiving ICI as first-line therapy was retrospectively reviewed (January 2011−February 2019). A total of 116 of 153 patients presented with at least one irAE (75.8%). The most frequent irAEs were dermatological (derm irAEs, 50%), asthenia (38%), and gastrointestinal (29%). Most irAEs appeared within the first 90 days, while 11.2% appeared after discontinuation of the therapy. Mild grade 1−2 derm irAEs tended to appear within the first 2 months of therapy with a median time of 65.5 days (IQR 26-139.25), while grade 3−4 derm irAEs appeared later (median 114 days; IQR 69-218) and could be detected at any time during therapy. Only derm irAE occurrence was related to improved survival (HR 6.46). Patients presenting derm irAEs showed better 5-year overall survival compared to those with no derm irAEs (53.1% versus 24.9%; p < 0.001). However, the difference was not significant when adjusting for the duration of therapy. In conclusion: the timeline of immune-related-AEs differs according to the organ involved. The (apparent) improved survival of patients who present derm AEs during immunotherapy could be partially explained by longer times under treatment.

Non-invasive clinical and microscopic evaluation of the response to treatment with clobetasol cream vs. calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate foam in mild to moderate plaque psoriasis: an investigator-initiated, phase IV, unicentric, open, randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment response for psoriasis is typically evaluated using clinical scores. However, patients can relapse after clinical clearance, suggesting persistent inflammation. Dermoscopy, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) can non-invasively improve treatment response assessment.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical and non-invasive microscopic features in a psoriatic target lesion treated with clobetasol cream or calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate foam (Cal/BD foam).

METHODS

Prospective, unicentric, open, randomized clinical trial comparing clinical data [total clinical score (TCS)] and microscopic data (dermoscopy, RCM and OCT) in psoriasis patients treated with clobetasol or Cal/BD foam.

RESULTS

We included 36 adult patients (22 men). At week 4, more patients treated with Cal/BD foam achieved TCS ≤1 than with clobetasol (63.2% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.016). Treatment satisfaction was higher with Cal/BD foam (P < 0.03). Microscopically, Cal/BD foam induced more reduction in epidermal thickness at week 4 (P < 0.049). Dilated horizontal blood vessels were more common with clobetasol than with Cal/BD foam at week 8 (69.2% vs. 31.2%, P = 0.159). If epidermal hyperplasia was noted at baseline, the response was poorer with clobetasol (P = 0.029).

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size, open study, imaging sampling bias.

CONCLUSION

Cal/BD foam is more effective than clobetasol, has better patient satisfaction and induces greater reduction in the hyperkeratosis/acanthosis, regardless of baseline epidermal hyperplasia.