Search

As of January 2021, there are more than 3.8 million women in the United States with a history of breast cancer. The current standard of care for breast cancer involves surgical resection, radiation therapy, adjuvant endocrine therapy, and/or adjuvant chemotherapy. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the gold standard for endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women. Dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) associated with AIs are rare but have been reported in the literature. Commonly reported dAEs include unspecified rash, pruritus, alopecia, vulvovaginal atrophy, vasculitis, and autoimmune/connective tissue disorders. Appropriate preventative strategies and careful management considerations have the potential to optimize the comprehensive care of patients with cancer and improve quality of life. Furthermore, prevention of dAEs can lead to a reduction in cancer treatment interruptions and discontinuations. Herein, we characterize dAEs of AIs and discuss preventative management to reduce the incidence of AI therapy interruption.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have emerged as a pillar in the management of advanced malignancies. However, nonspecific immune activation may lead to immune-related adverse events, wherein the skin and its appendages are the most frequent targets. Cutaneous immune-related adverse events include a diverse group of inflammatory reactions, with maculopapular rash, pruritus, psoriasiform and lichenoid eruptions being the most prevalent subtypes. Cutaneous immune-related adverse events occur early, with maculopapular rash presenting within the first 6 weeks after the initial immune checkpoint inhibitor dose. Management involves the use of topical corticosteroids for mild to moderate (grades 1-2) rash, addition of systemic corticosteroids for severe (grade 3) rash, and discontinuation of immunotherapy with grade 4 rash. Bullous pemphigoid eruptions, vitiligo-like skin hypopigmentation/depigmentation, and psoriasiform rash are more often attributed to programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors. The treatment of bullous pemphigoid eruptions is similar to the treatment of maculopapular rash and lichenoid eruptions, with the addition of rituximab in grade 3-4 rash. Skin hypopigmentation/depigmentation does not require specific dermatologic treatment aside from photoprotective measures. In addition to topical corticosteroids, psoriasiform rash may be managed with vitamin D3 analogues, narrowband ultraviolet B light phototherapy, retinoids, or immunomodulatory biologic agents. Stevens–Johnson syndrome and other severe cutaneous immune-related adverse events, although rare, have also been associated with checkpoint blockade and require inpatient care as well as urgent dermatology consultation.

BACKGROUND: Scarring has significant aesthetic and functional consequences for patients. A need exists for anti-scarring therapeutics. Light emitting diode-red light (LED-RL) has been shown to modulate skin fibrosis. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of LED-RL to reduce post-operative scarring. METHODS: CURES (Cutaneous Understanding of Red-light Efficacy on Scarring) was a randomized, mock-controlled, single-blind, dose-ranging, split-face phase II clinical trial. Starting one week post-surgery, patients received LED-RL irradiation and temperature-controlled mock therapy to incision sites at fluences of 160 J/cm(2), 320 J/cm(2), or 480 J/cm(2), triweekly for three weeks. Efficacy was assessed at 1, 3, and 6-12 months. The primary endpoint was difference in scar pliability between LED-RL-treated and control sites. Secondary outcomes included Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, collagen and water concentration, and adverse events. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in scar pliability between treated and control scars. At certain fluences, treated scars showed greater improvements in observer rating and scar pliability, reflected by greater reductions in induration, from baseline to 6 months compared to control scars. Treatment-site adverse events included blistering (n=2) and swelling (n=1), which were mild and resolved without sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: LED-RL phototherapy is safe in the early postoperative period and may reduce scarring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03795116. Registered 20 December 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03795116

Lichen myxedematosus (LM) is an idiopathic cutaneous mucinosis, commonly described as localized scleromyxedema. In contrast to scleromyxedema, there is typically no systemic involvement. Treatment options are limited and spontaneous resolution has been reported. We present the case of a 66-year-old Hispanic male referred by his primary care physician for evaluation of asymptomatic dark spots on his trunk and extremities present for about one-year. Physical exam revealed smooth, brown hyperpigmented papules coalescing into plaques on the trunk. Multiple well-demarcated oval dark brown plaques measuring 3 cm in size were located on the upper back, peri-umbilical area, bilateral lower extremities, and buttocks. A diagnosis of lichen myxedematosus was made based on histologic features observed in the dermis. There are 5 subtypes of LM: a discrete papular form, acral persistent papular mucinosis, self-healing papular mucinosis, papular mucinosis of infancy, and a pure nodular form. Occasional patients with LM have atypical features or features intermediate between scleromyxedema and localized LM. We present a case of atypical LM with mixed features of the different subtypes. Herein we will review the varied clinical presentations of LM and highlight the distinguishing features of scleromyxedema. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(3): 320-322 doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.4864.

2632 Background: Immune-related cutaneous adverse events (irCAEs) are the most common and often the first toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). In the general population, irCAEs occur on average within 3.6 weeks of treatment initiation and most commonly manifest as maculopapular rash, lichenoid rash, and pruritus. Less is known about these irCAEs in racial and ethnic minority patients. The purpose of this study is to compare the irCAEs of cohorts of Caucasian and racial and ethnic minority patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Methods: Herein, we conducted a retrospective chart review of racial and ethnic minority patients treated with CPIs between 2012-2019 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. irCAEs were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. These were compared to a Caucasian cohort matched by demographics and cancer therapy regimen. Results: One hundred ten racial and ethnic minority patients presented to dermatology for irCAEs. Our population consisted of 59 (53.6%) females and 51 (46.4%) males with a mean age of 59 (range 20-85). Of the patients who were seen by dermatology, 63/110 were Asian (57.3%) followed by 34/110 African American (30.9%), and 1 Native American. Twelve patients were of Hispanic ethnicity (10.9%), which included those of both African American and Caucasian race. The 110 patients that were evaluated by dermatology had 221 cutaneous adverse events. Rash (96, 43.4%), pruritus (40, 18.1%), and xerosis (23, 10.4%) were most frequently diagnosed (average time from treatment start to presentation was 125 days). Dermatology identified 87 (39.3%) grade 1, 103 (46.6%) grade 2, 30 (13.5%) grade 3, and 1 (0.4%) grade 4 events. There were 17 (15.5%) treatment interruptions, including 7 patients who required permanent discontinuation. In the Caucasian cohort, mean time to onset was 228 days (range 1-1500). Dermatology identified 48 (43.6%) grade 1, 44 (40.0%) grade 2, 18 (16.4%) grade 3, and 0 (0.0%) grade 4 events, with maculopapular rash (55, 50.0%) and pruritus (25, 22.7%) most frequently diagnosed. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that irCAEs occur frequently in cancer patients from racial and ethnic minority groups, with similar grade and morphology as Caucasian patients. When irCAEs develop in this population, the diagnosis occurred later than what has previously been reported, possibly due to these patients seeing MSK oncologists with an established dermatology consultation system and insight into how to manage these patients on their own. Prospective evaluation of underrepresented minorities receiving CPI therapy is warranted in order to identify risk factors and therapeutic strategies for these untoward events, so that optimal cancer care may be delivered.

3076 Background: The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) for the management of advanced malignancies has led to unintended consequences of nonspecific immune activation. Cutaneous immune related adverse events (irCAEs) are the most common and first to manifest, on average within 3.6 weeks of treatment initiation. irCAEs may require CPI treatment dose reduction or discontinuation and negatively impact patient quality of life. There is substantial variability in the reporting of these toxicities and inadequate reporting in skin of color patients (SOC), who are often underrepresented in oncology clinical trials. The purpose of this study is to characterize irCAEs in SOC cancer patients. Methods: A single center retrospective analysis of electronic medical records from 2009-2020 was conducted. SOC was defined as African American, Hispanic, Native American/Pacific Islander, or Asian. irCAEs were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. Results: Of 1459 SOC patients that presented to our institution and received CPIs during the study period, 175 (12%) presented to dermatology for irCAEs [African American (56, 32%); Asian (98, 56%); Hispanic (20,11%); Native American (1, 0.5%)]. Patients’ toxicities were stratified by CPI mechanism: anti-PD-1/L1 (139, 79%), combination of anti-PD-1/L1 plus anti-CTLA-4 (29, 17%), and anti-CTLA-4 therapy (7, 4%). Of 376 irCAEs, pruritus (62, 16%), xerosis (42, 11%), maculopapular rash (40, 11%), and cutaneous hyperpigmentation (36, 10%) were most frequently diagnosed. There were 86 (23%) grade 1, 93 (25%) grade 2, and 18 (5%) grade 3 events. Average time from CPI-treatment initiation to irCAE onset was 6.5 months (SD 7.9). Fifteen (9%) patients required CPI dose reduction or discontinuation due to skin toxicity. Topical corticosteroids (133, 76%) were the most frequently used treatment for all irCAEs. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that irCAEs occur frequently in SOC cancer patients. Furthermore, a 6.5-month delay in time to diagnosis highlights a need for increased surveillance of these cutaneous toxicities in darkly pigmented skin. Generally, SOC patients present unique diagnostic and management challenges due to differences in skin biology and propensity toward hyperpigmentation; however, in SOC cancer patients, the mechanisms of oncologic immunotherapy must be considered in developing successful treatment strategies and management of dermatologic health in this population.