Search

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC), the most common type of skin cancer, is characterized by aberrant activation of the hedgehog molecular pathway. Systemic therapy is indicated when local approaches, such as surgery and radiation, are inappropriate. In this article, a group of clinical experts recommends the long-term management strategy for advanced BCC patients treated with systemic therapy. The hedgehog inhibitors sonidegib and vismodegib are first-line treatments for advanced BCC with a long-lasting response, but long-term treatment with hedgehog inhibitors is often challenged by tolerability issues. However, several strategies for adverse effect management are available, such as dose interruptions, on-label alternate-day dosing and supportive medications. In conclusion, although BCC shows a high tumor mutational burden that favors a response to immunotherapy, experts recommend keeping patients on hedgehog inhibitors limiting immunotherapy to those who developed resistance during hedgehog inhibitor therapy or in case of persisting toxicity despite long-term management of adverse events.

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is potentially the most dangerous form of skin tumor and causes 90% of skin cancer mortality. A unique collaboration of multi-disciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed to make recommendations on CM diagnosis and treatment, based on systematic literature reviews and the experts' experience. The diagnosis of melanoma can be made clinically and shall always be confirmed with dermatoscopy. If a melanoma is suspected, a histopathological examination is always required. Sequential digital dermatoscopy and full body photography can be used in high-risk patients to improve the detection of early melanoma. Where available, confocal reflectance microscopy can also improve clinical diagnosis in special cases. Melanoma shall be classified according to the 8th version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification. Thin melanomas up to 0.8 mm tumor thickness do not require further imaging diagnostics. From stage IB onwards, examinations with lymph node sonography are recommended, but no further imaging examinations. From stage IIC onwards whole-body examinations with computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography CT (PET-CT) in combination with brain magnetic resonance imaging are recommended. From stage III and higher, mutation testing is recommended, particularly for BRAF V600 mutation. It is important to provide a structured follow-up to detect relapses and secondary primary melanomas as early as possible. There is no evidence to define the frequency and extent of examinations. A stage-based follow-up scheme is proposed which, according to the experience of the guideline group, covers the optimal requirements, but further studies may be considered. This guideline is valid until the end of 2024.

Background: No simple staging system has emerged for basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), since they do not follow the TNM process, and practitioners failed to agree on simple clinical or pathological criteria as a basis for a classification. Operational classification of BCCs is required for decision-making, trials and guidelines. Unsupervised clustering of real cases of difficult-to-treat BCCs (DTT-BCCs; part 1) has demonstrated that experts could blindly agree on a five groups classification of DTT-BCCs based on five patterns of clinical situations. Objective: Using this five patterns to generate an operational and comprehensive classification of BCCs. Method: Testing practitioner's agreement, when using the five patterns classification to ensure that it is robust enough to be used in the practice. Generating the first version of a staging system of BCCs based on pattern recognition. Results: Sixty-two physicians, including 48 practitioners and the 14 experts who participated in the generation of the five different patterns of DTT-BCCs, agreed on 90% of cases when classifying 199 DTT-BCCs cases using the five patterns classification (part 1) attesting that this classification is understandable and usable in practice. In order to cover the whole field of BCCs, these five groups of DTT-BCCs were added a group representing the huge number of easy-to-treat BCCs, for which sub-classification has little interest, and a group of very rare metastatic cases, resulting in a four-stage and seven-substage staging system of BCCs. Conclusion: A practical classification adapted to the specificities of BCCs is proposed. It is the first tumour classification based on pattern recognition of clinical situations, which proves to be consistent and usable. This EADO staging system version 1 will be improved step by step and tested as a decision tool and a prognostic instrument.

Background: Before February, 2021, there was no standard treatment regimen for locally advanced basal cell carcinoma after first-line hedgehog inhibitor (HHI) therapy. Cemiplimab, a PD-1 antibody, is approved for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and has shown clinical activity as monotherapy in first-line non-small-cell lung cancer. Here, we present the primary analysis data of cemiplimab in patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma after HHI therapy. Methods: We did an open-label, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial across 38 outpatient clinics, primarily at academic medical centres, in Canada, Europe, and the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of metastatic basal cell carcinoma (group 1) or locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (group 2) who had progressed on or were intolerant to previous HHI therapy were enrolled. Patients were not candidates for further HHI therapy due to progression of disease on or intolerance to previous HHI therapy or having no better than stable disease after 9 months on HHI therapy. Patients received cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 93 weeks or until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response by independent central review. Analyses were done as per the intention-to-treat principle. The safety analysis comprised all patients who received at least one dose of cemiplimab. The primary analysis is reported only for group 2; group 1 data have not reached maturity and will be reported when the timepoint, according to the statistical analysis plan, has been reached. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03132636, and is no longer recruiting new participants. Findings: Between Nov 16, 2017, and Jan 7, 2019, 84 patients were enrolled and treated with cemiplimab. At data cutoff on Feb 17, 2020, median duration of foll

Background: No simple classification system has emerged for ‘advanced basal cell carcinomas’, and more generally for all difficult-to-treat BCCs (DTT-BCCs), due to the heterogeneity of situations, TNM inappropriateness to BCCs, and different approaches of different specialists. Objective: To generate an operational classification, using the unconscious ability of experts to simplify the great heterogeneity of the clinical situations into a few relevant groups, which drive their treatment decisions. Method: Non-supervised independent and blinded clustering of real clinical cases of DTT-BCCs was used. Fourteen international experts from different specialties independently partitioned 199 patient cases considered ‘difficult to treat’ into as many clusters they want (≤10), choosing their own criteria for partitioning. Convergences and divergences between the individual partitions were analyzed using the similarity matrix, K-mean approach, and average silhouette method. Results: There was a rather consensual clustering of cases, regardless of the specialty and nationality of the experts. Mathematical analysis showed that consensus between experts was best represented by a partition of DTT-BCCs into five clusters, easily recognized a posteriori as five clear-cut patterns of clinical situations. The concept of ‘locally advanced’ did not appear consistent between experts. Conclusion: Although convergence between experts was not granted, this experiment shows that clinicians dealing with BCCs all tend to work by a similar pattern recognition based on the overall analysis of the situation. This study thus provides the first consensual classification of DTT-BCCs. This experimental approach using mathematical analysis of independent and blinded clustering of cases by experts can probably be applied to many other situations in dermatology and oncology.

Sonidegib and vismodegib are hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HhIs) approved for the treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Until recently, vismodegib was the only targeted treatment available for patients with locally advanced BCC (laBCC) in cases where surgery and radiotherapy are inappropriate. Sonidegib has recently been approved and now presents an alternative treatment option. The clinical differences between the two HhIs in patients with laBCC are unclear, as no head-to-head randomized controlled trials are or will be initiated. Moreover, there were important differences in the designs of their pivotal studies, BOLT (sonidegib) and ERIVANCE (vismodegib), and these differences complicate evidence-based analysis of their relative efficacy and safety profiles. In this paper, a group of clinical experts in the management of laBCC summarizes the clinical and pharmacological profiles of sonidegib and vismodegib based on published data and their own clinical experience. One key difference between the two pivotal studies was the criteria used to assess BCC severity. ERIVANCE (a single-arm phase II trial) used the conventional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), while the more recent double-blind randomized BOLT trial used the stringent modified RECIST (mRECIST). A pre-planned analysis adjusted the outcomes from BOLT with RECIST-like criteria and this enabled the experts to discuss relative efficacy outcomes for the two treatments. Centrally reviewed objective response rate (ORR) for vismodegib was 47.6% (95% CI 35.5-60.6) at 21-month follow-up using RECIST. After adjusting with RECIST-like criteria, the ORR for sonidegib according to central review at 18-month follow-up was 60.6% (95% CI 47.8-72.4). Both treatments were associated with similar patterns of adverse events. Sonidegib and vismodegib share the same efficacy and tolerability profiles, but their pharmacokinetic profiles show several differences, such as volume of distribution and h