User login
ORLANDO – When caring for individuals with sun-damaged skin, dermatologists need comfort with the full spectrum of photo-related skin disease. From assessment and treatment of actinic keratoses (AKs) and field cancerization, to long-term follow-up of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs), appropriate treatment and staging can improve patient quality of life and reduce health care costs, Vishal Patel, MD, said at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference.
said Dr. Patel, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University Cancer Center, Washington. On the other hand, he added, “field disease can be a marker for invasive squamous cell carcinoma risk, and it requires field treatment.” Treatment that reduces field disease is primary prevention because it decreases the formation of invasive SCC, he noted.
“But this level of disease – AKs and SCC in situ – doesn’t kill people,” he emphasized. “I want to leave you with an ability to stage this disease,” said Dr. Patel, noting that SCC mortality may eventually surpass melanoma mortality as deaths from the latter decline and numbers of older Americans with high ultraviolet light exposure and other risk factors climb.
While the majority of AKs regress within 5 years, he looks at the total burden of AKs as a marker for field cancerization “because having less than five in situ or actinic lesions puts you at less than a 1% risk of squamous cell carcinoma formation. Having more than 20 increases that risk 20-fold to 20%,” he said. “That’s the way we need to start thinking about this: Is this a disease – or a symptom?”
Rather than thinking of each AK or SCC in situ as a separate disease event, “the disease we need to be focusing on and treating is field cancerization,” he continued. Within this context, “we should not be thinking that … we need to be aggressive in our management,” which is what results in high costs.
“The reality is that this is a big quality of life issue for our patients. So what do we do?” Field treatment is appropriate for field disease, he said. Dr. Patel said that at GW only field treatment is used; destructive treatment for AKs and SCC in situ is not used. In the absence of patient and lesion characteristics that elevate risk,“surgery is really not the standard of care for in situ lesions for us,” he commented.
“We start by discerning the field disease from the invasive disease” with an initial round of field treatment and, if needed, adjunctive oral chemoprophylaxis. “We lather, rinse, and repeat” the field therapy, continuously if needed, Dr. Patel said.
“We like to do that because we can then identify those specific lesions we want to go after. No cryosurgery, no destructive therapy, because we run the risk of burying those tumors under the scar. They may recur and make it more difficult to accurately stage them in the future,” he noted.
“I like to be more sophisticated in thinking about our approach to the outcomes of these individual lesions,” he said. When it comes to excising lesions that have been biopsied and show invasive SCC, “disc excision may be a more cost-effective way to treat many low-risk SCCs,” he noted. In any case, “removal with clear surgical margins is key.”
Primary tumors with such low-risk attributes as diameter under a centimeter and thickness under 2 mm; well-defined borders; location on the trunk, neck, or extremities; well-differentiated histology; and lack of perineural invasion can all be considered for a disc technique, especially if the patient is immunocompetent without background chronic inflammation or a history of prior radiation therapy.
Staging SCCs, said Dr. Patel, is where things really get tricky. Older staging systems for SCC “led us to overtreat nonaggressive disease and undertreat aggressive disease. I think we have the responsibility to lead the charge to having a more sophisticated approach.” For example, patients whose tumors were staged T2 in the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) 7 classification system were most likely to have poor outcomes – in part because so few tumors were staged higher – which meant AJCC 7 didn’t provide adequate differentiation for useful risk prognostication.
A group of researchers at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), Boston, “came up with a better system to better differentiate those T2 tumors into a high-risk and a low-risk subtype,” according to Dr. Patel.
With use of validated risk factors, the investigators applied a long list of risk factors to 2,000 tumors to see which risk factors, taken individually, were really contributing to poor outcomes. Eventually, four risk factors that made the most difference were identified: size greater than 2 cm, poor tumor differentiation, perineural invasion greater than 0.1 mm in diameter, and tumor invasion beyond subcutaneous fat. “I really want to highlight the size portion of those risk factors,” said Dr. Patel. “Something I’d like you to do in your clinical practice is to measure and document the size of the lesion. … That really, clearly helps” with risk prognostication.
These four factors were then used to break out a T2a stage for tumors with one risk factor and a T2b stage for tumors with two or three risk factors. Tumors with no risk factors are stage T1, and those with all four risk factors are stage T3. In situ SCC is T0.
Applying this new staging system to a 2,000-patient cohort with SCC yielded clear separation in outcomes including recurrence, nodal metastasis, disease-specific death, and overall survival between patients with the T2a and T2b tumors (P less than .001 for all; J Clin Oncol. 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:327-34).
While AJCC 8 is “significantly better” than AJCC 7 in its incorporation of meaningful risk factors into the SCC staging system, “it still underperforms in comparison” with the BWH staging system using the 2000 patient cohort, he said. Recent work has shown the BWH classification system to have superior specificity and positive predictive value in detecting nodal metastasis and disease-specific death in higher-grade tumors. But both BWH and AJCC 8 need further refinement.
“So what are the staging pearls to take home?” Dr. Patel asked. “First, utilize a staging system.” “Staging of SCC utilizing should be done routinely. Most data seems to suggest that the BWH system appears to outperform AJCC 8, and it is what we currently use routinely at GW,” he said.
Patients who are T1 by BWH criteria, with no risk factors, are at low or even no risk, he noted. He pointed out that of the nearly 1,400 patients who met T1 criteria, there were just eight local recurrences, one nodal metastasis, and no distant metastases or deaths. Knowing this should guide physicians on a treatment path that will reduce costs and provide patients with peace of mind, he said.
In the BWH schema, T2a patients fared almost as well, with a 2% risk of nodal metastasis and an overall 1% risk of disease-specific death. “T2a disease is low risk, in my mind. Most of these patients will go on to do well,” he said.
By contrast, “there may be a number of tumors that you are missing” that are candidates for close follow-up if the BWH criteria are not being used, said Dr. Patel. These are the T2b tumors. “For those patients, we want to aggressively follow them and think about a more aggressive management plan.”
The bottom line is that BWH T2b and T3 tumors are both high risk, and management needs to acknowledge this, he said. The current protocol in our cutaneous oncology program includes using routine radiologic nodal staging in patients with BWH stage 2b and above SCCs and considering sentinel lymph node biopsy for certain individuals.
For patients with BWH T2b and T3 tumors, dermatologists should give consideration to tertiary care or cancer center referrals so they have access to the full spectrum of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities and the opportunity to participate in clinical trials, Dr. Patel said.
Dr. Patel reported that he is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi and a cofounder of the Skin Cancer Outcomes (SCOUT) consortium.
This article was updated 2/9/2019
ORLANDO – When caring for individuals with sun-damaged skin, dermatologists need comfort with the full spectrum of photo-related skin disease. From assessment and treatment of actinic keratoses (AKs) and field cancerization, to long-term follow-up of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs), appropriate treatment and staging can improve patient quality of life and reduce health care costs, Vishal Patel, MD, said at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference.
said Dr. Patel, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University Cancer Center, Washington. On the other hand, he added, “field disease can be a marker for invasive squamous cell carcinoma risk, and it requires field treatment.” Treatment that reduces field disease is primary prevention because it decreases the formation of invasive SCC, he noted.
“But this level of disease – AKs and SCC in situ – doesn’t kill people,” he emphasized. “I want to leave you with an ability to stage this disease,” said Dr. Patel, noting that SCC mortality may eventually surpass melanoma mortality as deaths from the latter decline and numbers of older Americans with high ultraviolet light exposure and other risk factors climb.
While the majority of AKs regress within 5 years, he looks at the total burden of AKs as a marker for field cancerization “because having less than five in situ or actinic lesions puts you at less than a 1% risk of squamous cell carcinoma formation. Having more than 20 increases that risk 20-fold to 20%,” he said. “That’s the way we need to start thinking about this: Is this a disease – or a symptom?”
Rather than thinking of each AK or SCC in situ as a separate disease event, “the disease we need to be focusing on and treating is field cancerization,” he continued. Within this context, “we should not be thinking that … we need to be aggressive in our management,” which is what results in high costs.
“The reality is that this is a big quality of life issue for our patients. So what do we do?” Field treatment is appropriate for field disease, he said. Dr. Patel said that at GW only field treatment is used; destructive treatment for AKs and SCC in situ is not used. In the absence of patient and lesion characteristics that elevate risk,“surgery is really not the standard of care for in situ lesions for us,” he commented.
“We start by discerning the field disease from the invasive disease” with an initial round of field treatment and, if needed, adjunctive oral chemoprophylaxis. “We lather, rinse, and repeat” the field therapy, continuously if needed, Dr. Patel said.
“We like to do that because we can then identify those specific lesions we want to go after. No cryosurgery, no destructive therapy, because we run the risk of burying those tumors under the scar. They may recur and make it more difficult to accurately stage them in the future,” he noted.
“I like to be more sophisticated in thinking about our approach to the outcomes of these individual lesions,” he said. When it comes to excising lesions that have been biopsied and show invasive SCC, “disc excision may be a more cost-effective way to treat many low-risk SCCs,” he noted. In any case, “removal with clear surgical margins is key.”
Primary tumors with such low-risk attributes as diameter under a centimeter and thickness under 2 mm; well-defined borders; location on the trunk, neck, or extremities; well-differentiated histology; and lack of perineural invasion can all be considered for a disc technique, especially if the patient is immunocompetent without background chronic inflammation or a history of prior radiation therapy.
Staging SCCs, said Dr. Patel, is where things really get tricky. Older staging systems for SCC “led us to overtreat nonaggressive disease and undertreat aggressive disease. I think we have the responsibility to lead the charge to having a more sophisticated approach.” For example, patients whose tumors were staged T2 in the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) 7 classification system were most likely to have poor outcomes – in part because so few tumors were staged higher – which meant AJCC 7 didn’t provide adequate differentiation for useful risk prognostication.
A group of researchers at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), Boston, “came up with a better system to better differentiate those T2 tumors into a high-risk and a low-risk subtype,” according to Dr. Patel.
With use of validated risk factors, the investigators applied a long list of risk factors to 2,000 tumors to see which risk factors, taken individually, were really contributing to poor outcomes. Eventually, four risk factors that made the most difference were identified: size greater than 2 cm, poor tumor differentiation, perineural invasion greater than 0.1 mm in diameter, and tumor invasion beyond subcutaneous fat. “I really want to highlight the size portion of those risk factors,” said Dr. Patel. “Something I’d like you to do in your clinical practice is to measure and document the size of the lesion. … That really, clearly helps” with risk prognostication.
These four factors were then used to break out a T2a stage for tumors with one risk factor and a T2b stage for tumors with two or three risk factors. Tumors with no risk factors are stage T1, and those with all four risk factors are stage T3. In situ SCC is T0.
Applying this new staging system to a 2,000-patient cohort with SCC yielded clear separation in outcomes including recurrence, nodal metastasis, disease-specific death, and overall survival between patients with the T2a and T2b tumors (P less than .001 for all; J Clin Oncol. 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:327-34).
While AJCC 8 is “significantly better” than AJCC 7 in its incorporation of meaningful risk factors into the SCC staging system, “it still underperforms in comparison” with the BWH staging system using the 2000 patient cohort, he said. Recent work has shown the BWH classification system to have superior specificity and positive predictive value in detecting nodal metastasis and disease-specific death in higher-grade tumors. But both BWH and AJCC 8 need further refinement.
“So what are the staging pearls to take home?” Dr. Patel asked. “First, utilize a staging system.” “Staging of SCC utilizing should be done routinely. Most data seems to suggest that the BWH system appears to outperform AJCC 8, and it is what we currently use routinely at GW,” he said.
Patients who are T1 by BWH criteria, with no risk factors, are at low or even no risk, he noted. He pointed out that of the nearly 1,400 patients who met T1 criteria, there were just eight local recurrences, one nodal metastasis, and no distant metastases or deaths. Knowing this should guide physicians on a treatment path that will reduce costs and provide patients with peace of mind, he said.
In the BWH schema, T2a patients fared almost as well, with a 2% risk of nodal metastasis and an overall 1% risk of disease-specific death. “T2a disease is low risk, in my mind. Most of these patients will go on to do well,” he said.
By contrast, “there may be a number of tumors that you are missing” that are candidates for close follow-up if the BWH criteria are not being used, said Dr. Patel. These are the T2b tumors. “For those patients, we want to aggressively follow them and think about a more aggressive management plan.”
The bottom line is that BWH T2b and T3 tumors are both high risk, and management needs to acknowledge this, he said. The current protocol in our cutaneous oncology program includes using routine radiologic nodal staging in patients with BWH stage 2b and above SCCs and considering sentinel lymph node biopsy for certain individuals.
For patients with BWH T2b and T3 tumors, dermatologists should give consideration to tertiary care or cancer center referrals so they have access to the full spectrum of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities and the opportunity to participate in clinical trials, Dr. Patel said.
Dr. Patel reported that he is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi and a cofounder of the Skin Cancer Outcomes (SCOUT) consortium.
This article was updated 2/9/2019
ORLANDO – When caring for individuals with sun-damaged skin, dermatologists need comfort with the full spectrum of photo-related skin disease. From assessment and treatment of actinic keratoses (AKs) and field cancerization, to long-term follow-up of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs), appropriate treatment and staging can improve patient quality of life and reduce health care costs, Vishal Patel, MD, said at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference.
said Dr. Patel, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University Cancer Center, Washington. On the other hand, he added, “field disease can be a marker for invasive squamous cell carcinoma risk, and it requires field treatment.” Treatment that reduces field disease is primary prevention because it decreases the formation of invasive SCC, he noted.
“But this level of disease – AKs and SCC in situ – doesn’t kill people,” he emphasized. “I want to leave you with an ability to stage this disease,” said Dr. Patel, noting that SCC mortality may eventually surpass melanoma mortality as deaths from the latter decline and numbers of older Americans with high ultraviolet light exposure and other risk factors climb.
While the majority of AKs regress within 5 years, he looks at the total burden of AKs as a marker for field cancerization “because having less than five in situ or actinic lesions puts you at less than a 1% risk of squamous cell carcinoma formation. Having more than 20 increases that risk 20-fold to 20%,” he said. “That’s the way we need to start thinking about this: Is this a disease – or a symptom?”
Rather than thinking of each AK or SCC in situ as a separate disease event, “the disease we need to be focusing on and treating is field cancerization,” he continued. Within this context, “we should not be thinking that … we need to be aggressive in our management,” which is what results in high costs.
“The reality is that this is a big quality of life issue for our patients. So what do we do?” Field treatment is appropriate for field disease, he said. Dr. Patel said that at GW only field treatment is used; destructive treatment for AKs and SCC in situ is not used. In the absence of patient and lesion characteristics that elevate risk,“surgery is really not the standard of care for in situ lesions for us,” he commented.
“We start by discerning the field disease from the invasive disease” with an initial round of field treatment and, if needed, adjunctive oral chemoprophylaxis. “We lather, rinse, and repeat” the field therapy, continuously if needed, Dr. Patel said.
“We like to do that because we can then identify those specific lesions we want to go after. No cryosurgery, no destructive therapy, because we run the risk of burying those tumors under the scar. They may recur and make it more difficult to accurately stage them in the future,” he noted.
“I like to be more sophisticated in thinking about our approach to the outcomes of these individual lesions,” he said. When it comes to excising lesions that have been biopsied and show invasive SCC, “disc excision may be a more cost-effective way to treat many low-risk SCCs,” he noted. In any case, “removal with clear surgical margins is key.”
Primary tumors with such low-risk attributes as diameter under a centimeter and thickness under 2 mm; well-defined borders; location on the trunk, neck, or extremities; well-differentiated histology; and lack of perineural invasion can all be considered for a disc technique, especially if the patient is immunocompetent without background chronic inflammation or a history of prior radiation therapy.
Staging SCCs, said Dr. Patel, is where things really get tricky. Older staging systems for SCC “led us to overtreat nonaggressive disease and undertreat aggressive disease. I think we have the responsibility to lead the charge to having a more sophisticated approach.” For example, patients whose tumors were staged T2 in the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) 7 classification system were most likely to have poor outcomes – in part because so few tumors were staged higher – which meant AJCC 7 didn’t provide adequate differentiation for useful risk prognostication.
A group of researchers at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), Boston, “came up with a better system to better differentiate those T2 tumors into a high-risk and a low-risk subtype,” according to Dr. Patel.
With use of validated risk factors, the investigators applied a long list of risk factors to 2,000 tumors to see which risk factors, taken individually, were really contributing to poor outcomes. Eventually, four risk factors that made the most difference were identified: size greater than 2 cm, poor tumor differentiation, perineural invasion greater than 0.1 mm in diameter, and tumor invasion beyond subcutaneous fat. “I really want to highlight the size portion of those risk factors,” said Dr. Patel. “Something I’d like you to do in your clinical practice is to measure and document the size of the lesion. … That really, clearly helps” with risk prognostication.
These four factors were then used to break out a T2a stage for tumors with one risk factor and a T2b stage for tumors with two or three risk factors. Tumors with no risk factors are stage T1, and those with all four risk factors are stage T3. In situ SCC is T0.
Applying this new staging system to a 2,000-patient cohort with SCC yielded clear separation in outcomes including recurrence, nodal metastasis, disease-specific death, and overall survival between patients with the T2a and T2b tumors (P less than .001 for all; J Clin Oncol. 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:327-34).
While AJCC 8 is “significantly better” than AJCC 7 in its incorporation of meaningful risk factors into the SCC staging system, “it still underperforms in comparison” with the BWH staging system using the 2000 patient cohort, he said. Recent work has shown the BWH classification system to have superior specificity and positive predictive value in detecting nodal metastasis and disease-specific death in higher-grade tumors. But both BWH and AJCC 8 need further refinement.
“So what are the staging pearls to take home?” Dr. Patel asked. “First, utilize a staging system.” “Staging of SCC utilizing should be done routinely. Most data seems to suggest that the BWH system appears to outperform AJCC 8, and it is what we currently use routinely at GW,” he said.
Patients who are T1 by BWH criteria, with no risk factors, are at low or even no risk, he noted. He pointed out that of the nearly 1,400 patients who met T1 criteria, there were just eight local recurrences, one nodal metastasis, and no distant metastases or deaths. Knowing this should guide physicians on a treatment path that will reduce costs and provide patients with peace of mind, he said.
In the BWH schema, T2a patients fared almost as well, with a 2% risk of nodal metastasis and an overall 1% risk of disease-specific death. “T2a disease is low risk, in my mind. Most of these patients will go on to do well,” he said.
By contrast, “there may be a number of tumors that you are missing” that are candidates for close follow-up if the BWH criteria are not being used, said Dr. Patel. These are the T2b tumors. “For those patients, we want to aggressively follow them and think about a more aggressive management plan.”
The bottom line is that BWH T2b and T3 tumors are both high risk, and management needs to acknowledge this, he said. The current protocol in our cutaneous oncology program includes using routine radiologic nodal staging in patients with BWH stage 2b and above SCCs and considering sentinel lymph node biopsy for certain individuals.
For patients with BWH T2b and T3 tumors, dermatologists should give consideration to tertiary care or cancer center referrals so they have access to the full spectrum of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities and the opportunity to participate in clinical trials, Dr. Patel said.
Dr. Patel reported that he is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi and a cofounder of the Skin Cancer Outcomes (SCOUT) consortium.
This article was updated 2/9/2019
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ODAC 2019