Safety of topical interventions for the treatment of actinic keratosis

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of actinic keratoses, epithelial UV-induced dysplasia and field cancerization on behalf of European Association of Dermato-Oncology, European Dermatology Forum, European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology and Union of Medical Specialists (Union Européenne des Médecins Spécialistes)

A collaboration of multidisciplinary experts from the European Association of Dermato-Oncology, the European Dermatology Forum, the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, and the European Union of Medical Specialists was formed to develop European recommendations on AK diagnosis and treatment, based on current literature and expert consensus. This guideline addresses the epidemiology, diagnostics, risk stratification and treatments in immunocompetent as well as immunosuppressed patients. Actinic keratoses (AK) are potential precursors of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and display typical histopathologic and immunohistochemical features of this malignancy in an early stage. They can develop into cSSC in situ and become invasive in a low percentage of cases. AK is the most frequent neoplasia in white populations, frequently occurring within a cancerous field induced by ultraviolet radiation. Since it cannot be predicted, which lesion will progress to cSCC and when treatment is usually recommended. The diagnosis of AK and field cancerization is made by clinical examination. Dermatoscopy, confocal microscopy, optical coherence tomography or line-field confocal-OCT can help in the differential diagnosis of AK and other skin neoplasms. A biopsy is indicated in clinically and/or dermatoscopically suspicious and/or treatment-refractory lesions. The choice of treatment depends on patients' and lesion characteristics. For single non-hyperkeratotic lesions, the treatment can be started upon patient's request with destructive treatments or topical treatments. For multiple lesions, field cancerization treatment is advised with topical treatments and photodynamic therapy. Preventive measures such as sun protection, self-examination and repeated field cancerization treatments of previously affected skin areas in high-risk patients are advised.

Medical gas plasma technology: Roadmap on cancer treatment and immunotherapy

Despite continuous therapeutic progress, cancer remains an often fatal disease. In the early 2010s, first evidence in rodent models suggested promising antitumor action of gas plasma technology. Medical gas plasma is a partially ionized gas depositing multiple physico-chemical effectors onto tissues, especially reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (ROS/RNS). Today, an evergrowing body of experimental evidence suggests multifaceted roles of medical gas plasma-derived therapeutic ROS/RNS in targeting cancer alone or in combination with oncological treatment schemes such as ionizing radiation, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy. Intriguingly, gas plasma technology was recently unraveled to have an immunological dimension by inducing immunogenic cell death, which could ultimately promote existing cancer immunotherapies via in situ or autologous tumor vaccine schemes. Together with first clinical evidence reporting beneficial effects in cancer patients following gas plasma therapy, it is time to summarize the main concepts along with the chances and limitations of medical gas plasma onco-therapy from a biological, immunological, clinical, and technological point of view.

Topical Treatments for Basal Cell Carcinoma and Actinic Keratosis in the United States

Skin cancer is an overarching label used to classify a variety of cutaneous malignancies. Surgical excision procedures are the commonly used treatments for these lesions; however, the choice to perform operative intervention may be influenced by other factors. Established research and literature suggest that topical treatments limit the need for surgical intervention and its commonly associated adverse effects, including infection and scarring. In addition, the growing indications for the usage of topical therapies in BCC treatment, as well as their increased availability and therapeutic options, allow for their greater applicability in the dermatology clinic. Certain topical therapies have been highlighted in research, especially those targeting basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and actinic keratosis (AK). There is also a clear correlation between cost and treatment outcomes, considering BCC's ever-growing prevalence and the proportion of excised lesions being reported as malignant. This review will discuss BCC and AK lesion criteria that result in the most successful outcomes using topical treatments, then highlight the various topical treatment options, and finally address their clinical significance moving forward.

Poor Adherence to Self-Applied Topical Drug Treatment Is a Common Source of Low Lesion Clearance in Patients with Actinic Keratosis-A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Many treatments for actinic keratosis (AK) have been proven efficient in clinical trials. However, patients with AK may still experience unsatisfactory therapeutic outcomes in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate patient adherence to self-applied topical interventions for AK and to explore factors associated with adherence in a real-world setting.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted. Patients presenting with AK were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire about their last topical AK treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 113 patients participated with a median age of 78.5 years (range 58-94). Fifty-four patients (47.8%) received topical diclofenac, ten (8.8%) imiquimod, nine (8%) 5-fluorouracil, nine (8%) 5-fluorouracil plus salicylic acid, and eight (7.1%) photodynamic therapy. The non-adherence rate was 46.9% (n = 53), and only 30.9% (n = 35) used the topical treatments according to the summary of product characteristics (SmPC). These subgroups were compared. Patients of the non-compliant group were significantly less informed about the application time of the specific topical intervention (p = 0.002) and adjusted the timeframe (p < 0.001) and application frequency of the therapy (p = 0.02) independently of their physician. Conversely, patients reporting a sufficient pre-treatment consultation (p = 0.019) generally complied with the SmPC compliance application.

CONCLUSIONS

A thorough pre-treatment consultation can help to increase treatment adherence and ensure lesion clearance.

Melanoma: An update on systemic therapies

Despite advances in early detection as described in part 1 of this continuing medical education series, melanoma continues to be a large contributor to cutaneous cancer-related mortality. In a subset of patients with unresectable or metastatic disease, surgical clearance is often not possible; therefore, systemic and local therapies are considered. The second article in this series provides dermatologists with an up-to-date working knowledge of the treatment options that may be prescribed by oncologists for patients with unresectable stage III, stage IV, and recurrent melanoma.

How to Assess the Efficacy of Interventions for Actinic Keratosis? A Review with a Focus on Long-Term Results

Actinic keratoses (AK) are common lesions of the skin caused by cumulative sun exposure. Since AK may progress to invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), guidelines uniformly recommend early and consequent treatment. A variety of interventions are available; however, most randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and guidelines focus on outcomes that are usually evaluated 8–12 weeks after the end of treatment. Importantly, these assessments can capture the short-term, transient outcomes, but do not allow any conclusions about long-term results to be drawn and do not reflect the probability of transition towards cSCC. Until now, few studies have assessed the long-term results of interventions for AK. Indeed, finding the most appropriate end-point and adjunct time point for determining the long-term results of interventions for AK remains a challenge. Here, we provide an overview of the different ways of measuring the efficacy of AK treatments, such as using recurrence rates or sustained clearance rates, and discuss methodological aspects. Furthermore, we highlight the importance of evidence from post-marketing surveillance trials for the detection of efficacy values and safety signals. Additionally, we emphasize that a follow-up period of 12 months might not be sufficient to reflect the long-term results and stress the urgent need for a longer follow-up period and regular risk-stratified surveillance.