Hedgehog Inhibitors Beyond Clinical Complete Response in Basal Cell Carcinoma: Should I Stop or Should I Go?

INTRODUCTION: In advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC), the issue of whether Hedgehog inhibitors (HHIs) should be stopped or not after clinical complete response (cCR) achievement remains an unmet clinical need. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study across 7 Italian dermato-oncology units including patients with BCC who continued vismodegib after cCR between 2012 and 2019. We assessed the relationship between the duration of vismodegib intake (days to cCR [DTCR], days to stop after cCR [DTS], total treatment days [TTD]), and disease-free survival (DFS). Reasons to stop vismodegib were (R1) toxicity and (R2) disease recurrence. The relationship between DTCR, DTS, TTD, and DFS in the whole population and in R1 subgroup was assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient (P < .05) and Bayesian statistics (BF10). RESULTS: Sixty-eight BCC patients with a median (m) age of 75.5 years (39-100) were included. Most patients were male (N = 43, 63%), without Gorlin syndrome (N = 56, 82%) and with head and neck area as primary site (N = 51, 75%). After cCR, out of 68 patients, 90% (N = 61/68) discontinued vismodegib: 82% (N = 50/61) due to toxicity (R1), and 18% (N = 11/61) due to recurrence (R2). Conversely, 10% (N = 7/68) continued vismodegib until last follow-up. In the whole population (N = 68), cCR was achieved with a mDTCR of 180.50 days. DFS showed a significant correlation with DTS (P < .01, BF10 = 39.2) and TTD (P < .01, BF10 = 35566), while it was not correlated to DTCR (BF10 < 0.1). The analysis of R1 subgroup (N = 50) confirmed these results. DFS correlated with DTS in all recurrent patients (N = 38, r = 0.44, P < .01) and in the recurrent patients who stopped vismodegib for toxicity (N = 26, r = 0.665, P < .01). DFS was longer when vismodegib was maintained for >2 months after cCR (mDFS > 2 months, N = 54 vs. ≤ 2 months, N = 14: 470 vs. 175 d, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective results suggest that HHIs should be continued after cCR to improve DFS in BCC.

Adenoid Cystic carcinoma of minor salivary glands (AdCCmSG): a multidisciplinary update.

INTRODUCTION: Adenoid cystic carcinoma of minor salivary glands (AdCCmSG) represents a 'rarity in the rarity,' posing a clinical challenge in lack of standardized, evidence-based recommendations. At present, AdCCmSG management is mostly translated from major salivary gland cancers (MSGCs). Ideally, AdCCmSG diagnostic-therapeutic workup should be discussed and carried out within a multidisciplinary, high-expertise setting, including pathologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists and medical oncologists. AREAS COVERED: The present review provides an overview of epidemiology and pathologic classification. Moreover, the most recent, clinically relevant updates in the treatment of AdCCmSG (Pubmed searches, specific guidelines) are critically discussed, aiming to a better understanding of this rare pathologic entity, potentially optimizing the care process, and offering a starting point for reflection on future therapeutic developments. EXPERT OPINION: The management of rare cancers is often hindered by limited data and clinical trials, lack of evidence-based guidelines, and hardly represented disease heterogeneity, which cannot be successfully tackled with a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. Our goal is to address these potential pitfalls, providing an easy-to-use, updated, multidisciplinary collection of expert opinions concerning AdCCmSG management as of today's clinical practice. We will also cover the most promising future perspectives, based on the potential therapeutic targets highlighted within AdCCmSG's molecular background.