Photodynamic Therapy for the Treatment of Bowen's Disease: A Review on Efficacy, Non-Invasive Treatment Monitoring, Tolerability, and Cosmetic Outcome.

Bowen's disease represents the in situ form of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma; although it has an excellent prognosis, 3-5% of lesions progress to invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, with a higher risk in immunocompromised patients. Treatment is therefore always necessary, and conventional photodynamic therapy is a first-line option. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the clinical response, recurrence rates, safety, and cosmetic outcome of photodynamic therapy in the treatment of Bowen's disease, considering different protocols in terms of photosensitizers, light source, and combination treatments. Photodynamic therapy is a valuable option for tumors at sites where wound healing is poor/delayed, in the case of multiple and/or large tumors, and where surgery would be difficult or invasive. Dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy can be used as valuable tools for monitoring the therapeutic response. The treatment is generally well tolerated, with mild side effects, and is associated with a good/excellent cosmetic outcome. Periodic follow-up after photodynamic therapy is essential because of the risk of recurrence and progression to cSCC. As the incidence of keratinocyte tumors increases, the therapeutic space for photodynamic therapy will further increase.

"Your Skin Tells You" Campaign for Keratinocyte Cancers: When Individuals' Selection Makes the Difference.

BACKGROUND: Prevention campaigns for skin cancers have focused primarily on melanoma, and over time there has been increasing awareness of the need to select the population to be screened to maximize program effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to report the results of a free dermatological initiative, as part of an awareness campaign dedicated to keratinocyte cancers, targeting individuals pre-selected through a short questionnaire. METHODS: One day of dermatological consultations was held at 15 dermato-oncology referral centers during May 22-June 30, 2021. For selection, individuals answered a telephone interview consisting of 7 yes/no questions on risk factors. Demographics, clinical characteristics of suspicious tumors, and histopathologic diagnosis of excised lesions were collected. Suspicion rate, detection rate, and positive predictive values (PPVs) for any skin cancer, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), and melanoma were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 320 individuals (56.9% males; 43.1% females) with a median age of 69.6 (range 21-91) years qualified for the screening initiative. Overall, skin cancers and precancerous lesions were diagnosed in 65.9% of the patients. Suspicion rate was 28.7% for any skin cancer (92/320), 22.8% for BCC (73/320), 4.7% for cSCC (15/320), and 1.2% for melanoma (4/320). Detection rate was 23.4% for any skin cancer (PPV 93.7%), 18.1% for BCC (PPV 95.1%), 4.4% for cSCC (PPV 93.3%), and 0.9% for melanoma (PPV 75%). CONCLUSIONS: Selection of individuals at high risk is a cost-effective approach for early detection campaigns for keratinocyte cancers.

A multicenter study of skin toxicity management in patients with left-sided, RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line anti-EGFR-based doublet regimen: is there room for improvement?

BACKGROUND: Skin toxicity in patients affected by metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors is well known. However, ad hoc ESMO guidelines have only recently been published. AIM AND METHODS: To describe the management (pre-emptive or reactive) of anti-EGFR-related cutaneous adverse events (AEs), in a real-life clinical context, in a selected population of patients with left-sided, metastatic RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (i.e., panitumumab or cetuximab) as first-line regimen at 22 Institutions. The measured clinical outcomes were treatment-related adverse events, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 515 patients included in the analysis, 173 (33.6%) received a pre-emptive and 342 (66.4%) a reactive treatment. The median follow-up period for the overall population was 30.0 months. A significantly lower incidence of any grade acneiform rash was found in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort both in the overall population (78.6% vs 94.4%, p < 0.001) and in patients treated with panitumumab (76.1% vs 93.7%, p < 0.001) or cetuximab (83.3% vs 95.4%, p = 0.004), respectively. A lower incidence of any grade (41.6% vs 50.9%, p = 0.047) but a higher incidence of G3-G4 (9.2% vs 4.7%, p = 0.042) paronychia/nail disorders were found in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort. Nevertheless, a lower rate of patients within the reactive compared to the pre-emptive cohort was referred to dermatological counseling (21.4% vs 15.3%, respectively, p = 0.001). A higher rate of anti-EGFR therapy modification was needed in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort (35.9% vs 41.6%, respectively, p < 0.001). The pre-emptive approach did not reduce the efficacy of antineoplastic therapy compared to the reactive in terms of ORR (69.2% vs 72.8%), median PFS (12.3 vs 13.0 months), and median OS (28.8 vs 33.5 months). CONCLUSION: Although recommended by international guidelines, the pre-emptive approach of anti-EGFR-related skin toxicity in mCRC patients still appears less adopted in daily clinical practice, compared to the reactive one. A wider reception and application of this indication is desirable to improve patients' quality of life without compromising the continuity and efficacy of antineoplastic therapy.