Sarcoidosis-like reactions in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: experience in a Spanish hospital.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been associated with several immune-related adverse events, including sarcoidosis-like reactions (SLR). SLR, which has a low prevalence but an increasing incidence, is similar to sarcoidosis in terms of histology, and clinical and radiological manifestations. The most commonly affected organs are hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes and skin. SLR is an exclusion diagnosis, so a lymph node biopsy can be useful to distinguish between tumor progression and SLR, particularly in tumors in which nodal involvement is very common. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of SLR in all cancer patients receiving ICIs in our institution between January 2016 and June 2020. RESULTS: Among the 1063 treated patients, seven experienced SLR, four of whom were symptomatic (cough, skin lesions, arthralgia), with time to onset ranging from 1.5 to 6.7 months after ICI initiation. All seven patients had bilateral hilar lymphadenopathy, and granulomatous reactions in five of the six patients with lymph node biopsies. SLR improved in all patients, including four patients who continued with ICI. Three patients received corticosteroids and/or stopped ICI therapy. Four of these patients had partial responses at the time SLR was identified. CONCLUSION: Management of SLR lacks a consensus recommendation, although corticosteroids and/or stopping the ICI are generally implemented. The potential consequences of stopping anticancer treatment should be taken into consideration, particularly in the absence of clear management recommendations.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Basal Cell Carcinoma in Specialized Dermatology Units: A Clinical Practice Guideline. / Carcinoma basocelular cutáneo: diagnóstico y tratamiento en atención especializada dermatológica. Guía de Práctica Clínica de la AEDV.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common skin cancer in the general population. BCC is managed in a variety of ways, and available international guidelines are difficult to put into practice in Spain. This guideline aims to improve the management of BCC based on current evidence and provide a point of reference for Spanish dermatologists. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Members of the Spanish Oncologic Dermatology and Surgery Group (GEDOC) with experience treating BCC were invited to participate in drafting this guideline. The drafters used the ADAPTE collaboration process to develop the new guideline based on existing ones, first summarizing the care pathway and posing relevant clinical questions. They then searched for guidelines, assessed them with the AGREEII (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) tool, and searched the selected guidelines for answers to the clinical questions. Finally, the recommendations were drafted and submitted for external review. RESULTS: The highest-scoring guidelines were from the Association of Dermatologists, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the European Dermatology Forum, and the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. A total of 11 clinical questions were answered. CONCLUSIONS: This new guideline answers the working group's clinical questions about the routine management of BCC in Spain. It provides dermatologists with a tool they can use for decision-making while taking into consideration the resources available and patient preferences.

Carcinoma basocelular cutáneo: diagnóstico y tratamiento en atención especializada dermatológica. Guía de Práctica Clínica de la AEDV / Diagnosis and Treatment of Basal Cell Carcinoma in Specialized Dermatology Units: A Clinical Practice Guideline

ANTECEDENTES Y OBJETIVO: El carcinoma basocelular supone el cáncer de piel más frecuente en la población. Hay una gran variabilidad en su manejo y las diferentes guías extranjeras que existen son difícilmente aplicables en nuestro medio. El objetivo de la presente guía es servir de referencia a los dermatólogos españoles para mejorar el manejo de este tumor basándose en la evidencia actual. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Se escogió a miembros del Grupo Español de Dermato-Oncología y Cirugía (GEDOC) con experiencia en el tratamiento de estos tumores y con interés en participar en la elaboración de la guía. Se hizo una adaptación de las guías de práctica clínica existentes mediante el método ADAPTE, se resumió el proceso de atención, y se elaboraron las preguntas clínicas relevantes. Se seleccionaron las guías mejor puntuadas mediante el instrumento AGREE II, realizando la búsqueda de las respuestas en dichas guías y elaborando posteriormente las recomendaciones. Finalmente se sometió la guía a revisión externa. RESULTADOS: Las guías con mejor puntuación fueron las de la British Association of Dermatologits (BAD), del National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), del European Dermatology Forum (EDF) y de la European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV). Se obtuvieron en total 11 preguntas clínicas, contestadas a partir de estas guías. CONCLUSIONES: Esta guía responde a preguntas habituales sobre el manejo del carcinoma basocelular en la práctica clínica diaria y sirve a los dermatólogos como referencia en la toma de decisiones, siempre teniendo en cuenta los recursos y las preferencias del paciente

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common skin cancer in the general population. BCC is managed in a variety of ways, and available international guidelines are difficult to put into practice in Spain. This guideline aims to improve the management of BCC based on current evidence and provide a point of reference for Spanish dermatologists. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Members of the Spanish Oncologic Dermatology and Surgery Group (GEDOC) with experience treating BCC were invited to participate in drafting this guideline. The drafters used the ADAPTE collaboration process to develop the new guideline based on existing ones, first summarizing the care pathway and posing relevant clinical questions. They then searched for guidelines, assessed them with the AGREEII (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) tool, and searched the selected guidelines for answers to the clinical questions. Finally, the recommendations were drafted and submitted for external review. RESULTS: The highest-scoring guidelines were from the Association of Dermatologists, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the European Dermatology Forum, and the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. A total of 11 clinical questions were answered. CONCLUSIONS: This new guideline answers the working group's clinical questions about the routine management of BCC in Spain. It provides dermatologists with a tool they can use for decision-making while taking into consideration the resources available and patient preferences

Sarcoidosis-like reactions in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: experience in a Spanish hospital

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been associated with several immune-related adverse events, including sarcoidosis-like reactions (SLR). SLR, which has a low prevalence but an increasing incidence, is similar to sarcoidosis in terms of histology, and clinical and radiological manifestations. The most commonly affected organs are hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes and skin. SLR is an exclusion diagnosis, so a lymph node biopsy can be useful to distinguish between tumor progression and SLR, particularly in tumors in which nodal involvement is very common. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective analysis of SLR in all cancer patients receiving ICIs in our institution between January 2016 and June 2020. Results Among the 1063 treated patients, seven experienced SLR, four of whom were symptomatic (cough, skin lesions, arthralgia), with time to onset ranging from 1.5 to 6.7 months after ICI initiation. All seven patients had bilateral hilar lymphadenopathy, and granulomatous reactions in five of the six patients with lymph node biopsies. SLR improved in all patients, including four patients who continued with ICI. Three patients received corticosteroids and/or stopped ICI therapy. Four of these patients had partial responses at the time SLR was identified. Conclusion Management of SLR lacks a consensus recommendation, although corticosteroids and/or stopping the ICI are generally implemented. The potential consequences of stopping anticancer treatment should be taken into consideration, particularly in the absence of clear management recommendations (AU)