Purpose
Ipilimumab was the first FDA-approved agent for advanced melanoma to improve survival and represents a paradigm shift in melanoma and cancer treatment. Its unique toxicity profile and kinetics of treatment response raise novel patient education challenges. We assessed patient perceptions of ipilimumab therapy across the treatment trajectory.
Methods
Four patient cohorts were assessed at different time points relative to treatment initiation: (1) prior to initiation of ipilimumab (n = 10), (2) at weeks 10–12 before restaging studies (n = 11), (3) at week 12 following restaging studies indicating progression of disease (n = 10), and (4) at week 12 following restaging studies indicating either a radiographic response or disease stability (n = 10). Patients participated in a semistructured qualitative interview to assess their experiences with ipilimumab. Quality of life was assessed via the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General and its Melanoma-specific module.
Results
Perceived quality of life was comparable across cohorts, and a majority of the sample understood side effects from ipilimumab and the potential for a delayed treatment response. Patients without progression of disease following restaging studies at week 12 held more positive views regarding ipilimumab compared to patients who had progressed.
Conclusion
Patients generally regarded ipilimumab positively despite the risk of unique toxicities and potential for delayed therapeutic responses; however, those with progression expressed uncertainty regarding whether taking ipilimumab was worthwhile. Physician communication practices and patient education regarding realistic expectations for therapeutic benefit as well as unique toxicities associated with ipilimumab should be developed so that patients can better understand the possible outcomes from treatment.
Background
Patients presenting with a site-specific skin complaint may receive a total body skin examination (TBSE) or a more focused examination. A TBSE may be time-consuming but can potentially detect unsuspected or early stage skin cancers. The purpose of this study was to assess the detection of skin cancers associated with dermatologist-initiated TBSE performed immediately after a focused skin examination on the same patients.
Methods
The dermatology records of patients with biopsy-proven melanoma, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) during a 2-year period were reviewed. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate the odds of a lesion being identified by a dermatologist (rather than the patient or the patient's primary health care provider).
Results
A total 1563 biopsy-proven cutaneous malignancies were found on 1010 patients. Of these, 797 cancers (51%) were first identified by a dermatologist on TBSE and 764 (48.9%) by the patient or the referring provider. Among tumors first identified by dermatologists (n = 797), 553 (69%) were BCCs, 220 (28%) were SCCs, and 24 (3%) were melanomas. The mean Breslow depth was 0.53 mm (standard deviation: 0.31 mm) for melanomas found on TBSE versus 1.04 mm (standard deviation: 1.68 mm) if identified by patients or referring providers. BCCs were more likely to be identified by a dermatologist during a TBSE (n = 553 [56%] vs. n = 434 [44%]; odds ratio: 1.79;
p
< .001). Tumors ultimately diagnosed as SCCs were more often identified by patients or patients’ primary care providers (n = 302 [58%]; odds ratio: 0.56;
p
< .001). However, 220 otherwise undetected SCCs were found during dermatologist-performed TBSE.
Conclusion
Dermatologist-performed TBSEs identified numerous cutaneous malignancies that might otherwise have remained undiagnosed. Early detection of melanoma or nonmelanoma skin cancer by TBSEs may spare patients significant morbidity and mortality.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.