No abstract

No abstract

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is used widely among cancer patients. Beside the risk of interaction with cancer therapies, interactions with treatment for comorbidities are an underestimated problem. The aim of this study was to assess prevalence of interactions between CAM and drugs for comorbidities from a large CAM usage survey on melanoma patients and to classify herb-drug interactions with regard to their potential to harm. Consecutive melanoma outpatients of seven skin cancer centers were asked to complete a standardized CAM questionnaire including questions to their CAM use and their taken medication for comorbidities and cancer. Each combination of conventional drugs and complementary substances was evaluated for their potential of interaction. 1089 questionnaires were eligible for evaluation. From these, 61.6% of patients reported taking drugs regularly from which 34.4% used biological-based CAM methods. Risk evaluation for interaction was possible for 180 CAM users who listed the names or substances they took for comorbidities. From those patients, we found 37.2% at risk of interaction of their co-consumption of conventional and complementary drugs. Almost all patients using Chinese herbs were at risk (88.6%). With a high rate of CAM usage at risk of interactions between CAM drugs and drugs taken for comorbidities, implementation of a regular assessment of CAM usage and drugs for comorbidities is mandatory in cancer care.

Biological-based (BbCAM) methods from complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) may interact with cancer treatments, reduce efficacy, or enhance adverse effects. Although CAM usage has been evaluated well in other cancer entities, data on melanoma patients are still missing. The aim of this study was to determine CAM usage of melanoma patients using a standardized questionnaire to identify potential interactions with established and new systemic melanoma therapies. This multicenter study was carried out in seven German skin cancer centers. During routine care contact, CAM usage of former and current melanoma treatment was assessed in melanoma patients. The probability of interaction was classified into four categories ranging from 'interaction unlikely' (I), 'possible' (II), 'likely' (III), or 'no data' (IV). The questionnaire was filled out by 1157 patients, of whom 1089 were eligible for evaluation. CAM usage was reported by 41% of melanoma patients, of whom 63.1% took BbCAM such as vitamins, trace elements, supplements, or phytotherapeuticals. Of 335 patients with former or current therapy, 28.1% used BbCAM. The melanoma treatment included interferon, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, BRAF-inhibitor, or other tyrosine kinase inhibitors and ipilimumab. On the basis of our model of likelihood of interaction, we found that 23.9% of those on cancer therapy and 85.1% of those also using BbCAM were at some risk of interactions. The main limitation of our study is that no reliable and comprehensive database on clinical relevant interactions with CAM in oncology exists. Most patients receiving a melanoma-specific treatment and using BbCAM methods are at risk for interactions, which raises concerns on the safety and treatment efficacy of these patients. To protect melanoma patients from potential harm by the combination of their cancer treatment and CAM usage, patients should systematically be encouraged to report their CAM use, while oncologists should be trained on evidence of CAM, and patient guidance for saver CAM use.

There is a scarcity of available data on unmet information needs (UINs) of melanoma patients (MPs) from Germany and of MPs with clinical stage IV. In a multicenter cross-sectional survey, we explored the UINs of 529 MPs by applying a standardized questionnaire. Subgroup differences in scope and contents of UINs were determined by univariate analyses. Predictors of the presence of UINs were identified by binary logistic regression. Overall, 55% of MPs reported UINs. Most MPs felt poorly or not informed about psychosocial support (24-31%). In MPs currently receiving medical treatment [odds ratio (OR): 1.9; P=0.017], MPs aging of at least 55 years (OR: 1.7; P=0.029), and in MPs who generally had a high need for information on their condition (OR: 2.4; P=0.001), the presence of UINs was significantly more likely than in post-treatment MPs, MPs more than 55 years of age, and those whose general information need was low. Most UINs concerned treatment-related information and were reported by MPs with tumor progression. Presence and scope of UINs did not differ significantly between metastatic and nonmetastatic MPs (57 vs. 53%; P=0.436). We highlighted differences in the presence, scope, and contents of UINs between MP subgroups, which should be considered when educating them in medical consultations and providing information via media. In particular, MPs felt insufficiently informed about psychosocial support and desired more treatment information.

Most MPs expected their physician to advise them about IRs they could use in addition to medical consultations. Peer support services were quite underused by MPs. The various preferences of media by MPs should be considered when deve-loping and providing IRs.

For patients with metastatic melanoma, there are currently several effective therapeutic options. The BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib are characterized by rapid tumor control and high response rates. In combination with one of the two MEK inhibitors trametinib and cobimetinib, they achieve response rates (CR + PR, complete plus partial remissions) of 70%, while delaying the development of treatment resistance, as well as a median overall survival of > 2 years with tolerable side effects. Showing long-term survival rates of approximately 20%, the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab is the first substance that has led to a significant prolongation of overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. However, delayed treatment response and severe immune-mediated side effects may pose limitations to its therapeutic benefit. Usually well tolerated, anti-PD-1 antibody monotherapy using nivolumab and pembrolizumab has yielded response rates (CR + PR) of up to 45% and one-year survival rates of > 70%. The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has shown response rates of up to 58% and a median progression-free survival of > 11 months. While this combination is expected to result in a rapid and long-lasting response, this potential benefit comes at the expense of a high level of toxicity. Strategies for treatment sequencing and treatment combinations are currently being investigated in clinical studies. Overall, the prognosis for patients with metastatic melanoma has significantly improved. With long-term survival a possibility, not only acute but also long-term therapeutic side effects must be taken into account.

Psychiatric morbidity is frequent in patients with psoriasis. We compared the effectiveness of dermatological vs. interdisciplinary dermatological and psychiatric care for psoriasis. Adults with moderate-to-severe psoriasis were randomly allocated to dermatological (n = 24) or interdisciplinary care (n = 23) and treated accordingly. Primary endpoint was the mean change in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at 6 months. Data was analysed by intention-to-treat. Mean ± SD change in DLQI was 7.5 ± 7.3 and 10.5 ± 9.9 after 6 months of dermatological and interdisciplinary care, respectively (p = 0.27). At baseline, 10 patients in the interdisciplinary treatment group (43%) had at least one psychiatric disorder. These patients showed significantly better DLQI response (DLQI change 14.8 ± 9.7) than patients receiving dermatological care only (p = 0.03). Ninety percent of psoriasis patients with DLQI scores exceeding psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) scores had comorbid psychiatric disease. Although psychiatric co-treatment is not generally required for patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, those patients with higher DLQI scores than PASI scores might benefit from interdisciplinary care.