12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Electrochemotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: The INSPECT experience (2008-2020)

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is a frequent skin cancer with a high risk of recurrence characterized by tumor infiltration and, in advanced cases, a poor prognosis. ECT (electrochemotherapy) is an alternative treatment option for locally advanced or recurrent cSCC that is unsuitable for surgical resection. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the data in the InspECT (International Network for Sharing Practice on ECT) registry of the referral centers and to clarify the indications for the use of ECT as a treatment modality for cSCC.

          Materials and methods

          Patients with primary, recurrent or locally advanced cSCC from 18 European centers were included. They underwent at least one ECT session with bleomycin between February 2008 and November 2020, which was performed following the European Standard Operating Procedures.

          Results

          The analysis included 162 patients (mean age of 80 years; median, 1 lesion/patient). Side effects were mainly local and mild (hyperpigmentation, 11%; ulceration, 11%; suppuration, 4%). The response to treatment per patient was 62% complete and 21% partial. In the multivariate model, intravenous drug administration and small tumor size showed a significant association with a positive outcome (objective response). One-year local progression-free survival was significantly better (p<0.001) in patients with primary tumors (80% (95% C.I. 70%-90%) than in patients with locally advanced disease (49% (95% C.I. 30%-68%).

          Conclusion

          In the present study, ECT showed antitumor activity and a favorable safety profile in patients with complex cSCC for whom there was no widely accepted standard of care. Better results were obtained in primary and small tumors (<3 cm) using intravenous bleomycin administration.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            PD-1 Blockade with Cemiplimab in Advanced Cutaneous Squamous-Cell Carcinoma

            No systemic therapies have been approved for the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma. This cancer may be responsive to immune therapy, because the mutation burden of the tumor is high and the disease risk is strongly associated with immunosuppression. In the dose-escalation portion of the phase 1 study of cemiplimab, a deep and durable response was observed in a patient with metastatic cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

              Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), a malignant proliferation of cutaneous epithelium, represents 20% to 50% of skin cancers. Although the majority of cSCCs are successfully eradicated by surgical excision, a subset of cSCC possesses features associated with a higher likelihood of recurrence, metastasis, and death. The proper identification of these aggressive cSCCs can guide additional work-up and management. In the first article in this continuing medical education series, we discuss the incidence, recurrence rates, mortality rates, and risk factors associated with cSCC and review the staging systems used to stratify patients into high- and low-risk groups. The second article in this series reviews the treatment options for cSCC, with focused attention on the management of high-stage tumors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Oncol
                Front Oncol
                Front. Oncol.
                Frontiers in Oncology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2234-943X
                20 September 2022
                2022
                : 12
                : 951662
                Affiliations
                [1] 1 Department of Otolaryngology Head Neck Surgery, University of Pavia, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Policlinico San Matteo Foundation , Pavia, Italy
                [2] 2 Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Cervicofacial Surgery, University Medical Centre Ljubljana , Ljubljana, Slovenia
                [3] 3 Department of Surgery, The Christie National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust , Manchester, United Kingdom
                [4] 4 Department of Dermatosurgery and Dermatology, Artemed Fachklinik Munich , München, Germany
                [5] 5 Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University , Mainz, Germany
                [6] 6 Center for Experimental Drug and Gene Electrotransfer (CEDGE), Department of Clinical Oncology and Palliative Care, Zealand University Hospital , Roskilde, Denmark
                [7] 7 Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen , Copenhagen, Denmark
                [8] 8 Department of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, James Cook University Hospital , Middlesbrough, United Kingdom
                [9] 9 Department of Plastic Surgery, Cork University Hospital , Cork, Ireland
                [10] 10 Cancer Research @UCC, University College Cork , Cork, Ireland
                [11] 11 Dermatologic Clinic, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin , Turin, Italy
                [12] 12 Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University of Szeged , Szeged, Hungary
                [13] 13 Department of Surgical Sciences, Polyclinic Hospital San Martino , Genoa, Italy
                [14] 14 Clinic for Head and Neck Cancer, Queen Victoria Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust , East Grinstead, United Kingdom
                [15] 15 Department of Surgical Sciences, Otolaryngology Clinic, University of Turin , Turin, Italy
                [16] 16 Department of Dermatologic Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum , Bochum, Germany
                [17] 17 Dept Plastic Surgery, Hull University Teaching Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust , Hull, United Kingdom
                [18] 18 Department of Plastic Surgery, St. Georges University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust , London, United Kingdom
                [19] 19 Melanoma and Sarcoma Surgical Oncology Unit, Veneto Institute of Oncology Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) , Padova, Italy
                [20] 20 Southmead Hospital, North Bristol National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery , Bristol, United Kingdom
                [21] 21 Plastic Reconstructive Surgery, University of Liverpool, St. Helens & Knowsley Teaching Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust , Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [22] 22 Department of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, The Royal London Hospital & Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), Bart’s Health National Health Service (NHS) Trust , London, United Kingdom
                [23] 23 Department of Surgery, Christie Hospital , Manchester, United Kingdom
                [24] 24 Oncology and Haematology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale Socio Sanitaria (AULSS) 3 Serenissima-Mirano , Venice, Italy
                [25] 25 Otorhinolaryngology Audiology and Phoniatric Unit, University Hospital of Pisa , Pisa, Italy
                [26] 26 Department of Dermatology, Klinikum Wels-Grieskirchen , Wels, Austria
                [27] 27 Biophysics Lab., IGEA S.p.a , Carpi, Italy
                [28] 28 Department of Experimental Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana , Ljubljana, Slovenia
                [29] 29 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ljubljana , Ljubljana, Slovenia
                Author notes

                Edited by: Fabrizio Carta, University of Florence, Italy

                Reviewed by: Carlos Eduardo Fonseca-Alves, Paulista University, Brazil; Luca Falzone, G. Pascale National Cancer Institute Foundation (IRCCS), Italy

                *Correspondence: Giulia Bertino, giulia.bertino@ 123456tin.it

                †ORCID: Luca Campana, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8466-8459; Francesca de Terlizzi, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2676-4549

                This article was submitted to Cancer Molecular Targets and Therapeutics, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology

                Article
                10.3389/fonc.2022.951662
                9531998
                36203425
                933d51ac-a39d-4786-9acb-08d87e7aa2f0
                Copyright © 2022 Bertino, Groselj, Campana, Kunte, Schepler, Gehl, Muir, Clover, Quaglino, Kis, Mascherini, Bisase, Pecorari, Bechara, Matteucci, Odili, Russano, Orlando, Pritchard-Jones, Moir, Mowatt, Silvestri, Seccia, Saxinger, de Terlizzi and Sersa

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 24 May 2022
                : 26 August 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 36, Pages: 10, Words: 4478
                Categories
                Oncology
                Brief Research Report

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma,electrochemotherapy,skin cancer,local treatment,inspect

                Comments

                Comment on this article