In the primary analysis of the ERIVANCE BCC trial, vismodegib, the first US Food and Drug Administration–approved Hedgehog pathway inhibitor, showed objective response rates (ORRs) by independent review facility (IRF) of 30% and 43% in metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) and locally advanced BCC (laBCC), respectively. ORRs by investigator review were 45% (mBCC) and 60% (laBCC). Herein, we present long-term safety and final investigator-assessed efficacy results in patients with mBCC or laBCC. One hundred four patients with measurable advanced BCC received oral vismodegib 150 mg once daily until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was IRF-assessed ORR. Secondary end points included ORR, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), and safety. At data cutoff (39 months after completion of accrual), 8 patients were receiving the study drug (69 patients in survival follow-up). Investigator-assessed ORR was 48.5% in the mBCC group (all partial responses) and 60.3% in the laBCC group (20 patients had complete response and 18 patients had partial response). ORRs were comparable across patient subgroups, including aggressive histologic subtypes (eg, infiltrative BCC). Median DOR was 14.8 months (mBCC) and 26.2 months (laBCC). Median OS was 33.4 months in the mBCC cohort and not estimable in the laBCC cohort. Adverse events remained consistent with clinical experience. Thirty-three deaths (31.7%) were reported; none were related to vismodegib. This long-term update of the ERIVANCE BCC trial demonstrated durability of response, efficacy across patient subgroups, and manageable long-term safety of vismodegib in patients with advanced BCC. This study was registered prospectively with Clinicaltrials.gov , number NCT00833417 on January 30, 2009.

The SafeTy Events in VIsmodEgib study (STEVIE, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01367665), assessed safety and efficacy of vismodegib-a first-in-class Hedgehog pathway inhibitor demonstrating clinical benefit in advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC)-in a patient population representative of clinical practice. Primary analysis data are presented. Patients with locally advanced or metastatic BCC received oral vismodegib 150 mg/d until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Primary objective was safety. Efficacy variables were assessed as secondary end-points. Evaluable adult patients (N = 1215, 1119 locally advanced; 96 metastatic BCC) from 36 countries were treated; 147 patients (12%) remained on study at time of reporting. Median (range) treatment duration was 8.6 (0-44) months. Most patients (98%) had ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The incidence of the most common TEAEs was consistent with reports in previous analyses. No association between creatine phosphokinase (CPK) abnormalities and muscle spasm was observed. Serious TEAEs occurred in 289 patients (23.8%). Exposure ≥12 months did not lead to increased incidence or severity of new TEAEs. The majority of the most common TEAEs ongoing at time of treatment discontinuation resolved by 12 months afterwards, regardless of Gorlin syndrome status. Response rates (investigator-assessed) in patients with histologically confirmed measurable baseline disease were 68.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 65.7-71.3) in patients with locally advanced BCC and 36.9% (95% CI 26.6-48.1) in patients with metastatic BCC. The primary analysis of STEVIE demonstrates that vismodegib is tolerable in typical patients in clinical practice; safety profile is consistent with that in previous reports. Long-term exposure was not associated with worsening severity/frequency of TEAEs. Investigator-assessed response rates showed high rate of tumour control. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01367665.

Topical photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a widely approved therapy for actinic keratoses, Bowen's disease (squamous cell carcinoma in situ), superficial and certain thin basal cell carcinomas. Recurrence rates when standard treatment protocols are used are typically equivalent to existing therapies, although inferior to surgery for nodular basal cell carcinoma. PDT can be used both as lesional and field therapies and has the potential to delay/reduce the development of new lesions. A protocol using daylight to treat actinic keratoses is widely practised, with conventional PDT using a red light after typically a 3‐h period of occlusion employed for other superficial skin cancer indications as well as for actinic keratoses when daylight therapy is not feasible. PDT is a well‐tolerated therapy although discomfort associated with conventional protocol may require pain‐reduction measures. PDT using daylight is associated with no or minimal pain and preferred by patient. There is an emerging literature on enhancing conventional PDT protocols or combined PDT with another treatment to increase response rates. This guideline, published over two parts, considers all current approved and emerging indications for the use of topical PDT in dermatology, prepared by the PDT subgroup of the European Dermatology Forum guidelines committee. It presents consensual expert recommendations reflecting current published evidence.

In addition to approved indications in non‐melanoma skin cancer in immunocompetent patients, topical photodynamic therapy (PDT) has also been studied for its place in the treatment of, as well as its potential to prevent, superficial skin cancers in immune‐suppressed patients, although sustained clearance rates are lower than for immune‐competent individuals. PDT using a nanoemulsion of ALA in a daylight or conventional PDT protocol has been approved for use in field cancerization, although evidence of the potential of the treatment to prevent new SCC remained limited. High‐quality evidence supports a strong recommendation for the use of topical PDT in photorejuvenation as well as for acne, refractory warts, cutaneous leishmaniasis and in onychomycosis, although these indications currently lack approvals for use and protocols remain to be optimized, with more comparative evidence with established therapies required to establish its place in practice. Adverse events across all indications for PDT can be minimized through the use of modified and low‐irradiance regimens, with a low risk of contact allergy to photosensitizer prodrugs, and no other significant documented longer‐term risks with no current evidence of cumulative toxicity or photocarcinogenic risk. The literature on the pharmacoeconomics for using PDT is also reviewed, although accurate comparisons are difficult to establish in different healthcare settings, comparing hospital/office‐based therapies of PDT and surgery with topical ointments, requiring inclusion of number of visits, real‐world efficacy as well as considering the value to be placed on cosmetic outcome and patient preference. This guideline, published over two parts, considers all current approved and emerging indications for the use of topical photodynamic therapy in Dermatology prepared by the PDT subgroup of the European Dermatology Forum guidelines committee. It presents consensual expert recommendations reflecting current published evidence.

Basal cell carcinomas are the most frequent skin cancers in the fair-skinned adult population over 5...