Photodynamic therapy (PDT) with photosensitization using 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) [including a nanoemulsion (BF-200 ALA)] is approved in the USA for the treatment of actinic keratoses (AKs); another derivative, methyl aminolevulinate, is not approved in the USA but is used in Europe. For AK treatment, the photosensitizer may be applied to individual AK lesions or, depending on treatment regimen, to broader areas of sun-damaged skin to manage field cancerization, although not all products are approved for field treatment. ALA-PDT and photosensitizers have also been used off-label for the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers, primarily basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCC). Advantages of PDT include potentially improved cosmesis and patient satisfaction; disadvantages include pain and duration of treatment. Alternative illumination approaches, including intense pulsed light as well as pulsed-dye lasers, have also been used successfully. Pretreating the affected tissue or warming during incubation can help to increase photosensitizer absorption and improve therapeutic efficacy. Combinations of multiple treatments are also under exploration. Reducing incubation time between photosensitizer application and illumination may significantly reduce pain scores without affecting treatment efficacy. Substituting daylight PDT for a conventional illumination source can also reduce pain without compromising efficacy. The objective of this narrative review is to describe current and ongoing research in the use of topical photosensitizers and modified light delivery regimens to achieve improved therapeutic outcomes with less toxicity in patients with AK, cSCC, BCC, and field cancerization.

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is the second most common form of skin cancer, and the number of deaths due to cSCC is estimated to be greater than the number attributed to melanoma. While the majority of cSCC tumors are resectable with clear margins by standard excision practices, some lesions exhibit high-risk factors for which there is evidence of their association with recurrence, metastasis, and disease-specific death. The most commonly used staging systems and guidelines in the USA for cSCC are based on these clinical and pathologic high-risk factors; however, these are limited in their ability to predict adverse events, thus posing a challenge for implementing risk-directed patient management. Since the development of local recurrence and/or metastasis has a profound impact on the survival of patients with cSCC, accurate identification of patients at high risk for poor outcomes is critical, potentially allowing for early and appropriate adjuvant therapy. This review summarizes the current cSCC literature with a focus on how differing clinical assessments within each of the five selected risk factors (perineural invasion, differentiation, depth of invasion, size, and location) can influence the evaluation of patient outcomes, along with summarizing the utility of staging and guidelines, and highlighting the potential for molecular tools to improve upon cSCC risk assessment.

Background Prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma relies on historical, clinicopathological, and phenotypic risk factors according to American Joint Committee on Cancer(AJCC) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines but may not account for a patient’s individual additional genetic risk factors. Objective To review the available literature regarding commercially available gene expression profile (GEP) tests and their use in the management of cutaneous melanoma. Methods A literature search was conducted for original, English-language studies or meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2021 on commercially available GEP tests in cutaneous melanoma prognosis, clinical decision-making regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy, and real-world efficacy. After the literature review, the Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group, an expert panel of dermatologists with specialized training in melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer diagnosis and management, utilized a modified Delphi technique to develop consensus statements regarding prognostic gene expression profile tests. Statements were only adopted with a supermajority vote of > 80%. Results The initial search identified 1064 studies/meta-analyses that met the search criteria. Of these, we included 21 original articles and meta-analyses that studied the 31-GEP test (DecisionDx-Melanoma; Castle Biosciences, Inc.), five original articles that studied the 11-GEP test (Melagenix; NeraCare GmbH), and four original articles that studied the 8-GEP test with clinicopathological factors (Merlin; 8-GEP + CP; SkylineDx B.V.) in this review. Six statements received supermajority approval and were adopted by the panel. Conclusion GEP tests provide additional, reproducible information for dermatologists to consider within the larger framework of the eighth edition of the AJCC and NCCN cutaneous melanoma guidelines when counseling regarding prognosis and when considering a sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Objective: To integrate gene expression profiling into the management of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) within National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to improve risk-aligned management recommendations. Methods: A cohort of 300 NCCN-defined high-risk cSCC patients, along with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T stage, Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) T stage, and known patient outcomes were analyzed. Risk classifications using a validated 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test and T stage were applied to NCCN patient management guidelines. Risk-directed patient management recommendations within the NCCN guidelines framework were aligned based on risk for metastasis. Results: Of the 300 NCCN high-risk cSCC patients, 159 (53.0%) were 40-GEP Class 1 and AJCC T1-T2, and 173 (57.7%) were Class 1 and BWH T1-2a, indicating low risk for metastasis and, thereby, suggesting low management intensity. The 40-GEP integration suggested high intensity management for only 24 (8.0%) patients (all Class 2B), and moderate intensity management for the remainder of the cohort. Conclusions: The 40-GEP test can be integrated within existing NCCN guideline recommendations for managing cSCC patients to help refine risk-directed management decisions. Integration of the 40-GEP test would allow >50% of this NCCN-defined high-risk cohort to be managed with the lowest intensity recommendations within the broad NCCN guidelines. High intensity management was deemed risk-appropriate for a small subpopulation (8.0%). This study demonstrates that the 40-GEP test, in combination with T stage, has clinical utility to impact patient management decisions in NCCN high-risk cSCC for improving risk-aligned management within the NCCN guidelines framework.

Hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HHIs) have broadened the treatment options available for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC) for whom traditional therapeutic approaches are not feasible or effective. Sonidegib and vismodegib are oral HHIs that were approved for treatment of patients with advanced BCC after demonstrating promising efficacy in the pivotal Phase II BOLT (NCT01327053) and ERIVANCE (NCT00833417) trials, respectively. However, the incidence and types of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) observed with these agents may limit continuous use of HHIs and ultimately impact clinical outcomes. In this review, we summarize the safety and tolerability profiles of sonidegib and vismodegib and discuss potential management strategies for HHI class-effect AEs, including muscle spasms, creatine phosphokinase increase, alopecia, and dysgeusia. These AEs primarily occur early in treatment and can lead to treatment discontinuation. Differences in the pharmacokinetic profiles of sonidegib and vismodegib may contribute to the variability noted in times to onset and resolution of these and other AEs. Evidence suggests that protocol modifications, such as treatment interruptions and dose reductions, are effective ways to manage AEs while maintaining disease control. Nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions may also be considered as part of an AE management strategy. Overall, healthcare providers and patients with advanced BCC should be aware of the HHI class-effect AEs and plan effective management strategies to avoid treatment discontinuation and optimize therapeutic response.

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) has become a significant public health issue due to its rapidly rising incidence and an estimated 1.8 million newly diagnosed cases annually. As with other cancers, treatment decisions for patients with cSCC are based primarily on a patient’s risk for poor outcomes. There has been improvement in clinicopathologic factor-based risk assessment approaches, either through informal methods or ever evolving staging approaches. However, these approaches misidentify patients who will eventually have disease progression as low-risk and conversely, over classify patients as high-risk who do not experience relapse. To improve the accuracy of risk assessment for patients with cSCC, the 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test has been validated to show statistically significant stratification of a high-risk cSCC patient’s risk of nodal or distant metastasis, independent of currently available risk-assessment methods. The 40-GEP test allows for a more accurate classification of metastatic risk for high-risk cSCC patients, with the aim to influence appropriate allocation of clinician time and therapeutic resources to those patients who will most benefit. The objective of this article is to present a treatment algorithm in which clinicians can easily integrate the results of the 40-GEP test into their current treatment approaches to tailor patient care based on individual tumor biology. The following modalities were considered: surveillance imaging, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), adjuvant radiation therapy (ART), and clinical follow-up. The authors have contributed their own cases for discussion as to how they have seen the beneficial impact of 40-GEP test results in their own practice. Overall, clinicians can identify risk-aligned treatment pathway improvements with the use of the 40-GEP test for challenging to manage, high-risk cSCC patients.