FDA Approval Summary: Fruquintinib for the Treatment of Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

On November 8, 2023, the FDA approved fruquintinib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR)-1, -2, and -3, for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who have been previously treated with fluoropyrimidine­, oxaliplatin­, and irinotecan­based chemotherapy, an anti­VEGF therapy, and, if RAS wild­type and medically appropriate, an anti EGFR therapy. Approval was based on Study FRESCO-2, a globally-conducted, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The key secondary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). A total of 691 patients were randomized (461 and 230 into the fruquintinib and placebo arms, respectively). Fruquintinib provided a statistically significant improvement in OS with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.80; p<0.001). The median OS was 7.4 months (95% CI: 6.7, 8.2) in the fruquintinib arm and 4.8 months (95% CI: 4.0, 5.8) for the placebo arm. Adverse events observed were generally consistent with the known safety profile associated with inhibition of the VEGFR. The results of FRESCO-2 were supported by the FRESCO study, a double-blind, single country, placebo-controlled, randomized trial in patients with refractory mCRC who have been previously treated with fluoropyrimidine­, oxaliplatin­, and irinotecan­based chemotherapy. In FRESCO, the OS HR was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.51, 0.83; p<0.001). FDA concluded that the totality of the evidence from FRESCO-2 and FRESCO supported an indication for patients with mCRC with prior treatment with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF biological therapy, and if RAS wild­type and medically appropriate, an anti-EGFR therapy.

Correlations of response rate and progression-free survival with overall survival in immunotherapy trials for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: an FDA pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Radiographic changes might not fully capture the treatment effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to assess correlations of overall response rate and progression-free survival with overall survival in trials of ICIs for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: To assess trial-level and patient-level correlations of overall response rate and progression-free survival with overall survival, we conducted a pooled analysis of first-line randomised trials (including patients aged ≥18 years with metastatic squamous and non-squamous NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1) submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration from June 24, 2016, to March 16, 2021. Eligible trials evaluated at least one ICI in the experimental group versus chemotherapy in the control group. At the trial level, we used weighted linear regression to derive coefficients of determination (R2). At the patient level, we used Cox proportional hazards models to compare overall survival between responders versus non-responders per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). FINDINGS: A total of 13 trials including 9285 patients evaluated ICIs alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. At the trial level, the R2 was 0·61 (95% CI 0·32-0·84) for correlation of overall response rate with overall survival and 0·70 (0·40-0·89) for correlation of progression-free survival with overall survival. Correlations ranged from weak to moderate when evaluating subgroups by PD-L1 expression and were consistent across trials evaluating ICIs alone or in combination with chemotherapy. At the patient level, responders had longer overall survival than non-responders (hazard ratio [HR] 0·28 [95% CI 0·26-0·30]). Among responders, overall survival was longer in patients enrolled in experimental groups than in control groups (HR 0·54 [95% CI 0·48-0·61]). INTERPRETATION: Correlations of overall response rate and progression-free survival with overall survival were generally moderate in this pooled analysis. The findings support routine analysis of mature overall survival data, where feasible, in first-line randomised trials of ICIs for metastatic NSCLC. FUNDING: US Food and Drug Administration.

FDA Approval Summary: Futibatinib for Unresectable Advanced or Metastatic, Chemotherapy Refractory Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 Fusions or Other Rearrangements.

On September 30, 2022, the FDA granted accelerated approval to futibatinib for the treatment of adult patients with previously treated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) with FGFR2 fusions or other rearrangements. Approval was based on Study TAS-120-101, a multicenter open-label, single-arm trial. Patients received futibatinib 20-mg orally once daily. The major efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) as determined by an independent review committee (IRC) according to RECIST v1.1. ORR was 42% (95% confidence interval, 32%-52%). Median DoR was 9.7 months. Adverse reactions occurring in ≥30% patients were nail toxicity, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, diarrhea, fatigue, dry mouth, alopecia, stomatitis, and abdominal pain. The most common laboratory abnormalities (≥50%) were increased phosphate, increased creatinine, decreased hemoglobin, and increased glucose. Ocular toxicity (including dry eye, keratitis, and retinal epithelial detachment) and hyperphosphatemia are important risks of futibatinib, which are listed under Warnings and Precautions. This article summarizes the FDA's thought process and data supporting the approval of futibatinib.

FDA Approval Summary: Ripretinib for Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor.

On May 15, 2020, the FDA approved ripretinib for adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. The approval was based on results from INVICTUS (NCT03353753), an international, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to receive either ripretinib 150 mg once daily (n = 85) or matching placebo (n = 44). The trial demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by modified RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review for patients randomized to ripretinib, with a median PFS of 6.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.6-6.9] compared with 1.0 month (95% CI: 0.9-1.7) for placebo [HR: 0.15 (95% CI: 0.09-0.25); P < 0.0001, stratified log-rank test]. There was no statistically significant difference in objective response rate in the ripretinib arm, 9% (95% CI: 4.2-18) compared with placebo 0% [(95% CI: 0-8); P = 0.0504, Fisher exact test]. The median overall survival (OS) in the ripretinib arm was 15.1 months (95% CI: 12.3-15.1) compared with 6.6 months (95% CI: 4.1-11.6) in the placebo arm. A formal statistical comparison of OS was not made due to the prespecified hierarchical analysis plan. The most common (≥20%) adverse events with ripretinib, in order of decreasing frequency, were alopecia, fatigue, nausea, abdominal pain, constipation, myalgia, diarrhea, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, and vomiting. Other important risks of ripretinib include new primary cutaneous malignancies, hypertension, and cardiac dysfunction.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab for the First-line Treatment of Patients with MSI-H/dMMR Advanced Unresectable or Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma.

The FDA approved pembrolizumab on June 29, 2020, for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) colorectal cancer with no prior systemic treatment for advanced disease. The approval was based on data from Study Keynote-177, which randomly allocated patients to receive either pembrolizumab or standard of care (SOC) with chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) and independently assessed progression-free survival (PFS) were the primary endpoints. At the time of the final PFS analysis and second prespecified interim OS analysis, the estimated median PFS was 16.5 months (95% CI: 5.4-32.4) versus 8.2 months (95% CI: 6.1-10.2) in the pembrolizumab and SOC arms, respectively [HR: 0.60 (95% CI: 0.45-0.80); two-sided P = 0.0004]. FDA assessed unblinded OS data during the review of the application and identified no safety concerns that would preclude approval of this supplement. Adverse reactions occurring in >30% of patients receiving pembrolizumab were diarrhea, fatigue/asthenia, and nausea. Adverse reactions occurring in >30% of patients receiving SOC were diarrhea, nausea, fatigue/asthenia, neutropenia, decreased appetite, peripheral neuropathy (high-level term), vomiting, abdominal pain, constipation, and stomatitis. Duration of treatment in the pembrolizumab arm was almost double (median 11.1 months, range 0-30.6 months) than the duration of treatment in patients receiving SOC (median, 5.7 months). Approval of pembrolizumab is likely to change the treatment paradigm for first-line treatment with MSI-H advanced colorectal cancer given the study results and different safety profile.

Benefit-Risk Summary of Nivolumab for the Treatment of Patients with Unresectable Advanced, Recurrent, or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Prior Fluoropyrimidine- and Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

On June 10, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab (OPDIVO; Bristol Myers Squibb, New York, NY) for the treatment of patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy. Approval was based on the results of a single, randomized, active-control study (ATTRACTION-3) that randomized patients to receive nivolumab or investigator's choice of taxane chemotherapy (docetaxel or paclitaxel). The study demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival (OS; hazard ratio = 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.96; p = .0189) with an estimated median OS of 10.9 months in the nivolumab arm compared with 8.4 months in the chemotherapy arm. Overall, fewer patients in the nivolumab arm experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade, grade 3-4 TEAEs, and serious adverse events compared with the control arm. The safety profile of nivolumab in patients with ESCC was generally similar to the known safety profile of nivolumab in other cancer types with the following exception: esophageal fistula was identified as a new, clinically significant risk in patients with ESCC treated with nivolumab. Additionally, the incidence of pneumonitis was higher in the ESCC population than in patients with other cancer types who are treated with nivolumab. This article summarizes the FDA review of the data supporting the approval of nivolumab for the treatment of ESCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The approval of nivolumab for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy was based on an overall survival (OS) benefit from a randomized, open-label, active-controlled study called ATTRACTION-3. Prior to this study, no drug or combination regimen had demonstrated an OS benefit in a randomized study for patients with ESCC after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy.

FDA Approval Summary: Selpercatinib for the Treatment of Lung and Thyroid Cancers with RET Gene Mutations or Fusions.

On May 8, 2020, the FDA granted accelerated approval to selpercatinib for (i) adult patients with metastatic RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), (ii) adult and pediatric patients ≥12 years of age with advanced or metastatic RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer who require systemic therapy, and (iii) adult and pediatric patients ≥12 years of age with advanced or metastatic RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer who require systemic therapy and who are radioactive iodine refractory (if radioactive iodine is appropriate). Approval was granted on the basis of the clinically important effects on the overall response rate (ORR) with prolonged duration of responses observed in a multicenter, open-label, multicohort clinical trial (LIBRETTO-001, NCT03157128) in patients whose tumors had RET alterations. ORRs within the approved patient populations ranged from 64% [95% confidence interval (CI), 54-73] in prior platinum-treated RET fusion-positive NSCLC to 100% (95% CI, 63-100) in systemic therapy-naïve RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer, with the majority of responders across indications demonstrating responses of at least 6 months. The product label includes warnings and precautions for hepatotoxicity, hypertension, QT interval prolongation, hemorrhagic events, hypersensitivity, risk of impaired wound healing, and embryo-fetal toxicity. This is the first approval of a drug specifically for patients with RET alterations globally.

Immune Response Evaluation and Treatment with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Beyond Clinical Progression: Response Assessments for Cancer Immunotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides a comprehensive assessment of recent literature reports describing atypical response patterns observed with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), modifications to response evaluation criteria for ICIs, and treatment beyond progression in clinical trials. RECENT FINDINGS: Certain response patterns such as durable response, pseudoprogression, hyperprogression, and dissociated responses can be seen with ICI treatment. These patterns carry differing prognoses and are associated with varied factors. There are multiple modifications of standard Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) that have been proposed to better characterize immunotherapy response; however, standard RECIST1.1 remains most commonly used in clinical trials. Treatment beyond progression varies in frequency and benefit depending on assessment criteria and cancer type. Future research incorporating modified imaging criteria and biomarker assessments may serve to clarify who will benefit most from treatment beyond progression.

Evaluation of Overall Response Rate and Progression-Free Survival as Potential Surrogate Endpoints for Overall Survival in Immunotherapy Trials.

Purpose: With the approval of immunotherapies for a variety of indications, methods to assess treatment benefit addressing the response patterns observed are important. We evaluated RECIST criteria-based overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) as potential surrogate endpoints of overall survival (OS), and explored a modified definition of PFS by altering the threshold percentage determining disease progression to assess the association with survival benefit in immunotherapy trials.Experimental Design: Thirteen randomized, multicenter, active-control trials containing immunotherapeutic agents submitted to the FDA were analyzed. Associations between treatment effects of ORR, PFS, modified PFS, and OS were evaluated at individual and trial levels. Patient-level responder analysis was performed for PFS and OS.Results: The coefficient of determination (R²) measured the strength of associations, where values near 1 imply surrogacy and values close to 0 suggest no association. At the trial level, the association between hazard ratios (HR) of PFS and OS was R2 = 0.1303, and between the odds ratio (OR) of ORR and HR of OS was R2 = 0.1277. At the individual level, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient between PFS and OS was 0.61. Trial-level associations between modified PFS and OS ranged between 0.07 and 0.1, and individual-level correlations were approximately 0.6. HRs of PFS and OS for responders versus nonresponders were 0.129 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.11-0.15] and 0.118 (95% CI, 0.11-0.13), respectively.Conclusions: Although responders exhibited longer survival and PFS than nonresponders, the trial-level and individual-level associations were weak between PFS/ORR and OS. Modifications to PFS did not improve associations. Clin Cancer Res; 24(10); 2268-75. ©2018 AACRSee related commentary by Korn and Freidlin, p. 2239.

Patients with melanoma treated with an anti-PD-1 antibody beyond RECIST progression: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients who receive immunotherapeutic drugs might develop an atypical response pattern, wherein they initially meet conventional response criteria for progressive disease but later have decreases in tumour burden. Such responses warrant further investigation into the potential benefits and risks for patients who continue immunotherapy beyond disease progression defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. METHODS: For this pooled analysis, we included all submissions of trial reports and data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in support of marketing applications for anti-programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) antibodies (alone or in combination) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that allowed for continuation of the antibody beyond RECIST-defined progression in the anti-PD-1 group and were approved by FDA before Jan 1, 2017. To investigate the effect of treatment beyond progression in patients with metastatic melanoma and to better characterise which of these patients would benefit from extended treatment, we pooled individual patient data from patients who received at least one dose of an anti-PD-1 antibody in the included trials. We included any patient receiving the anti-PD-1 antibody after their RECIST-defined progression date in the treatment beyond progression cohort and analysed them descriptively at baseline and at time of progression versus the cohort not receiving treatment beyond progression. We analysed the target lesion response after progression in patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort relative to progressive disease and baseline target lesion burden. We defined a treatment beyond progression response as a decrease in target lesion tumour burden (sum of the reference diameters) of at least 30% from the burden at the time of RECIST-defined progression that did not require confirmation at a subsequent assessment. We also compared individual timepoint responses, overall survival, and adverse events in the treatment beyond progression versus no treatment beyond progression cohorts. FINDINGS: Among the eight multicentre clinical trials meeting this study's inclusion criteria, we pooled the data from 2624 patients receiving immunotherapy. 1361 (52%) had progressive disease, of whom 692 (51%) received continued anti-PD-1 antibody treatment beyond RECIST-defined progression and 669 (49%) did not. 95 (19%) of 500 patients in the treatment beyond progresssion cohort with evaluable assessments had a 30% or more decrease in tumour burden, when considering burden at RECIST-defined progression as the reference point, representing 14% of the 692 patients treated beyond progression and 4% of all 2624 patients treated with immunotherapy. Median overall survival in patients with RECIST-defined progressive disease given anti-PD-1 antibody was longer in the treatment beyond progression cohort (24·4 months, 95% CI 21·2-26·3) than in the cohort of patients who did not receive treatment beyond progression (11·2 months, 10·1-12·9). 362 (54%) of 669 patients in the no treatment beyond progression cohort had a serious adverse event up to 90 days after treatment discontinuation compared with 295 (43%) of 692 patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort. Immune-related adverse events that occurred up to 90 days from discontinuation were similar between the treatment beyond progression cohort (78 [11%] of 692 patients) and the no treatment beyond progression cohort (106 [16%] of 669). INTERPRETATION: Continuation of treatment beyond progression in the product labelling of these immunotherapies has not been recommended because the clinical benefit remains to be proven. Treatment beyond progression with anti-PD-1 antibody therapy might be appropriate for selected patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, identified by specific criteria at the time of progression, based on the potential for late responses in the setting of the known toxicity profile. FUNDING: None.

FDA Approval of Nivolumab for the First-Line Treatment of Patients with BRAFV600 Wild-Type Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma.

On November 23, 2015, the FDA approved nivolumab (OPDIVO; Bristol-Myers Squibb) as a single agent for the first-line treatment of patients with BRAFV600 wild-type, unresectable or metastatic melanoma. An international, double-blind, randomized (1:1) trial conducted outside of the United States allocated 418 patients to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (n = 210) or dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks (n = 208). Patients with disease progression who met protocol-specified criteria (∼25% of each trial arm) were permitted to continue with the assigned treatment in a blinded fashion until further disease progression is documented. Overall survival was statistically significantly improved in the nivolumab arm compared with the dacarbazine arm [hazard ratio (HR), 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.30-0.60; P < 0.0001]. Progression-free survival was also statistically significantly improved in the nivolumab arm (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.56; P < 0.0001). The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) of nivolumab were fatigue, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, rash, and pruritus. Nivolumab demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile compared with dacarbazine, supporting regular approval; however, it remains unclear whether treatment beyond disease progression contributes to the overall clinical benefit of nivolumab. Clin Cancer Res; 23(14); 3479-83. ©2017 AACR.

U.S. FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab for Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma Following Progression on Ipilimumab.

On December 22, 2014, the FDA granted accelerated approval to nivolumab (OPDIVO; Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and disease progression following ipilimumab and, if BRAF V600 mutation positive, a BRAF inhibitor. Approval was based on a clinically meaningful, durable objective response rate (ORR) in a non-comparative analysis of 120 patients who received 3 mg/kg of nivolumab intravenously every 2 weeks with at least 6-month follow-up in an ongoing, randomized, open-label, active-controlled clinical trial. The ORR as assessed by a blinded independent review committee per RECIST v1.1 was 31.7% (95% confidence interval, 23.5-40.8). Ongoing responses were observed in 87% of responding patients, ranging from 2.6+ to 10+ months. In 13 patients, the response duration was 6 months or longer. The risks of nivolumab, including clinically significant immune-mediated adverse reactions (imARs), were assessed in 268 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. The FDA review considered whether the ORR and durations of responses were reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, the adequacy of the safety database, and systematic approaches to the identification, description, and patient management for imARs in product labeling. Clin Cancer Res; 23(14); 3484-8. ©2017 AACR.

FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab for the Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Progression On or After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

UNLABELLED: : On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded the nivolumab metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) indication to include patients with nonsquamous NSCLC after a 3.25-month review timeline. Approval was based on demonstration of an improvement in overall survival (OS) in an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial comparing nivolumab to docetaxel in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC with progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. The CheckMate 057 trial enrolled 582 patients who were randomized (1:1) to receive nivolumab or docetaxel. Nivolumab demonstrated improved OS compared with docetaxel at the prespecified interim analysis with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.73 (p = .0015), and a median OS of 12.2 months (95% CI: 9.7-15.0 months) in patients treated with nivolumab compared with 9.4 months (95% CI: 8.0-10.7 months) in patients treated with docetaxel. A statistically significant improvement in objective response rate (ORR) was also observed, with an ORR of 19% (95% CI: 15%-24%) in the nivolumab arm and 12% (95% CI: 9%-17%) in the docetaxel arm. The median duration of response was 17 months in the nivolumab arm and 6 months in the docetaxel arm. Progression-free survival was not statistically different between arms. A prespecified retrospective subgroup analysis suggested that patients with programmed cell death ligand 1-negative tumors treated with nivolumab had similar OS to those treated with docetaxel. The toxicity profile of nivolumab was consistent with the known immune-mediated adverse event profile except for 1 case of grade 5 limbic encephalitis, which led to a postmarketing requirement study to better characterize immune-mediated encephalitis. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Based on the results from the CheckMate 057 clinical trial, nivolumab represents a new treatment option for patients requiring second-line treatment for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The role of nivolumab in patients with sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) alterations is less clear. Until dedicated studies are performed to better characterize the role and sequence of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) therapy, patients with EGFR or ALK alterations should have progressed on appropriate targeted therapy before initiating PD-1 inhibitor therapy. Some patients whose tumors lack programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression also appear to have durable responses. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted approval to Dako's PD-L1 test, PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx, which the applicant claimed as a nonessential complementary diagnostic for nivolumab use.

Analysis of vascular closure devices after transbrachial artery access.

INTRODUCTION: We seek to determine whether vascular closure devices (VCDs) are safe and effective for brachial artery access. METHODS: A retrospective review of brachial artery access using either manual compression (MC) or a VCD for hemostasis from November 2005 to February 2011 was performed. RESULTS: Brachial artery access was performed on 154 limbs: MC on 134 limbs and VCD on 20 limbs. The incidence of thrombotic (VCD n = 0 [0%] vs MC n = 7 [5.2%], P = .37), hemorrhagic complications (VCD n = 1 [5%] vs MC n = 7 [5.2%], P = .72), or major adverse events (VCD n = 1 [5%] vs MC n = 16 [12%], P = .32) was not significantly different between the techniques. After univariate and multivariate analysis, female sex (P = .07, relative risk [RR] = 5.7), sheath size > 6F (P = .008, RR = 14.6), and diagnostic versus interventional procedure (P = .04, RR = 0.4) all impacted the occurrence of thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Use of VCD in the brachial artery following an endovascular procedure showed equivalence to MC.

Changing age distribution of melanoma patients: a 22-year, single-site perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate possible changes in the demographics of patients with melanoma during a period of 22 years in one dermatopathology practice. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 1835 cases of in situ and invasive melanomas histologically diagnosed between 1989 and 2010 in a private dermatopathology laboratory in Norfolk, Virginia. The age and sex of patients with in situ and invasive melanomas were recorded and compared with similar data for patients from whom any histopathologic specimen was received during the same interval. These data were then compared with those in the national Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry between 1989 and 2009. RESULTS: The number of melanomas diagnosed in the laboratory increased during the 22 study years, but the proportion of submitted specimens diagnosed as melanoma remained somewhat stable. Patient ages ranged from the teens to the ninth decade of life. The proportion of melanomas in the in situ stage gradually increased. Mean patient age rose from 52.4 years in 1989 to 60.7 years in 2010. Men and women aged 60 years and older made up an increasing proportion of melanoma cases. There also was a relative increase in the proportion of women in the 40- to 50-year-old age group and a slight increase among those aged 20 to 30 years, particularly for invasive lesions. In general, the trends were similar for in situ and invasive melanomas. Our data were consistent with the SEER data in showing a trend for decreasing proportion of melanomas in younger individuals, with a corresponding increase in the middle-age and older adult populations. Some differences between the two datasets emerged for men aged 70 to 80, women aged 60 to 70, and all patients aged 70 to 80. CONCLUSIONS: An increasing proportion of melanomas were diagnosed in older individuals. There also was a relative increase in women aged 40 to 50 years and a lesser increase in those aged 20 to 30 years. Our findings were consistent with the national trends observed in the SEER dataset.

Quality of Internet information in pediatric otolaryngology: a comparison of three most referenced websites.

OBJECTIVE: Patients commonly refer to Internet health-related information. To date, no quantitative comparison of the accuracy and readability of common diagnoses in Pediatric Otolaryngology exist. STUDY AIMS: (1) identify the three most frequently referenced Internet sources; (2) compare the content accuracy and (3) ascertain user-friendliness of each site; (4) inform practitioners and patients of the quality of available information. METHODS: Twenty-four diagnoses in pediatric otolaryngology were entered in Google and the top five URLs for each were ranked. Articles were accessed for each topic in the three most frequently referenced sites. Standard rubrics were developed to include proprietary scores for content, errors, navigability, and validated metrics of readability. RESULTS: Wikipedia, eMedicine, and NLM/NIH MedlinePlus were the most referenced sources. For content accuracy, eMedicine scored highest (84%; p<0.05) over MedlinePlus (49%) and Wikipedia (46%). The highest incidence of errors and omissions per article was found in Wikipedia (0.98±0.19), twice more than eMedicine (0.42±0.19; p<0.05). Errors were similar between MedlinePlus and both eMedicine and Wikipedia. On ratings for user interface, which incorporated Flesch-Kinkaid Reading Level and Flesch Reading Ease, MedlinePlus was the most user-friendly (4.3±0.29). This was nearly twice that of eMedicine (2.4±0.26) and slightly greater than Wikipedia (3.7±0.3). All differences were significant (p<0.05). There were 7 topics for which articles were not available on MedlinePlus. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the quality of available information on the Internet improves pediatric otolaryngologists' ability to counsel parents. The top web search results for pediatric otolaryngology diagnoses are Wikipedia, MedlinePlus, and eMedicine. Online information varies in quality, with a 46-84% concordance with current textbooks. eMedicine has the most accurate, comprehensive content and fewest errors, but is more challenging to read and navigate. Both Wikipedia and MedlinePlus have lower content accuracy and more errors, however MedlinePlus is simplest of all to read, at a 9th Grade level.