Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology | March 19, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available
Abstract Lentigo maligna (LM) is a subtype of cutaneous melanoma in situ that develops on chronically sun‐damaged skin in elderly individuals. Its diagnosis and management remain challenging due to its slow progression, frequent occurrence on cosmetically sensitive areas in frail individuals, and tendency for subclinical peripheral extension. Despite its potential for invasive transformation, the natural history of LM remains incompletely understood and evidence‐based management strategies for this specific entity remain limited. This work aims to bridge the gap between scarce high‐quality evidence and the clinicians' need for practical guidance on LM management by formulating evidence‐based and expert consensus‐driven recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up. Under the coordination of the International Dermoscopy Society, a global, multidisciplinary consortium of 53 experts—including dermatologists, dermato‐oncologists, dermatologic surgeons, radiologists, radiotherapists, pathologists and epidemiologists—formulated recommendations through structured consensus, informed by a comprehensive review of current scientific evidence and clinical practice standards. Optimal management of LM requires accurate diagnosis and individualized treatment planning. Non‐invasive skin imaging techniques, especially dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy, aid in diagnosis, biopsy orientation, lesion delineation and post‐treatment monitoring. Multiple partial biopsies help confirm diagnosis and rule out invasion. Complete surgical excision remains the first treatment option. No definitive safety margins can be recommended for standard surgery; margin‐controlled techniques are preferable for large or ill‐defined lesions. Topical imiquimod and radiotherapy are effective alternatives where surgery is unsuitable. Topical imiquimod is useful as primary, adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. Blind destructive methods should be avoided. Close clinical and imaging follow‐up is needed. Patient‐centred care, shared decision‐making, and a multidisciplinary approach are critical for optimal outcomes. These international consensus recommendations summarize current best practices for LM management, offering practical, evidence‐informed guidance to clinicians while acknowledging the potential of future research in refining these conclusions.
Quality of life in cemiplimab-treated patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma in a Phase II clinical trial
HSR23-097: Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Basal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Cemiplimab: Analysis of a Phase 2 Open-Label Clinical Trial
Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients (pts) with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) treated with cemiplimab: Analysis of a phase II, open-label clinical trial.
9566 Background: Cemiplimab-rwlc is the first immunotherapy to receive approval in the US, fully for pts with laBCC and accelerated for metastatic BCC, post hedgehog inhibitors or for whom hedgehog inhibitors are not appropriate. Cemiplimab resulted in clinically meaningful anti-tumor activity in pts with laBCC who progressed on or were intolerant to hedgehog inhibitor therapy (NCT03132636). This analysis evaluated HRQoL in these pts. Methods: Adults with laBCC and ECOG performance status ≤1 (n=84) received IV cemiplimab 350 mg Q3W for up to 9 treatment cycles. At baseline (BL) and day 1 of each cycle (C), pts completed EORTC QLQ-C30 and SKINDEX-16 questionnaires that assess Global Health Status (GHS)/QoL, functioning, and BCC-related symptoms. Mixed-effects repeated measures (MMRM) models were used to estimate least squares (LS) mean (standard error [SE]) change from BL during treatment (i.e., across C2 to C9); changes ≥|10| points were considered clinically meaningful. Responder analyses were conducted in pts with non-missing data from BL to determine the proportions with clinically meaningful improvement or deterioration, or stability on QLQ-C30 and SKINDEX-16 at C2 and C9; a 10-point threshold was considered meaningful for both instruments. Results: BL scores showed moderate to high levels of functioning and low symptom burden. In MMRM models, overall changes from BL on QLQ-C30 indicated stability for GHS/QoL and all scales except for clinically meaningful worsening of fatigue (LS mean [SE] change 12.5 [3.9]; P<.05). In responder analysis, the majority of pts reported clinically meaningful improvement or stability at C2 and C9 on all QLQ-C30 functioning scales and the key symptom of pain but not fatigue (Table). On SKINDEX-16, MMRM models showed clinically meaningful improvement on the emotional subscale (LS mean [SE] change –13.2 [3.9]; P<.05) and stability on the symptom and functional subscales. Responder analysis showed clinically meaningful improvements or stability across the SKINDEX-16 subscales in approximately 80% of pts at C2, and 70–80% of pts at C9. Conclusions: In laBCC pts treated with cemiplimab, the majority reported clinically meaningful improvement or stability in GHS/QoL and functional status while maintaining a low symptom burden except for fatigue. Clinical trial information: NCT03132636. [Table: see text]