Assessing Treatment Response to PD-1 Inhibitors in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Real-World Challenges

Assessing Treatment Response to PD-1 Inhibitors in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Real-World Challenges

Authors

  • Kristin Tissera Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
  • Olivia S. Suarez-Jew Department of Dermatology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
  • Meenal Kheterpal Department of Dermatology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

Keywords:

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, Squamous cell carcinoma, Immunotherapy, RECIST criteria, anti-PD1, anti-PD1 therapy

Abstract

Introduction: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is a common nonmelanoma skin cancer primarily driven by chronic sun exposure and advanced age. Standard treatments include wide local excision, Mohs surgery, and radiotherapy, with advanced cases often managed with chemotherapeutics. PD1 inhibitors like cemiplimab and pembrolizumab are FDA-approved treatments that have shown efficacy in locally advanced or metastatic cSCC not amenable to surgery or radiation.

Objectives: This study evaluated clinical responses to these inhibitors using RECIST 1.1 criteria through direct visual examination, addressing the applicability of the criteria in real-world clinical practice.

Methods: A cohort of 12 patients with cSCC treated at Duke University with cemiplimab or pembrolizumab was identified through the DeDUCE database using ICD-10 codes. Clinical responses were determined using RECIST 1.1 and modified WHO criteria and compared against clinical-based assessments.

Results: Results indicated varied responses: seven patients with progressive disease (PD), two with stable disease (SD), and three with complete response (CR). Challenges included distinguishing true progression from reactive conditions like erosive pustular dermatosis (EPD) and pseudoprogression as well as evaluating partial responses in ulcerated lesions, which are not defined within the criteria. Radiologic findings often required corroboration with clinical evaluations to avoid misclassification.

Conclusions: Accurate clinical determination of cSCC response to PD-1 inhibitors is complex, requiring multidisciplinary approaches and meticulous wound care. Incorporating these clinical nuances into revised response criteria would enhance treatment decision-making, balancing the risks of premature discontinuation against prolonged ineffective therapy.

References

Baggi A, Quaglino P, Rubatto M, et al. Real world data of cemiplimab in locally advanced and metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2021;157:250-258. DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2021.08.018. PMID:34536948.

Cowey CL, Robert NJ, Espirito JL, et al. Clinical outcomes among unresectable, locally advanced, and metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with systemic therapy. Cancer Med. 2020;9(20):7381-7387. DOI:10.1002/cam4.3146. PMID:32578965.

Salzmann M, Leiter U, Loquai C, et al. Programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: real-world data of a retrospective, multicenter study. Eur J Cancer. 2020;138:125-132. DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2020.07.029. PMID:32882466.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves cemiplimab-rwlc for metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. September 28, 2018.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves pembrolizumab for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. June 24, 2020.

Migden MR, Rischin D, Schmults CD, et al. PD-1 blockade with cemiplimab in advanced cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(4):341-351. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1805131. PMID:29863979.

Guillaume T, Puzenat E, Popescu D, et al. Cemiplimab-rwlc in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: real-world experience in a French dermatology department. Br J Dermatol. 2021;185(5):1056-1058. DOI:10.1111/bjd.20569. PMID:34107076.

Hughes BGM, Munoz-Couselo E, Mortier L, et al. Pembrolizumab for locally advanced and recurrent or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-629): an open-label, nonrandomized, multicenter, phase II trial. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(10):1276-1285. DOI:10.1016/j.annonc.2021.07.008. PMID:34496311.

Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228-247. DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026. PMID:19097774.

McLean LS, Lim AM, Bressel M, et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in Australia: a retrospective real world cohort study. Med J Aust. 2024;220(2):80-90. DOI:10.5694/mja2.52199. PMID:38048820.

Starace M, Alessandrini A, Baraldi C, et al. Erosive pustular dermatosis of the scalp: challenges and solutions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2019;12:691-698. DOI:10.2147/CCID.S223317. PMID:31819508.

Pires da Silva I, Lo S, Quek C, et al. Site-specific response patterns, pseudoprogression, and acquired resistance in patients with melanoma treated with ipilimumab combined with anti-PD-1 therapy. Cancer. 2020;126(1):86-97. DOI:10.1002/cncr.32522. PMID:31791665.

Oliveira LJC, Gongora ABL, Barbosa FG, et al. Atypical response with bone pseudoprogression in a patient receiving nivolumab for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6:130. DOI:10.1186/s40425-018-0444-5. PMID:30429750.

Chen ST, Semenov YR, Alloo A, et al. Defining D-irAEs: consensus-based disease definitions for the diagnosis of dermatologic adverse events from immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. J Immunother Cancer.2024;12(4):e007675. DOI:10.1136/jitc-2023-007675. PMID:37948588.

Downloads

Published

2026-01-30

How to Cite

1.
Tissera K, Suarez-Jew OS, Kheterpal M. Assessing Treatment Response to PD-1 Inhibitors in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Real-World Challenges. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2026;16(1):5752. doi:10.5826/dpc.1601a5752

Share