Skip to main content

Are Older Persons Being Over Treated for Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer?


One could argue that nonmelanoma skin cancer should not even be called Cancer.  While under the microscope it looks like cancer, it doesn't really act like what most people think of when they hear the word, "Cancer."  Unlike the much less common melanoma or cancers of other organs, plain old run of the mill skin "cancer" almost never metastasizes (ie, spread to different organs).  It usually grow very slowly, and is almost never fatal.  Often it is asymptomatic and has no impact on quality of life.  This condition just does not deserve the dread and fear associated with word, "Cancer."

Since nonmelanoma skin "cancer" usually poses no threat at all to survival, the reason to treat the "cancer" is to improve well being.    We can enhance well being by treating a "cancer" that is currently bothersome to the patient, or will become bothersome if it grows and expands.  But this is where it gets interesting.  Since many of these "cancers" grow very slowly, some will never become problematic in the patient's lifetime.  This is a very important consideration as skin "cancer" is predominantly a disease of older people.  Many persons with skin "cancer" are very old or very frail.  Patients with limited life expectancies may do fine with either minimal treatment, or perpaps even no treatment at all.  This suggests that the best treatment for a particular "cancer" needs to consider the age and health status of the patient. 

But, in actual practice, when a patientt has skin "cancer", does the treating provider consider the individual characteristics of the patient in front of them, or do they use a one size fits all approach, focusing on the "cancer", but not the person?

A fascinating study in JAMA Internal Medicine suggests we are overtreating skin "cancer" in patients who are very old or very frail because of a one size fits all approach to treatment.  The study was led by Dr. Eleni Linos, with senior author Dr. Mary-Margaret Chren, both Dermatologists at UCSF.  They examined treatment of patients with nonmelanoma skin "cancer" at UCSF and the San Francisco VA.  They did a very interesting comparison of how skin "cancer" treatment varied in patients with long vs limited life expectancies.  The limited life expectancy group included persons over the age of 85, or with many medical conditions. 

They found:

  • Patients are almost always treated.  The no treatment option was chosen for only 3% of skin "cancers".  Of note, 60% of "cancers" were not on the face, and in only 22% of cases were patients significantly bothered by their "cancer", suggesting that very conservative management of deferred treatment should have been reasonable in at least some patients.
  • Patient characteristics are not considered in the treatment decision.  There are a number of treatment options for patients ranging from very simple and less invasive options like destruction (i.e., freezing) to surgical options.  The most invasive option, Moh's surgery was used in 34% of patients.  Moh's surgery takes on average 3 hours and is also the most expensive option.  Patients with long life expectancies and short life expectancies were equally likely to get Moh's surgery.  Thus very advanced age or severe co-existing disease seemed to make not one iota of difference in treatment. 
This study suggests we need to revisit how we treat skin cancer, especially in the very old.  Perhaps we should at least inform patients that deferring treatment may be a viable option.  When treatment is deferred, patients have the option of getting treated later if they change their mind, or the skin cancer seems to be growing.  When the skin cancer is treated, patients need to have more of a say in their treatment options, and given the choice of less invasive and bothersome treatments with less risk of complications.


by: Ken Covinsky (@geri_doc)

Comments

Toni Kamins said…
Lumping all non-melanoma skin cancers into one group is as dangerous as it is erroneous. While basal cell carcinomas are usually slow growing and not life threatening, squamous cell carcinomas that originate in the skin can and do metastasize to other organs and can be deadly.
Dan Matlock said…
Cognitive psychologist and Nobel prize winner Dan Kahneman suggests that when someone asks a question that is too hard (like "are the benefits of treating skin cancer in frail older adults worht the risks and costs?") that we as humans substitute an easier question (like "is cancer bad?" or "do I like cancer?")

Toni Kamins, you have done exactly this with your comment. You have substituted a thoughtful cognitive question regarding the treatment of skin cancer with an emotionally laden question of "is cancer bad?"

This is one of the problems with the entire field of cancer prevention. Any time someone poses a thoughtful question about trade-offs, which is hard to think about, the backlash always relates to the easier question and turns into a thoughtless, emotionally laden journey into "cancer is bad."

Yes, cancer is bad...but that's not the question...

So annoying.
Stacy Fischer said…
I forwarded this post along to my dear friend and dermatologist extradinaire shared with me a wonderful story that really exemplifies the ethos of this geri-pal post. An very elderly patient came to see her for the first time. As he removed his ball cap she was stunned to see anenormous squamous cell lesion that covered most of the top of his head. His arms were simply emcrusted in cancer. Not even sure where to begin she said to him "What is bothering you today" His daughter was clearly troubled by the large lesion on his head. He pointed to a single 1 cm lesion on his arms that was itching. Then they had a thoughtful discussion about the risks and considerable burdens of treating the other skin cancers ("Cancer?! the patient exclaimed)and then decided to simply freeze the one arm lesion that was itching. he left her office smiling, slipping his ball cap back on his head.
Toni Kamins said…
Dan Matlock:

Clearly you misread my post and inferred according to your own agenda. So annoying.

Popular posts from this blog

The Future of Palliative Care: A Podcast with Diane Meier

There are few names more closely associated with palliative care than Diane Meier.  She is an international leader of palliative care, a MacArthur "genius" awardee, and amongst many other leadership roles, the CEO of the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC).  We were lucky enough to snag Diane for our podcast to talk about everything we always wanted to ask her, including:
What keeps her up at night?Does palliative care need a national strategy and if so why and what would it look like?The history of CAPC and the leadership centersAdvice that she has for graduating fellows who want to continue to move palliative care forward as they start their new careersWhat she imagines palliative care will look like in 10 or 15 years?What is the biggest threat facing palliative care? So take a listen and if you want to dive a little deeper, here are two articles that we discussed during the podcast:
A National Strategy For Palliative Care. Health Affairs 2017Palliative Care Leadership…

Advance Care Planning before Major Surgery: A Podcast with Vicky Tang

This week's podcast is all about the intersection of geriatrics, palliative care, advanced care planning and surgery with our guest Dr. Vicky Tang.  Vicky is an assistant professor and researcher here at UCSF.  We talk about her local and national efforts focused on this intersection, including:
Her JAMA Surgery article that showed 3 out of 4 older adults undergoing high risk surgery had no advance care planning (ACP) documentation. Prehab clinics and how ACP fits into these clinicsThe Geriatric Surgery Verification Quality Improvement Program whose goal is to set the standards for geriatric surgical care including ACP discussions prior to surgeryHow frailty fits in and how to assess it (including this paper from JAGS on the value of the chair raise test) So take a listen and check out some of those links.  For those who want to take a deeper dive into how GeriPal and surgery fit together, check out these other podcasts: Zara Cooper on Trauma Surgery, Geriatrics, and Palliative Car…

Psychedelics: Podcast with Ira Byock

In this week's podcast, we talk with Dr. Ira Byock, a leading palliative care physician, author, and public advocate for improving care through the end of life.

Ira Byock wrote a provocative and compelling paper in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management titled, "Taking Psychedelics Seriously."

In this podcast we challenge Ira Byock about the use of psychedelics for patients with serious and life-limiting illness.   Guest host Josh Biddle (UCSF Palliative care fellow) asks, "Should clinicians who prescribe psychedelics try them first to understand what their patient's are going through?" The answer is "yes" -- read or listen on for more!

While you're reading, I'll just go over and lick this toad.

-@AlexSmithMD





You can also find us on Youtube!



Listen to GeriPal Podcasts on:
iTunes Google Play MusicSoundcloudStitcher
Transcript
Eric: Welcome to the GeriPal Podcast. This is Eric Widera.

Alex: This is Alex Smith.

Eric: Alex, I spy someone in our …