Next Article in Journal
Computational Molecular Docking and Simulation-Based Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory Properties of Nyctanthes arbor-tristis Linn Phytochemicals
Previous Article in Journal
Nanoemulsion Improves the Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Intraperitoneal and Oral Administration of Carvacryl Acetate
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dual Role of Vitamin C-Encapsulated Liposomal Berberine in Effective Colon Anticancer Immunotherapy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pharmaceuticals
Volume 17
Issue 1
10.3390/ph17010014
pharmaceuticals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Risk of Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer in Patients with Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Treated with Targeted Therapies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Marta Krzysztofik
1,*,
Paweł Brzewski
1,2,
Przemysław Cuber
2,3,
Artur Kacprzyk
4,
Aleksandra Kulbat
3,
Karolina Richter
2,
Tomasz Wojewoda
2,3 and
Wojciech M. Wysocki
2,3,5
1
Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Stefan Zeromski Municipal Hospital, 31-913 Krakow, Poland
2
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University, 30-705 Krakow, Poland
3
Department of Oncological Surgery, 5th Military Clinical Hospital in Kraków, 30-901 Krakow, Poland
4
Doctoral School of Medical and Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-530 Krakow, Poland
5
National Institute of Oncology, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial, 02-781 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmaceuticals 2024, 17(1), 14; https://doi.org/10.3390/ph17010014
Submission received: 10 November 2023 / Revised: 17 December 2023 / Accepted: 18 December 2023 / Published: 21 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Combining Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapies in Cancer Treatment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Targeted therapies represent major advancements in the treatment of chronic skin conditions such as psoriasis. While previous studies have shown an increased risk of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) in patients receiving TNF-α inhibitors, the risks associated with newer biologics (IL-12/23 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors remain less known. Using a systematic and meta-analytical approach, we aimed to summarize the currently available literature concerning skin cancer risk in patients treated with targeted therapies. The MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to find studies reporting the incidence rates (IR) of melanoma and NMSC in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis treated with biologics or JAK inhibitors. Nineteen studies were included in the analysis with a total of 13,739 patients. The overall IR of melanoma was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.05–0.15) events per 100 PYs and the overall IR of NMSC was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.33–0.61) events per 100 PYs. The IRs of melanoma were comparable across patients treated with IL-17 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, and JAK inhibitors, while the IRs of NMSC were higher in patients treated with JAK inhibitors than in those treated with biologics. Prospective, long-term cohort studies are required to reliably assess the risks associated with novel targeted therapies.

1. Introduction

Psoriasis is a prevalent chronic inflammatory skin disorder, affecting between 0.5% and 11.4% of adults, as well as 0% to 1.4% of children globally [1]. Notably, its occurrence appears to be on the rise in the last decades. Around 20% of patients with psoriasis develop psoriatic arthritis during their life course [2]. Both patients with psoriatic arthritis and patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis have significantly impaired quality of life and often require long-term systemic treatment.
The risk of cancer in psoriatic patients has been a matter of debate for years. According to the latest meta-analysis, patients with psoriasis appear to have a slightly increased risk of developing cancer, particularly keratinocyte cancer, lymphomas, lung cancer, and bladder cancer [3]. Several factors have been attributed to the development of cancer in psoriatic patients. Firstly, well-known lifestyle factors, such as smoking and alcohol intake, which are common among individuals with psoriasis, could elevate their likelihood of developing cancer. Secondly, the relationship between the use of systemic treatment, such as phototherapy and immunosuppressive agents (methotrexate, cyclosporine A), has been reported, but the evidence is inconsistent [4,5,6].
One of the biggest breakthroughs in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis was the introduction of biologic agents (like TNF-α inhibitors, inhibitors of the IL-17 pathway, inhibitors of IL-23, and related cytokines) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Owing to their immunomodulatory mechanism of action, there is concern that these biologics may increase the risk for infections and malignancies. According to the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR), malignancy risk increased with long-term exposure to TNF-α inhibitors, but not with exposure to methotrexate or ustekinumab, anti-interleukin 12/23 antibody [6]. Skin malignancy is a matter of special concern in patients with psoriasis due to their association with sunlight exposure. To date, several studies sought to assess the risk of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) in patients treated with biologics and found that TNF-α inhibitors may increase this risk [7,8]. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the safety of newer biologic drugs (i.e., inhibitors of the IL-17 pathway, inhibitors of IL-23 and related cytokines, JAK inhibitors) in reference to skin cancer risk. Therefore, our aim was to assess what the risk of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer is in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis treated with novel targeted therapies.

2. Methods

This study was compliant with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Table S1) [9]. In accordance with The World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki 2013, the research was registered in PROSPERO database (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, accessed on 28 July 2023) and “CRD42023439910” was assigned as its registration number. Ethical approval and patient consent were not required for a systematic review using meta-analysis.

2.1. Search Strategy

A search strategy was designed to identify all relevant randomized clinical trials and observational studies investigating cutaneous malignancy risk in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis treated with biologics and JAK inhibitors. A wide search using the MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed until 26 July 2023. The detailed search strategy is presented in Table S2. No publication date or language filters were applied. The reference lists of the eligible studies and relevant reviews were also manually scrutinized to find additional records.

2.2. Eligibility Assessment

Studies were included if they: (a) were RCTs, open-label studies, long-term extension studies or observational studies; (b) included adult patients suffering from psoriasis or psoriasis arthritis treated with biologics (IL-17 inhibitors: secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, bimekizumab; IL-12/23 inhibitor: ustekinumab; IL-23 inhibitors: risankizumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab) or small molecules (JAK inhibitors: tofacitinib, upadacitinib, baricitinib); (c) reported IRs of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer presented as numbers of events per 100 PY or clearly reported number of skin cancer events with the total number of PY of exposure. We excluded narrative or systematic reviews and meta-analyses, book chapters, conference papers, and editorials. When multiple studies presented results from the same database or RCT, we only included the one with the most comprehensive data. Studies were excluded if they reported the total PY of follow-up instead of the total PY of exposure. Four independent reviewers (M.K., P.C., A.K., K.R.) selected the studies by screening the titles and abstracts found upon initial search. An eligibility assessment for the relevant full-text articles was performed by two independent authors (M.K. and A.K.). Each abstract and full-text article was assessed by at least two reviewers independently. In case of a lack of agreement between the reviewers, a consensus was reached by the whole review team.

2.3. Data Extraction and Risk of Bias Assessment

The following data were extracted from studies: title of article, name of the first author, year of publication, study design, database or clinical trial identifier, diagnosis, patient characteristics (sample size, age, sex), type(s) of biologic therapy, total PY of exposure, the use of concomitant therapy, outcomes of interest (IR of melanoma or non-melanoma skin cancer events per 100 PY). Both melanoma and melanoma in situ were considered ‘melanoma’ events, while basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma were considered ‘NMSC’ events.
The risk of bias assessment was carried out by two independent authors (M.K. and A.K.). Each full-text article was assessed by two reviewers. Any discrepancy in the extracted data and risk of bias assessment was resolved by discussion with other team members. We used the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for cohort studies [10] to assess the quality of the included nonrandomized articles, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool [11] for randomized controlled trials. The risk of bias assessment across studies is presented in Table S3.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

We evaluated skin cancer risk by calculating the IRs of skin neoplasm events per 100 PY. Analyses were stratified for specific skin cancer types, i.e., NMSCs and melanoma. Calculations were conducted using the metafor package in R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing) [12]. The results from individual studies were transformed using logarithmic or logit functions and analyzed through random effects meta-analysis using generalized linear mixed models with a Poisson distribution. The combined estimates were then converted back to their original scale. The Poisson model was previously shown to be flexible and has the advantage of avoiding zero-cell corrections [13]. Subgroup estimates were calculated individually for different drugs, groups of drugs, diseases, types of study, and follow-up duration. Heterogeneity between individual studies was quantified using Higgins I2 statistics [14]. Funnel plots were assessed for potential publication bias (Figure S1). If studies provided only summarized data without the ability to calculate specific numerical values, no synthesis of data was conducted. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding point estimates from the meta-analysis to confirm that the overall risk estimates were not significantly influenced by individual studies.

3. Results

The initial reference search yielded 2059 articles. Of these, 357 duplicates were removed and the remaining 1702 abstracts were screened. This produced 162 papers suitable for a full-text review. Reference screening of those studies did not provide additional records that met eligibility criteria. After full-text screening, 19 studies were subjected to extraction and quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). The PRISMA study flow-chart outlining the study inclusion process is illustrated in Figure 1 [9]. The risk of bias assessment is presented in Table S3. In general, studies had high quality, although some studies were rated as having some concerns due to the lack of information about whether the outcome assessors were masked to the treatments when adjudicating cancer events.

3.1. Characteristics of the Included Studies

The main characteristics of the included studies are reported in Table 1. We included 1 cohort study [15] and 18 randomized controlled trials (RCT) [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33] with a total of 13,739 patients. Twelve RCTs [17,18,21,22,24,25,26,28,30,31,32,33] included open-label or long-term extension periods. Eleven publications [15,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,27,28,30] reported skin malignancy risk in patients with psoriatic arthritis and 8 [16,17,25,26,29,31,32,33] in patients with psoriasis. Our analysis included one study focusing on IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab [15], eight studies focusing on IL-23 inhibitors (guselkumab [17,20], tildrakizumab [33], risankizumab [16,24,29,30,32]), seven studies focusing on IL-17 inhibitors (bimekizumab [21], ixekizumab [22,26,28], brodalumab [25], secukinumab [23,27]), and three studies focusing on JAK inhibitors (upadacitinib [19], tofacitinib [18,31]). The duration of follow-up for melanoma and NMSC occurrence ranged from 24 weeks to 5 years. Nine of the studies had a follow-up duration of ≤2.5 years and 10 of the studies >2.5 years.

3.2. Melanoma Risk

The incidence rates (IRs) of melanoma are presented in Figure 2. Melanoma risk was reported in 14 studies. The overall IR was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.05–0.15) events per 100 patient years (PYs). There was no heterogeneity between the studies (Tau2 = 0.0; I2 = 0.0%). Patients treated with IL-17 inhibitors had a pooled IR of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.02–0.18) melanoma events per 100 PYs, patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors had 0.10 (95% CI, 0.05–0.21) events per 100 PYs, and patients treated with JAK inhibitors had 0.09 (95% CI, 0.03–0.28) events per 100 PYs. The fact that all studies reporting malignancy risk in patients with psoriatic arthritis allowed for the concomitant use of other immunosuppressive drugs (i.e., methotrexate); hence, we conducted subgroup analysis according to the disease. The IRs of melanoma in this subgroup were 0.09 (95% CI, 0.04–0.19) events per 100 PYs and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.04–0.18) events per 100 PYs in patients with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis, respectively (Figure S2). The analysis of only those studies with a longer follow-up period (>2.5 years) is shown in Figure S3. Sensitivity analysis is presented in Table S4.

3.3. NMSC Risk

The IRs of NMSC are presented in Figure 3. The NMSC risk was presented in 19 studies. The overall estimate of the IR was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.33–0.61) events per 100 PYs. The heterogeneity between the studies was moderate (Tau2 = 0.2; I2 = 55.7%). In a subgroup analysis, patients treated with IL-17 inhibitors had a pooled IR of 0.19 (95% CI, 0.05–0.68) NMSC events per 100 PYs, patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors had 0.49 (95% CI, 0.34–0.71) events per 100 PYs, and patients treated with JAK inhibitors had 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52–0.95) events per 100 PYs. The IRs of NMSC were 0.47 (95% CI, 0.28–0.81) events per 100 PYs in patients with psoriatic arthritis and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.32–0.55) events per 100 PYs in patients with psoriasis (Figure S2). The analyses of studies with a longer follow-up period (>2.5 years) and of randomized controlled trials only are shown in Figure S3 and Figure S4, respectively. Sensitivity analysis is presented in Table S4.

4. Discussion

Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze the risk of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis treated with targeted therapies. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first analysis to summarize the risk of skin malignancy in patients undergoing treatment with IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors. Up until now, the majority of research concentrated on TNF-α inhibitors and, to a lesser extent, ustekinumab and JAK inhibitors. In a comparable research primarily involving patients treated with TNF-α inhibitors, the IRs of melanoma and NMSC were 6.1 and 124.5 per 10,000 PY, respectively [34]. The melanoma risk was similar to that in our study (0.06 vs. 0.08 per 100 PY), though the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer was somewhat higher (1.25 vs. 0.45 per 100 PY). Unlike our study, the mentioned meta-analysis did not conduct subgroup analyses based on specific drug groups or diseases. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2018, the IR of melanoma in general population was 0.02 per 100 persons [35]. Additionally, the age-standardized incidence rate of NMSC was reported at 0.08 per 100 in 2019 [36]. To date, two meta-analyses have assessed the risk of melanoma and NMSC in patients treated with biologics compared to those who had not received biologic therapy. The results indicate that there is a clinically important increase in skin malignancy risk; however, these findings predominantly pertain to patients treated with TNF-α inhibitors [7,8].
There seems to be a fairly evident link between psoriasis and skin cancers, which may be attributed to the usage of systemic therapies and environmental factors. Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and immunosuppression are key factors playing a role in the development of melanoma and NMSC. Given that melanoma is regarded as one of the most aggressive types of cancer, it should be particularly taken into consideration when determining treatment strategy. The etiology and pathogenesis of melanoma involve complex interactions between genetic factors and environmental exposures, such as UVR from natural or artificial sources. UVR induces carcinogenesis in two independent pathogenetic pathways: a melanin-independent pathway related to direct UVB-induced DNA damage and a UVA-initiated, pigment-dependent pathway associated with indirect oxidative damage to the DNA in melanocytes [37]. Melanogenesis, along with its highly reactive intermediates, shows cytotoxic, genotoxic, and mutagenic properties, which can contribute to melanoma progression. On the other hand, there is some evidence that the presence of melanin can inhibit the formation of melanoma metastases. Both of the above-mentioned phenomena are referred to as the Yin and Yang effects [38,39]. It is thought that immunosuppression can induce melanocyte-stimulating hormone or melanoma growth-stimulatory activity, which, along with genetic factors, can accelerate the progression of melanoma and is a matter of concern in the context of immunosuppressive therapy [40].
The recent introduction of systemic biologic drugs (TNF-α inhibitors, the anti-IL12/23 ustekinumab, the IL-17/IL-17 receptor antagonists, and the anti-IL-23 agents) alongside chemically synthesized medications (JAK inhibitors) has revolutionized the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, offering more targeted therapeutic options. Given their immunosuppressive nature, it is crucial to continually update our knowledge regarding the safety of their use. Biologic agents, which function by targeting the IL-23/IL-17/Th17 axis, are characterized by very high efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Ustekinumab, an anti-IL-12p40 monoclonal antibody, was one of the first extensively utilized antibody-targeting IL-12/23s. The IL-12p40 subunit is a component of both IL-12 and IL-23 [41]. This fact has led researchers to innovate and create further drugs that interact with IL-23 and IL-17. Biologic agents targeting IL-17 and IL-23 are typically well-tolerated and safe, although there is a higher incidence of adverse events when compared to the placebo. According to Loft et al. [42], patients receiving IL-23 inhibitors have a lower incidence of any adverse events compared to those treated with IL-17 inhibitors. This difference could potentially be explained by an increased rate of infections within the latter group. The risk of malignancy was low in both groups [42]. In our research, individuals treated with IL-17 inhibitors had a lower IR of either melanoma or NMSC than those on IL-23 inhibitors (0.06 vs. 0.10 per 100 PYs and 0.19 vs. 0.49 per 100 PYs, respectively).
JAK inhibitors target Janus kinases, intracellular non-receptor tyrosine kinases that play a crucial role in translating extracellular signals into various cellular responses. They constitute a widely used group of medications in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis and polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Due to the potentially increased risk of cardiovascular side effects and cancer, several meta-analyses have been conducted to investigate the risks associated with its use [43,44,45]. Notably, patients treated with JAK inhibitors were found to have an increased risk of cancer compared to those receiving TNF-α inhibitors [43,44]. In our study, patients who received JAK inhibitors had similar Irs of melanoma to those treated with biologics, yet they demonstrated a greater risk of NMSC.
It is crucial to take into account some limitations when interpreting the results of this meta-analysis. The number of included studies is relatively small, partly due to the established inclusion criteria requiring the expression of IR as events per 100 PY. Another limit identified in our meta-analysis is the follow-up time. Skin malignancies have a long development and growth time; thus, the follow-up duration in the included studies might have been insufficient and resulted in an underestimation of the associated risks. However, this limitation is unrelated to the study concept itself and results directly for available studies. Due to a very limited number of studies comparing the risk of skin cancer among different targeted drugs over a longer time, we were unable to perform a comparative analysis of safety for particular drugs. Moreover, we were unable to compare the safety of the analyzed drugs with a healthy population or with biologicnaïvee patients, as was done by Esse et al. [7] or Liu et al. [8]. Another significant weakness of the analysis was the absence of adjustment for established risk factors for NMSC and melanoma, such as exposure to UVR or the prior usage of immunosuppressive treatment. Unfortunately, these parameters were infrequently given in the original studies and—at least exposure to UV/sun—are difficult to objectively measure. Moreover, RCTs including patients with psoriatic arthritis allowed for the concomitant use of targeted drugs and methotrexate, which could have influenced the risk of skin cancers.
The major strength of this study Is the inclusion of a high-quality cohort study and RCTs, offering the most current and reliable evidence based on four large biomedical databases. Furthermore, we used a well-defined protocol with explicit criteria for inclusion and exclusion. All included studies scored relatively high on the Cochrane risk of bias tool or the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies. Previous studies have predominantly focused on the risk of melanoma and NMSC in patients treated with TNF-α inhibitors. Here, we reported the best available evidence on the safety of newer biologics and JAK inhibitors.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we present a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of skin cancer risk associated with novel biologic therapies. Overall, the risk of melanoma and NMSC is higher in patients treated with biologics for psoriasis as opposed to the general population. The IRs of melanoma seem to be comparable across patients treated with newer drugs (IL-17 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, JAK inhibitors), and they similarly correspond to the previously published findings concerning patients receiving TNF-α inhibitors. The risk of NMSC is the lowest in the subgroup of patients treated with IL-17 inhibitors and ustekinumab and the highest in patients treated with JAK inhibitors. Prospective, long-term cohort studies using an active or placebo comparator are required to reliably assess the risks associated with novel targeted therapies. Furthermore, an assessment of the safety of targeted therapies in populations at increased risk of skin cancer is recommended, along with the establishment of guidelines for their use and monitoring in these specific populations.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ph17010014/s1, Figure S1: Funnel plot for the inspection of publication bias according to the disease. Figure S2: Forest plot of the estimated melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer incidence per 100 patient years with 95% confidence intervals according to the disease. Figure S3: Forest plot of the estimated melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer incidence per 100 patient years with 95% confidence intervals: subgroup analysis of studies with a follow-up period longer than 2.5 years. Figure S4: Forest plot of the estimated non-melanoma skin cancer incidence per 100 patient years with 95% confidence intervals: subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials only. Table S1: PRISMA 2020 Checklist. Table S2: Search strategy. Table S3: Summary of the risk of bias assessment. Table S4: Leave-one-out summary.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and Study Design: W.M.W. and M.K.; Data Collection: M.K., P.C., A.K. (Artur Kacprzyk), A.K. (Aleksandra Kulbat) and K.R.; Statistical Analysis: A.K. (Artur Kacprzyk), M.K. and W.M.W.; Data Interpretation: W.M.W., M.K., A.K. (Artur Kacprzyk), T.W. and P.B.; Manuscript Preparation: W.M.W., M.K., A.K. (Artur Kacprzyk), T.W. and P.B.; Literature Search: M.K., P.C., A.K. (Artur Kacprzyk), A.K. (Aleksandra Kulbat) and K.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Research grant (WSUB/2023/07/00009) funded by Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University, Gustawa Herlinga-Grudzińskiego 1, 30-705 Kraków.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

P.B. has received honoraria and/or consultation fees from AbbVie, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, Samsung, Janssen, and Novartis.

References

  1. Michalek, I.M.; Loring, B.; John, S.M. A Systematic Review of Worldwide Epidemiology of Psoriasis. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2017, 31, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Alinaghi, F.; Calov, M.; Kristensen, L.E.; Gladman, D.D.; Coates, L.C.; Jullien, D.; Gottlieb, A.B.; Gisondi, P.; Wu, J.J.; Thyssen, J.P.; et al. Prevalence of Psoriatic Arthritis in Patients with Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational and Clinical Studies. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2019, 80, 251–265.e19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Vaengebjerg, S.; Skov, L.; Egeberg, A.; Loft, N.D. Prevalence, Incidence, and Risk of Cancer in Patients with Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. JAMA Dermatol. 2020, 156, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Stern, R.S. The Risk of Melanoma in Association with Long-Term Exposure to PUVA. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2001, 44, 755–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Polesie, S.; Gillstedt, M.; Sönnergren, H.H.; Osmancevic, A.; Paoli, J. Methotrexate Treatment and Risk for Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma: A Retrospective Comparative Registry-Based Cohort Study. Br. J. Dermatol. 2017, 176, 1492–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Fiorentino, D.; Ho, V.; Lebwohl, M.G.; Leite, L.; Hopkins, L.; Galindo, C.; Goyal, K.; Langholff, W.; Fakharzadeh, S.; Srivastava, B.; et al. Risk of Malignancy with Systemic Psoriasis Treatment in the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment Registry. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2017, 77, 845–854.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Esse, S.; Mason, K.J.; Green, A.C.; Warren, R.B. Melanoma Risk in Patients Treated With Biologic Therapy for Common Inflammatory Diseases. JAMA Dermatol. 2020, 156, 787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Liu, R.; Wan, Q.; Zhao, R.; Xiao, H.; Cen, Y.; Xu, X. Risk of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer with Biological Therapy in Common Inflammatory Diseases: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancer Cell Int. 2021, 21, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wells, G.; Shea, B.; O’Connell, D.; Peterson, J.; Welch, V.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses; Ottawa Hospital: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  11. Sterne, J.A.C.; Savović, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.-Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A Revised Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials. BMJ 2019, 366, l4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Viechtbauer, W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the Metafor Package. J. Stat. Softw. 2010, 36, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Spittal, M.J.; Pirkis, J.; Gurrin, L.C. Meta-Analysis of Incidence Rate Data in the Presence of Zero Events. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2015, 15, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thompson, S.G. Quantifying Heterogeneity in a Meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 2002, 21, 1539–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Gossec, L.; Theander, E.; Chakravarty, S.D.; Bergmans, P.; Lavie, F.; Noël, W.; Sharaf, M.; Siebert, S.; Smolen, J.S. Response to Treatment in Psoriatic Arthritis, the Effect of Age: Analysis of Patients Receiving Ustekinumab in the PsABio Real-World Study. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2023, 25, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Blauvelt, A.; Leonardi, C.L.; Gooderham, M.; Papp, K.A.; Philipp, S.; Wu, J.J.; Igarashi, A.; Flack, M.; Geng, Z.; Wu, T.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Continuous Risankizumab Therapy vs Treatment Withdrawal in Patients with Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis. JAMA Dermatol. 2020, 156, 649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Blauvelt, A.; Lebwohl, M.; Langley, R.G.; Rowland, K.; Yang, Y.-W.; Chan, D.; Miller, M.; You, Y.; Yu, J.; Thaҫi, D.; et al. Malignancy Rates through 5 Years of Follow-up in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis Treated with Guselkumab: Pooled Results from the VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2 Trials. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2023, 89, 274–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Burmester, G.R.; Curtis, J.R.; Yun, H.; FitzGerald, O.; Winthrop, K.L.; Azevedo, V.F.; Rigby, W.F.C.; Kanik, K.S.; Wang, C.; Biswas, P.; et al. An Integrated Analysis of the Safety of Tofacitinib in Psoriatic Arthritis across Phase III and Long-Term Extension Studies with Comparison to Real-World Observational Data. Drug. Saf. 2020, 43, 379–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Burmester, G.R.; Winthrop, K.; Blanco, R.; Nash, P.; Goupille, P.; Azevedo, V.F.; Salvarani, C.; Rubbert-Roth, A.; Lesser, E.; Lippe, R.; et al. Safety Profile of Upadacitinib up to 3 Years in Psoriatic Arthritis: An Integrated Analysis of Two Pivotal Phase 3 Trials. Rheumatol. Ther. 2022, 9, 521–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Coates, L.C.; Gossec, L.; Theander, E.; Bergmans, P.; Neuhold, M.; Karyekar, C.S.; Shawi, M.; Noël, W.; Schett, G.; McInnes, I.B. Efficacy and Safety of Guselkumab in Patients with Active Psoriatic Arthritis Who Are Inadequate Responders to Tumour Necrosis Factor Inhibitors: Results through One Year of a Phase IIIb, Randomised, Controlled Study (COSMOS). Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2022, 81, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Coates, L.C.; McInnes, I.B.; Merola, J.F.; Warren, R.B.; Kavanaugh, A.; Gottlieb, A.B.; Gossec, L.; Assudani, D.; Bajracharya, R.; Coarse, J.; et al. Safety and Efficacy of Bimekizumab in Patients with Active Psoriatic Arthritis: Three-Year Results from a Phase IIb Randomized Controlled Trial and Its Open-Label Extension Study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022, 74, 1959–1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Combe, B.; Rahman, P.; Kameda, H.; Cañete, J.D.; Gallo, G.; Agada, N.; Xu, W.; Genovese, M.C. Safety Results of Ixekizumab with 1822.2 Patient-Years of Exposure: An Integrated Analysis of 3 Clinical Trials in Adult Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2020, 22, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kivitz, A.J.; Nash, P.; Tahir, H.; Everding, A.; Mann, H.; Kaszuba, A.; Pellet, P.; Widmer, A.; Pricop, L.; Abrams, K. Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Secukinumab 150 Mg with or Without Loading Regimen in Psoriatic Arthritis: Results from the FUTURE 4 Study. Rheumatol. Ther. 2019, 6, 393–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kristensen, L.E.; Keiserman, M.; Papp, K.; McCasland, L.; White, D.; Lu, W.; Soliman, A.M.; Eldred, A.; Barcomb, L.; Behrens, F. Efficacy and Safety of Risankizumab for Active Psoriatic Arthritis: 52-Week Results from the KEEPsAKE 1 Study. Rheumatology 2023, 62, 2113–2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Lebwohl, M.G.; Blauvelt, A.; Menter, A.; Papp, K.A.; Guenthner, S.; Pillai, R.; Israel, R.J.; Jacobson, A. Efficacy, Safety, and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis Treated with Brodalumab for 5 Years in a Long-Term, Open-Label, Phase II Study. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2019, 20, 863–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Leonardi, C.; Reich, K.; Foley, P.; Torii, H.; Gerdes, S.; Guenther, L.; Gooderham, M.; Ferris, L.K.; Griffiths, C.E.M.; ElMaraghy, H.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Ixekizumab Through 5 Years in Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Long-Term Results from the UNCOVER-1 and UNCOVER-2 Phase-3 Randomized Controlled Trials. Dermatol. Ther. 2020, 10, 431–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. McInnes, I.B.; Mease, P.J.; Ritchlin, C.T.; Rahman, P.; Gottlieb, A.B.; Kirkham, B.; Kajekar, R.; Delicha, E.-M.; Pricop, L.; Mpofu, S. Secukinumab Sustains Improvement in Signs and Symptoms of Psoriatic Arthritis: 2 Year Results from the Phase 3 FUTURE 2 Study. Rheumatology 2017, 56, 1993–2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Mease, P.J.; Smolen, J.S.; Behrens, F.; Nash, P.; Liu Leage, S.; Li, L.; Tahir, H.; Gooderham, M.; Krishnan, E.; Liu-Seifert, H.; et al. A Head-to-Head Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Ixekizumab and Adalimumab in Biological-Naïve Patients with Active Psoriatic Arthritis: 24-Week Results of a Randomised, Open-Label, Blinded-Assessor Trial. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2020, 79, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Odnopozova, L.; Edin, A.; Sukharev, A.; Wu, T.; Aydin, K.; Kelly, M.; Khotko, A. Risankizumab for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis in the Russian Federation. Dermatol. Ther. 2022, 12, 2063–2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Östör, A.; Van den Bosch, F.; Papp, K.; Asnal, C.; Blanco, R.; Aelion, J.; Lu, W.; Wang, Z.; Soliman, A.M.; Eldred, A.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Risankizumab for Active Psoriatic Arthritis: 52-Week Results from the KEEPsAKE 2 Study. Rheumatology 2023, 62, 2122–2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Papp, K.A.; Krueger, J.G.; Feldman, S.R.; Langley, R.G.; Thaci, D.; Torii, H.; Tyring, S.; Wolk, R.; Gardner, A.; Mebus, C.; et al. Tofacitinib, an Oral Janus Kinase Inhibitor, for the Treatment of Chronic Plaque Psoriasis: Long-Term Efficacy and Safety Results from 2 Randomized Phase-III Studies and 1 Open-Label Long-Term Extension Study. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2016, 74, 841–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Papp, K.A.; Lebwohl, M.G.; Puig, L.; Ohtsuki, M.; Beissert, S.; Zeng, J.; Rubant, S.; Sinvhal, R.; Zhao, Y.; Soliman, A.M.; et al. Long-term Efficacy and Safety of Risankizumab for the Treatment of Moderate-to-severe Plaque Psoriasis: Interim Analysis of the LIMMitless Open-label Extension Trial beyond 3 Years of Follow-up. Br. J. Dermatol. 2021, 185, 1135–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Thaci, D.; Piaserico, S.; Warren, R.B.; Gupta, A.K.; Cantrell, W.; Draelos, Z.; Foley, P.; Igarashi, A.; Langley, R.G.; Asahina, A.; et al. Five-year Efficacy and Safety of Tildrakizumab in Patients with Moderate-to-severe Psoriasis Who Respond at Week 28: Pooled Analyses of Two Randomized Phase III Clinical Trials (ReSURFACE 1 and ReSURFACE 2). Br. J. Dermatol. 2021, 185, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Crisafulli, S.; Bertino, L.; Fontana, A.; Calapai, F.; Ingrasciotta, Y.; Berretta, M.; Trifirò, G.; Guarneri, C. Incidence of Skin Cancer in Patients with Chronic Inflammatory Cutaneous Diseases on Targeted Therapies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 687432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. United States Cancer Statistics: Incidence of Malignant Melanoma of the Skin—United States, 2009–2018. In USCS Data Brief, No. 28; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hu, W.; Fang, L.; Ni, R.; Zhang, H.; Pan, G. Changing Trends in the Disease Burden of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer Globally from 1990 to 2019 and Its Predicted Level in 25 Years. BMC Cancer 2022, 22, 836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Noonan, F.P.; Zaidi, M.R.; Wolnicka-Glubisz, A.; Anver, M.R.; Bahn, J.; Wielgus, A.; Cadet, J.; Douki, T.; Mouret, S.; Tucker, M.A.; et al. Melanoma Induction by Ultraviolet A but Not Ultraviolet B Radiation Requires Melanin Pigment. Nat. Commun. 2012, 3, 884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Slominski, R.M.; Sarna, T.; Płonka, P.M.; Raman, C.; Brożyna, A.A.; Slominski, A.T. Melanoma, Melanin, and Melanogenesis: The Yin and Yang Relationship. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 842496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Slominski, A.T.; Slominski, R.M.; Raman, C.; Chen, J.Y.; Athar, M.; Elmets, C. Neuroendocrine Signaling in the Skin with a Special Focus on the Epidermal Neuropeptides. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2022, 323, C1757–C1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zattra, E.; Fortina, A.B.; Bordignon, M.; Piaserico, S.; Alaibac, M. Immunosuppression and Melanocyte Proliferation. Melanoma Res. 2009, 19, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Weaver, C.T.; Elson, C.O.; Fouser, L.A.; Kolls, J.K. The Th17 Pathway and Inflammatory Diseases of the Intestines, Lungs, and Skin. Annu. Rev. Pathol. Mech. Dis. 2013, 8, 477–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Loft, N.D.; Vaengebjerg, S.; Halling, A.-S.; Skov, L.; Egeberg, A. Adverse Events with IL-17 and IL-23 Inhibitors for Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Phase III Studies. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2020, 34, 1151–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bezzio, C.; Vernero, M.; Ribaldone, D.G.; Alimenti, E.; Manes, G.; Saibeni, S. Cancer Risk in Patients Treated with the JAK Inhibitor Tofacitinib: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2023, 15, 2197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Russell, M.D.; Stovin, C.; Alveyn, E.; Adeyemi, O.; Chan, C.K.D.; Patel, V.; Adas, M.A.; Atzeni, F.; Ng, K.K.H.; Rutherford, A.I.; et al. JAK Inhibitors and the Risk of Malignancy: A Meta-Analysis across Disease Indications. Annu. Rheum. Dis. 2023, 82, 1059–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Olivera, P.A.; Lasa, J.S.; Bonovas, S.; Danese, S.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L. Safety of Janus Kinase Inhibitors in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases or Other Immune-Mediated Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology 2020, 158, 1554–1573.e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pharmaceuticals 17 00014 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart outlining the study inclusion process.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart outlining the study inclusion process.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00014 g001
Pharmaceuticals 17 00014 g002
Figure 2. Forest plot of the estimated melanoma incidence per 100 patient years with 95% confidence intervals according to the specific treatment [16,18,19,20,21,22,23,25,26,27,28,29,30,33]. The boxes represent the point estimates, with horizontal lines indicating 95% confidence intervals. Diamonds represent pooled estimates with tips of the diamonds indicating 95% confidence intervals. JAK, Janus kinase; RE, random effects model.
Figure 2. Forest plot of the estimated melanoma incidence per 100 patient years with 95% confidence intervals according to the specific treatment [16,18,19,20,21,22,23,25,26,27,28,29,30,33]. The boxes represent the point estimates, with horizontal lines indicating 95% confidence intervals. Diamonds represent pooled estimates with tips of the diamonds indicating 95% confidence intervals. JAK, Janus kinase; RE, random effects model.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00014 g002
Pharmaceuticals 17 00014 g003
Figure 3. Forest plot of the estimated non-melanoma skin cancer incidence per 100 patient years with 95% confidence intervals according to the specific treatment [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Boxes indicate point estimates, with horizontal lines indicating 95% confidence intervals. Diamonds indicate pooled estimates with tips of the diamonds indicating 95% confidence intervals. JAK, Janus kinase; RE, random effects model.
Figure 3. Forest plot of the estimated non-melanoma skin cancer incidence per 100 patient years with 95% confidence intervals according to the specific treatment [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Boxes indicate point estimates, with horizontal lines indicating 95% confidence intervals. Diamonds indicate pooled estimates with tips of the diamonds indicating 95% confidence intervals. JAK, Janus kinase; RE, random effects model.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00014 g003
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
SourceIdentifierStudy DesignDiseaseStudy DrugDrug DoseNo. of ParticipantsTotal Patient Years of ExposureAge, Mean (SD)Male, n (%)Melanoma Incidence Rates per 100 Patient YearsNMSC Incidence Rates per 100 Patient Years
Observational studies
Gossec, 2023 [15]PsaBIO study (NCT02627768)Multinational, prospective, real-world, observational studyPSAUstekinumab (IL-12/23 inhibitor)45 mg/90 mg494991.3NANANA0.1
Randomized clinical trials
Blauvelt, 2020 [16]IMMhance (NCT02672852)Phase 3, multinational, double-blind placebo-controlled trialPSORisankizumab (IL-23 inhibitor)150 mg500690.1NANA0.140.72
Blauvelt, 2023 [17]VOYAGE 1 (NCT02207231), VOYAGE 2 (NCT02207244)Randomized, double-blind, phase 3 studies with OLEPSOGuselkumab
(IL-23 inhibitor)		100 mg1221>5200NANANA0.31 (0.17–0.5)
Burmester, 2020 [18]OPAL Broaden (NCT01877668), OPAL Beyond (NCT01882439), OPAL Balance (NCT01976364)Double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies with LTEPSATofacitinib
(JAK inhibitor)		5 mg/10 mg78378948.7 (12.0)355 (45)00.5 (0.1–1.3)
Burmester, 2022a [19]SELECT-PsA 1 (NCT03104400),
SELECT-PsA 2 (NCT03104374)		Randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trialsPSAUpadacitinib (JAK inhibitor)15 mg9071247.251.5 (12.1)429 (47)0.160.8 (0.4–1.5)
Burmester, 2022b [19]30 mg9211257.451.4 (12.3)417 (45)0.080.8 (0.4–1.5)
Coates,
2021 [20]		COSMOS (NCT03796858)Phase IIIb, randomized, double-blind studyPSAGuselkumab
(IL-23 inhibitor)		100 mg279255.4NANA00
Coates,
2022 [21]		BE ACTIVE (NCT02969525)Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with OLEPSABimekizumab (IL-17 inhibitor)160 mg/320 mg206570.149.3 (12.4)105 (51)0.20
Combe, 2020 [22]SPIRIT-P1 (NCT01695239), SPIRIT-P2 (NCT02349295), SPIRIT-P3 (NCT02584855)Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies with LTE; phase 3 study with an open-label period followed by a randomized double-blind withdrawal periodPSAIxekizumab
(IL-17 inhibitor)		160 mg → 80 mg11181822.249.5 (11.9)517 (46.2)0.050.4 (0.1–3.0)
Kivitz,
2019 [23]		FUTURE 4 (NCT02294227)Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Multicenter StudyPSASecukinumab
(IL-17 inhibitor)		150 mg334458.4NANA0.220.22
Kristensen, 2023 [24]KEEPsAKE 1 (NCT03675308)Phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with OLEPSARisankizumab (IL-23 inhibitor)150 mg946958.1NANANA0.6
Lebwohl, 2019 [25]NCT00975637,
NCT01101100		Phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging clinical trial with OLEPSOBrodalumab
(IL-17 inhibitor)		210 mg181731.742.7 (12.2)117 (65)00
Leonardi, 2020 [26]UNCOVER-1 (NCT01474512), UNCOVER-2 (NCT01597245)Multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase-3 clinical trials with LTEPSOIxekizumab
(IL-17 inhibitor)		160 mg → 80 mg206604.3Median (range)
43.0 (18–77)		140 (68)00.17
McInnes, 2017 [27]FUTURE 2 (NCT01752634)Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled studyPSASecukinumab
(IL-17 inhibitor)		75 mg/150 mg/300 mg387751.3NANA01.06
Mease,
2020 [28]		SPIRIT-H2H (NCT03151551)Phase IIIb/IV, multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-assessor, parallel-group studyPSAIxekizumab
(IL-17 inhibitor)		160 mg→80 mg283183.547.5 (12.0)162 (57)00
Odnopozova, 2022 [29]IMMPress (NCT03518047)Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studyPSORisankizumab (IL-23 inhibitor)150 mg5053.344.6 (12.9)27 (54)00
Östor,
2023 [30]		KEEPsAKE 2 (NCT03671148)Double-blind, placebo-controlled study with OLEPSARisankizumab (IL-23 inhibitor)150 mg419509.7NANA0.21.76
Papp,
2016 [31]		OPT Pivotal 1 (NCT01276639), OPT Pivotal 2 (NCT01309737), NCT01163253Phase III, multisite, randomized, double-blind clinical studies with LTEPSOTofacitinib
(JAK inhibitor)		5 mg/10 mg18072704.8NANANA0.71 (0.43–1.1)
Papp,
2021 [32]		LIMMitless (NCT03047395)Phase III OLE studyPSORisankizumab (IL-23 inhibitor)150 mg8973106.246.9 (22.4)633 (71)NA0
Thaci,
2021a [33]		reSURFACE 1 (NCT01722331),
reSURFACE 2 (NCT01729754)		Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase III trials with LTEPSOTildrakizumab (IL-23 inhibitor)100 mg8722688.4NANA0.1 (0.0–0.3)0.4 (0.2–0.8)
Thaci,
2021b [33]		200 mg9282753.5NANA0.1 (0.0–0.3)0.4 (0.2–0.7)
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; NMSC, non-melanoma skin cancer; PSA, psoriatic arthritis; PSO, psoriasis; NA, not available; OLE, open-label extension; LTE, long-term extension; JAK, Janus kinase.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Krzysztofik, M.; Brzewski, P.; Cuber, P.; Kacprzyk, A.; Kulbat, A.; Richter, K.; Wojewoda, T.; Wysocki, W.M. Risk of Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer in Patients with Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Treated with Targeted Therapies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pharmaceuticals 2024, 17, 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph17010014

AMA Style

Krzysztofik M, Brzewski P, Cuber P, Kacprzyk A, Kulbat A, Richter K, Wojewoda T, Wysocki WM. Risk of Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer in Patients with Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Treated with Targeted Therapies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pharmaceuticals. 2024; 17(1):14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph17010014

Chicago/Turabian Style

Krzysztofik, Marta, Paweł Brzewski, Przemysław Cuber, Artur Kacprzyk, Aleksandra Kulbat, Karolina Richter, Tomasz Wojewoda, and Wojciech M. Wysocki. 2024. "Risk of Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer in Patients with Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Treated with Targeted Therapies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Pharmaceuticals 17, no. 1: 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph17010014

APA Style

Krzysztofik, M., Brzewski, P., Cuber, P., Kacprzyk, A., Kulbat, A., Richter, K., Wojewoda, T., & Wysocki, W. M. (2024). Risk of Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer in Patients with Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Treated with Targeted Therapies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pharmaceuticals, 17(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph17010014

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop