Philippe Saiag

Bio: Philippe Saiag is an academic researcher from Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Melanoma & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 47, co-authored 232 publications receiving 9406 citations. Previous affiliations of Philippe Saiag include University of Paris & Université Paris-Saclay.

European S3-guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris

Abstract: Of the 131 studies on monotherapy or combination therapy assessed, 56 studies on the different forms of phototherapy fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the guidelines. Approximately three-quarters of all patients treated with phototherapy attained at least a PASI 75 response after 4 to 6 weeks, and clearance was frequently achieved (levels of evidence 2 and 3). Phototherapy represents a safe and very effective treatment option for moderate to severe forms of psoriasis vulgaris. The onset of clinical effects occurs within 2 weeks. Of the unwanted side effects, UV erythema from overexposure is by far the most common and is observed frequently. With repeated or long-term use, the consequences of high, cumulative UV doses (such as premature aging of the skin) must be taken into consideration. In addition, carcinogenic risk is associated with oral PUVA and is probable for local PUVA and UVB. The practicability of the therapy is limited by spatial, financial, human, and time constraints on the part of the physician, as well as by the amount of time required by the patient. From the perspective of the cost-bearing institution, phototherapy has a good cost-benefit ratio. However, the potentially significant costs for, and time required of, the patient must be considered.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma brain metastases (COMBI-MB): a multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Dabrafenib plus trametinib improves clinical outcomes in BRAF V600 -mutant metastatic melanoma without brain metastases; however, the activity of dabrafenib plus trametinib has not been studied in active melanoma brain metastases Here, we report results from the phase 2 COMBI-MB trial Our aim was to build on the current body of evidence of targeted therapy in melanoma brain metastases through an evaluation of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma brain metastases Methods This ongoing, multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 study evaluated oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice per day) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once per day) in four patient cohorts with melanoma brain metastases enrolled from 32 hospitals and institutions in Europe, North America, and Australia: (A) BRAF V600E -positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with no previous local brain therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; (B) BRAF V600E -positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; (C) BRAF V600D/K/R -positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with or without previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; and (D) BRAF V600D/E/K/R -positive, symptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with or without previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0, 1, or 2 The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed intracranial response in cohort A in the all-treated-patients population Secondary endpoints included intracranial response in cohorts B, C, and D This study is registered with ClinicalTrialsgov, number NCT02039947 Findings Between Feb 28, 2014, and Aug 5, 2016, 125 patients were enrolled in the study: 76 patients in cohort A; 16 patients in cohort B; 16 patients in cohort C; and 17 patients in cohort D At the data cutoff (Nov 28, 2016) after a median follow-up of 8·5 months (IQR 5·5–14·0), 44 (58%; 95% CI 46–69) of 76 patients in cohort A achieved an intracranial response Intracranial response by investigator assessment was also achieved in nine (56%; 95% CI 30–80) of 16 patients in cohort B, seven (44%; 20–70) of 16 patients in cohort C, and ten (59%; 33–82) of 17 patients in cohort D The most common serious adverse events related to study treatment were pyrexia for dabrafenib (eight [6%] of 125 patients) and decreased ejection fraction (five [4%]) for trametinib The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events, regardless of study drug relationship, were pyrexia (four [3%] of 125) and headache (three [2%]) Interpretation Dabrafenib plus trametinib was active with a manageable safety profile in this melanoma population that was consistent with previous dabrafenib plus trametinib studies in patients with BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma without brain metastases, but the median duration of response was relatively short These results provide evidence of clinical benefit with dabrafenib plus trametinib and support the need for additional research to further improve outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases Funding Novartis

Is dermoscopy (epiluminescence microscopy) useful for the diagnosis of melanoma? Results of a meta-analysis using techniques adapted to the evaluation of diagnostic tests.

Abstract: Objective To assess, by means of meta-analysis techniques for diagnostic tests, the accuracy of dermoscopic (also known as dermatoscopy and epiluminescence microscopy) diagnosis of melanoma performed by experienced observers vs naked-eye clinical examination. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PASCAL-BIOMED, and BIUM databases were screened through May 31, 2000, without any language restrictions. Study Selection Original studies were selected when the following criteria were met: spectrum of lesions well described, histologic findings as standard criterion, and calculated or calculable sensitivity and specificity. Eight of 672 retrieved references were retained. Data Extraction Three investigators extracted data. In case of disagreement, consensus was obtained. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to describe the central tendency of the studies, and to compare dermoscopy and clinical examination. Data Synthesis Selected studies represented 328 melanomas, mostly less than 0.76 mm thick, and 1865 mostly melanocytic benign pigmented skin lesions. For dermoscopic diagnosis of melanoma, the sensitivity and specificity ranges were 0.75 to 0.96 and 0.79 to 0.98, respectively. Dermoscopy had significantly higher discriminating power than clinical examination, with respective estimated odds ratios of 76 (95% confidence interval, 25-223) and 16 (95% confidence interval, 9-31) (P= .008), and respective estimated positive likelihood ratios of 9 (95% confidence interval, 5.6-19.0) and 3.7 (95% confidence interval, 2.8-5.3). The roles of the number of lesions analyzed, the percentage of melanoma lesions, the instrument used, and dermoscopic criteria used in each study could not be proved. Conclusion For experienced users, dermoscopy is more accurate than clinical examination for the diagnosis of melanoma in a pigmented skin lesion.

Fotemustine compared with dacarbazine in patients with disseminated malignant melanoma: a phase III study.

Abstract: Purpose To compare fotemustine and dacarbazine (DTIC) in terms of overall response rate (ORR) as primary end-point and overall survival, duration of responses, time to progression, time to occurrence of brain metastases (BM), and to assess safety and quality of life in patients with disseminated cutaneous melanoma. Patients and Methods Patients received either intravenous fotemustine 100 mg/m2 weekly for 3 weeks or DTIC 250 mg/m2/d for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks (two cycles). Nonprogressive patients received a maintenance treatment every 4 weeks (fotemustine 100 mg/m2 or DTIC 250 mg/m2 for 5 days). Results Two hundred twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to fotemustine or DTIC arms. The best ORR was higher in the fotemustine arm than in the DTIC arm in the intent-to-treat population (n = 229; 15.2% v 6.8%; P = .043) and in full analysis set (n = 221) (15.5% v 7.2%; P = .053). Similar median durations of responses (5.8 months with fotemustine v 6.9 months with DTIC) and time to progression (1....

Improved Survival with Vemurafenib in Melanoma with BRAF V600E Mutation

Abstract: At 6 months, overall survival was 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78 to 89) in the vemurafenib group and 64% (95% CI, 56 to 73) in the dacarbazine group. In the interim analysis for overall survival and final analysis for progression-free survival, vemurafenib was associated with a relative reduction of 63% in the risk of death and of 74% in the risk of either death or disease progression, as compared with dacarbazine (P<0.001 for both comparisons). After review of the interim analysis by an independent data and safety monitoring board, crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib was recommended. Response rates were 48% for vemurafenib and 5% for dacarbazine. Common adverse events associated with vemurafenib were arthralgia, rash, fatigue, alopecia, keratoacanthoma or squamous-cell carcinoma, photosensitivity, nausea, and diarrhea; 38% of patients required dose modification because of toxic effects. Conclusions Vemurafenib produced improved rates of overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. (Funded by Hoffmann–La Roche; BRIM-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01006980.)

Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Skin and Soft-Tissue Infections

Abstract: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSoft-tissue infections are common, generally of mild tomodest severity, and are easily treated with a variety ofagents. An etiologic diagnosis of simple cellulitis is fre-quently difficult and generally unnecessary for patientswith mild signs and symptoms of illness. Clinical as-sessment of the severity of infection is crucial, and sev-eral classification schemes and algorithms have beenproposed to guide the clinician [1]. However, mostclinical assessments have been developed from eitherretrospective studies or from an author’s own “clinicalexperience,” illustrating the need for prospectivestudieswith defined measurements of severity coupled to man-agement issues and outcomes.Until then, it is the recommendation of this com-mittee that patients with soft-tissue infection accom-panied by signs and symptoms of systemic toxicity (e.g.,fever or hypothermia, tachycardia [heart rate,

Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: 2014 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Abstract: A panel of national experts was convened by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) to update the 2005 guidelines for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs). The panel's recommendations were developed to be concordant with the recently published IDSA guidelines for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. The focus of this guideline is the diagnosis and appropriate treatment of diverse SSTIs ranging from minor superficial infections to life-threatening infections such as necrotizing fasciitis. In addition, because of an increasing number of immunocompromised hosts worldwide, the guideline addresses the wide array of SSTIs that occur in this population. These guidelines emphasize the importance of clinical skills in promptly diagnosing SSTIs, identifying the pathogen, and administering effective treatments in a timely fashion.