Next Article in Journal
Prevalence and Predictors of Anxiety among Stable Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Malaysia
Previous Article in Journal
The Association between Replacement Drivers and Depressive Symptoms
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Risk of Lichen Sclerosus and Lichen Planus in Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

1
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah 24382, Saudi Arabia
2
Qassim Health Cluster, Ministry of Health, Buraidah 52385, Saudi Arabia
3
Pharmaceutical Care Services, King Abdullah Medical City, Ministry of Health, Makkah 21955, Saudi Arabia
4
Pharmaceutical Care Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, Jeddah 22234, Saudi Arabia
5
Pharmacovigilance Directorate, Saudi Food and Drug Authority, Riyadh 13513, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(1), 580; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010580
Submission received: 17 October 2022 / Revised: 19 December 2022 / Accepted: 22 December 2022 / Published: 29 December 2022

Abstract

:
Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are recommended for various types of cancer. On the other hand, these ICIs may cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Lichen sclerosus (LS) and lichen planus (LP) are two distinct phenotypes of irAEs that occur in a subset of patients treated with ICIs. These adverse effects have a detrimental effect on the patient’s quality of life and treatment phases; however, the clinical evaluation and assessment of LS and LP remain uncertain. This study aims to assess and evaluate the risk of LS and LP associated with the use of ICIs via a systematic review of the literature and the USA FDA Adverse Events FAERS database. Method: The study searched electronic databases such as PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and Google Scholar for case reports on immune-checkpoint-inhibitor-associated lichen sclerosus and lichen planus published in English between inception and 31 December 2021. The FDA’s adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database was also analyzed. Results: Thirty-eight case reports and two retrospective studies with a total of 101 patients, in addition to the FAERS data, were evaluated. More cases involved lichen planus (78.9%) than lichen sclerosis (21%). Nivolumab and pembrolizumab were most frequently reported with LS and LP, among other ICIs. Thirty-six out of thirty-eight patients with LS or LP experienced complete remission, while two patients experienced partial remission. Most of the cases had an excellent response to corticosteroids (92.1%), while the remainder had moderate (5.2%) and poor (2.6%) responses. Additionally, the reporting odds ratio (ROR) of the FAERS database indicated a favorable association for ICIs, the risk of LP, and LS. A stronger association was uniquely found between nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Conclusion: There have been published case reports for these adverse events. Healthcare providers should be aware of the possibility of lichen sclerosis and lichen planus developing in patients receiving ICIs which could necessitate hospitalization or discontinuation. Regulatory agencies are advised to monitor the risks as a potential safety signal.

1. Introduction

Over the last decade, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have unquestionably changed cancer treatment through their discovery, development, and fast adoption [1]. ICIs dramatically improve clinical outcomes and survival rates in cancer patients without activating mutations as the disease’s genetic drivers [2].
Several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved for cancer therapy since the FDA approved ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody) on 28 March 2011. In addition to ipilimumab, anti-PD-1 nivolumab, pembrolizumab, cemiplimab, anti-PD-L1 atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab are on the current list of approved medications [3]. All have demonstrated unprecedented clinical efficacy in various types of cancers and are rapidly changing medical oncology practice [4]. Monoclonal antibodies targeting co-inhibitory immune checkpoints (e.g., PD-1 and CTLA-4) have shown clinical activity in melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, bladder cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, MSI-high colorectal carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and Hodgkin lymphoma and have revolutionized medical oncology practice [4].
Despite their clinical effectiveness, ICIs can be associated with inflammatory adverse effects known as immune-related adverse events (irAEs) [5]. Immune-related adverse events are unique from chemotherapy-related side effects in terms of mechanism and management [6]. ICIs activate the immune system, which can lead to an indiscriminate unleashing of immune responses, resulting in severe clinical manifestations that resemble autoimmune/inflammatory conditions affecting organs and tissues, and these are collectively known as “irAEs” [7,8]. In general, PD-1 inhibitors have a lower rate of irAEs than CTLA-4 inhibitors such as ipilimumab. In comparison, the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab has a significantly higher rate of irAEs than either treatment alone. Most evidence on irAEs comes from large published studies, mainly on patients with advanced melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, and renal cancer [6].
Different types of ICI toxicity include gastrointestinal, rheumatologic, endocrine, pulmonary, and skin toxicity. Skin rash, pruritus, lichen sclerosus, and lichen planus result from skin toxicities, all of which are linked to worse outcomes [5]. Lichen sclerosus (LS) is a chronic, inflammatory skin disorder that can lead to scarring, sexual dysfunction, and cancer. Women and men of any age can acquire the illness, although postmenopausal women are the most commonly affected [9]. The ratios of males to females range from 1:3 to 1:10 [10]. Although the cause of lichen sclerosis remains unknown, there is evidence that suggests an autoimmune disorder with a genetic factor [11]. Risk factors include: genetic, environmental, autoimmune, and hormonal factors. The majority of lesions are seen in the anogenital region. It affects the labial, perineal, and perianal regions of the genital tract, manifesting as a patchy, thin, glistening, ivory-white area [12]. It has been linked to sexual morbidity as well as an increased risk of cancerogenesis [9]. Other regions of the body, such as the upper trunk, axillae, buttocks, and lateral thigh, are affected in 20% of patients [12].
Lichen sclerosus can cause serious fissures and bleed, resulting in painful, infected regions [13]. Multidrug-resistant infections can be life threatening in such patients [14,15,16]. It may also lead to scarring and constriction of the vaginal introitus. Urinary retention, anal stenosis, obstruction, and constipation may occur due to severe scarring and deformity. It can transform into a premalignant or malignant lesion [12]. The initial treatment recommended for lichen sclerosus is applying potent to ultrapotent, topical corticosteroids. Randomized trials have demonstrated that topical corticosteroids, from potent to ultrapotent, effectively improve lichen sclerosus in 75 to 90% of patients, compared to around 10% in placebo groups [10].
The second treatment option is calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and pimecrolimus), which have a lower effect than topical corticosteroids. Systemic treatment is occasionally indicated for refractory cases. Lichen sclerosus is generally a chronic condition that affects women and girls primarily. Spontaneous remission is unknown and usually causes a lifetime of disease [10].
Lichen planus (LP) is an inflammatory and immune-mediated chronic disease affecting the skin, hair, nail, and mucous membrane [17]. The wrists, lower back, and ankles are the most prevalent sites for pruritic, violaceous papules and plaques. Wickham striae, a lattice-like network of white lines that covers the lesions, is particularly visible on the buccal mucosa, where erosions can also be found. Lichen planus affects 0.14 to 1.27% of the general population, according to estimates. Between the ages of 30 and 60, at least two-thirds of the occurrences occur. LP is uncommon in children, but it can affect any age. The cutaneous variant does not have a sexual or racial predominance, while 60 to 75% of individuals with oral lichen planus are women [17]. Even though lichen planus is an idiopathic illness, it looks like a T-cell-mediated autoimmune disease [18].
There is evidence that cell-mediated immune response plays a primary role in developing the disease. In LP lesions, CD4+ and CD8+ T cells accumulate in the dermis, while CD8+ T cells infiltrate the epidermis. Most lymphocytes in the LP infiltrate consist of CD8+ and CD45RO+ cells and express the a-b T cell receptor (TCR) and, to a lesser extent, the c-d receptor. These cells are responsible for the most characteristic change observed in the lichenoid reaction [17].
There are many complications related to LP disease. For example, itching is the most common acute complication in cutaneous LP, sexual dysfunctions, cancer, infection, adrenal insufficiency, osteoporosis, bone marrow suppression, and renal damage. As a chronic complication, after the lichen planus lesions have been cured, the affected area of the skin develops post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, which is more visible in those with darker skin. Lichen planus is a chronic condition where the goal is to keep symptoms under control, minimize damage, and improve the patient’s quality of life. The first-line treatments are topical steroids such as triamcinolone acetonide, fluocinolone acetonide, betamethasone dipropionate, and clobetasol propionate. The systemic corticosteroids are for unresponsiveness. Second-line treatments include broadband or narrowband UV, a combination of UV and acitretin, topical calcineurin inhibitor, and sulphasalazine [17]. LS and LP impair quality of life and may progress to malignant disease [19]. These adverse events are not well documented for ICIs and are not documented in their drug label. This systematic review aims to assess and evaluate the risk of LS and LP in patients taking immune checkpoint inhibitors and conduct a review of the FDA database to determine the level of toxicity associated with these drugs.

2. Method

First, we conducted a literature review to identify LP and LS adverse effects related to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) use and assess the correlations between ICIs and the adverse effects. This research was conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [20]. We conducted an independent review of PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, AdiasInsight, and EMBASE electronic databases from inception to 31 December 2021. The search was not limited to using and reviewing the mentioned resources; it also reviewed the FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database, which includes all information on adverse reaction (ADR) reports submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The following search terms were used in this systematic review:
A: Lichen sclerosus OR (LS). B: Lichen planus OR (LP). C: immune checkpoint inhibitor OR checkpoint blockade OR CTLA-4 OR cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 OR CTLA-4 Inhibitor OR PD-1 OR programmed death receptor 1 OR PD1 inhibitor OR PDL1 OR programmed death-ligand 1 OR PDL1 inhibitor OR ipilimumab OR YERVOY OR nivolumab OR OPDIVO OR pembrolizumab OR KEYTRUDA OR cemiplimab OR LIBTAYO OR atezolizumab OR TECENTRIQ OR avelumab OR BAVENCIO OR durvalumab OR IMFINZI. D: adverse event OR immune-related adverse event OR irAE OR toxicity. E: control case OR observational study OR clinical study OR intervention study OR retrospective OR prospective study OR cohort study.
We selected the immune-related adverse events lichen sclerosus and lichen planus as the primary outcome of this systematic review.

3. Statistical Analysis

Raw data were processed following the best practice for raw data management to identify any inaccuracies in advance of the statistical analysis. To achieve this task, all interval variables were checked, summarized, and compared in terms of minimum and maximum values. In addition, implausible values were flagged. A similar process was applied to categorical variables to identify any potential anomalies. All identified anomalies were discussed with the biostatistics team and corrected before statistical analysis data were collected and entered in an Excel sheet.
Descriptive statistical analyses were performed for the study participants who reported adverse drug events (ADEs). Continuous variables were summarized using mean ± SD, median, and interquartile range (IQR). Proportions were used for categorical variables. Comparisons were made using the one-way ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables. The model was adjusted for several baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Statistical significance was considered at p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 21.0 (release 21.0.0.0, IBM, USA).

4. Ethical Review

This research does not require ethical review or approval because it does not involve the use of human or private data.

5. Results

The literature search of the PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar databases identified 88 studies that matched the search terms (Figure 1). We found three additional relevant articles in the references of these studies. After removing duplicate studies, we assessed 74 studies by reviewing the titles and abstracts to verify inclusion criteria. As a result of screening the titles and abstracts, 30 articles were excluded. A total of 44 full-text articles were further assessed for eligibility. Four studies that had case reports with no adverse events of interest were excluded. A total of 38 case reports and two retrospective studies from inception to December 2021 were included in this study.
The characteristics of patients with lichen sclerosus or lichen planus associated with ICIs use are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. The median age of the onset of ICI-related LS and LP was 69 years (ranging between 25 and 87) with a female-to-male ratio of 26:12; it appears to be more common among women.
Lichen planus (30 cases) was more prevalent in the cases than lichen sclerosus (eight cases). The predominant ICI drugs related to LS and LP were pembrolizumab (16 cases), followed by nivolumab (13 cases), durvalumab (two cases), ipilimumab + nivolumab (two cases), PD-L1 inhibitor (two cases), avelumab (one case), atezolizumab (one case), and PD-1 inhibitor (one case). The primary diseases of the patients who were being treated with ICIs were melanoma (13 cases), non-small-cell lung cancer (13 cases), bladder cancer (three cases), squamous cell carcinoma (two cases), renal cell carcinoma (two cases), Merkel cell carcinoma (two cases), gastric cancer (one case), oral cancer (one case), and breast cancer (one case). The median number of cycles to the onset of ICI-related LS and LP was four cycles (ranging between 1 and 22), (Table 3).
In one retrospective study, a total of 20 patients treated with ICIs were identified and were referred to dermatology at a tertiary care hospital after suffering cutaneous side effects while receiving anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibody treatment alone or in combination with another drug from 2010 to 2015. All of twenty patients presented with marked toxicity during the study period. A total of 13 were males, and seven were females, with a mean age (range) of 64 years. Eighteen patients were treated with topical corticosteroids, and only one patient had to discontinue anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Ten patients were treated with nivolumab alone, while four were treated with nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab. One patient was treated with nivolumab in combination with bevacizumab, and one patient was initially treated with nivolumab in addition to erlotinib and then continued on nivolumab alone. Two patients were treated with pembrolizumab alone, one patient was treated with the anti-PD-L1 drug atezolizumab alone, and one patient received atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The time of rash onset was a mean (range) time of 4 months [21].
Figure 1. Selection of publications for inclusion in the review. From ref. [22] for more information.
Figure 1. Selection of publications for inclusion in the review. From ref. [22] for more information.
Ijerph 20 00580 g001
Another retrospective study reported forty-three patients who developed side effects affecting the skin. Patients received programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1) therapy with pembrolizumab or with nivolumab. Patients developed adverse events within 1–68 weeks of starting treatment with nivolumab or pembrolizumab [23].
Closer inspection of Table 2 and Table 3 shows that corticosteroids were the primary treatment for lichen sclerosus and lichen planus associated with the use of ICI. Out of 38 patients treated with corticosteroids, twenty-six cases used a topical route, four patients a systemic route, and the rest of the patients used both (topical and systemic). In terms of the steroid response, the highest percentage of thirty-five patients had a good response, while two patients had a moderate response, and the last one had a poor response. Cessation of ICIs due to lichen planus was required in 16 cases and once due to lichen sclerosus. Pembrolizumab was stopped in nine out of sixteen patients (>50%) treated with pembrolizumab in addition to treatment with corticosteroids. The immunosuppressive agent tacrolimus ointment 0.1% was added in the treatment of four cases (in combination with ipilimumab + nivolumab in two cases, nivolumab in one case, and pembrolizumab in one case). Treatment outcomes showed a complete remission of lichen sclerosus and lichen planus in thirty-six out of thirty-eight patients, while two patients had partial improvement.
The final part of our analysis was to compare the results to the FDA’s adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database, which contains all data on adverse reaction (ADR) reports submitted to the FDA. FAERS received 14128106 reports (all events/drugs) in the most recent database update, with a total of 413 and 1575 lichen sclerosus and lichen planus cases, respectively.
As shown in Table 4 and Table 5, the total number of both lichen sclerosus and lichen planus cases associated with the use of ICIs was 171, with lichen sclerosus demonstrating 20 cases across all ICIs and the majority of cases associated with nivolumab and pembrolizumab. The difference between lichen sclerosus and lichen planus was significant in the current study; lichen planus is rapidly increasing, with 151 cases reported. These results suggest an association between the use of ICIs and lichen sclerosus and lichen planus. Additionally, the reporting odds ratio (ROR) indicated a favorable association between ICIs and the risk of LP and LS with a stronger association with nivolumab and pembrolizumab, as shown in Table 4 and Table 5.
Table 1. Characteristics of cases with immune-checkpoint-inhibitor-related lichen sclerosus and lichen planus reported in the literature.
Table 1. Characteristics of cases with immune-checkpoint-inhibitor-related lichen sclerosus and lichen planus reported in the literature.
CaseRef.AgeSexPrimary DiseaseDrugCycles until OnsetSymptom
1Behera et al. [24] 39FMelanomaNivolumab9LS
2Miraglia et al. [25] 50FMelanomaNivolumabNA (5 mo.)LS
3 Wernham et al. [26] 74FMelanomaNivolumabNA (6 mo.)LS
4di Meo et al. [27] 67FMelanomaNivolumabNA (7 mo.)LS
5Veronesi et al. [28] 48FMelanomaNivolumabNA (4 mo.)LS
6Andrés et al. [29] 63MBCNivolumabNA (4 mo.)LS
7Ahmad et al. [30]39FMelanomaIpilimumab + NivolumabNA (24 mo.)LS
8Schaberg et al. [31] 71FMelanomaPD-1 InhibitorNA (3 mo.)LS
9Ferguson et al. [32] 73FRCCNivolumabNA (6 mo.)LP
10Jain et al. [33] 78FMelanomaNivolumabNA (2 mo.)LP
11Komori et al. [34] 67FBreast CancerNivolumabNA (4 mo.)LP
12Strickley et al. [35] 87FNSCLCNivolumab9LP
13Economopoulou et al. [36] 66MOral CancerNivolumab8LP
14Yilmaz et al. [37] 25FRCCNivolumabNA (5 mo.)LP
15Elizato et al. [38] 64FNSCLCNivolumabNA (3 mo.)LP
16Yamashita et al. [39] 67MNSCLCPembrolizumab4LP
17Preti et al. [40] 62FNSCLCPembrolizumab2LP
18Sethi et al. [41] 72MGCPembrolizumab2LP
19Lee et al. [42] 60FNSCLCPembrolizumabNA (5 mo.)LP
20Fontecilla et al. [43] 79MNSCLCPembrolizumab2LP
21Kwon et al. [44] 65FMCCPembrolizumab1LP
22Wakade et al. [45] 71FNSCLCPembrolizumabNA (1 mo.)LP
23Wakade et al. [45] 49FMelanomaPembrolizumab2LP
24Wakade et al. [45] 86MNSCLCPembrolizumab22LP
25Niesert et al. [46] 77MMelanomaPembrolizumabNA (6 mo.)LP
26Ameri et al. [47] 75FSCCPembrolizumabNA (3 mo.)LP
27Ameri et al. [47] 69MNSCLCPembrolizumabNA (9 mo.)LP
28Ogawa et al. [48] 79FNSCLCPembrolizumab4LP
29Chapman et al. [49] 60MMelanomaPembrolizumab2LP
30Bhattacharyya et al. [50] 65FBCPembrolizumab4LP
31Marques et al. [51] 79FMelanomaPembrolizumabNA (1 mo.)LP
32Senoo et al. [52] 76FNSCLCAtezolizumab6LP
33Cardis et al. [53] 73MMCCAvelumab1LP
34Myrdal et al. [54]73FNSCLCDurvalumabNA (2 mo.)LP
35Manko et al. [55] 62FSCCDurvalumabNA
(24 mo.)
LP
36Jain et al. [33] 70MMelanomaIpilimumab + NivolumabNA (2 mo.)LP
37Schaberg et al. [31] 69MBCPD-L1 InhibitorNA (11 week)LP
38Schaberg et al. [31] 78FNSCLCPD-L1 InhibitorNA (38 week)LP
NSCLC: non-small-cell lung cancer; BC: bladder cancer; LS: lichen sclerosus; LP: lichen planus; RCC: renal cell carcinoma; SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; F: female; M: male; MCC: Merkel cell carcinoma; mo.: month; GC: gastric cancer; NA: not available; PD-1: programmed death 1; PD-L1: programmed death ligand 1.
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of patients with immune-checkpoint-inhibitor-related lichen sclerosus and lichen planus reported in the literature.
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of patients with immune-checkpoint-inhibitor-related lichen sclerosus and lichen planus reported in the literature.
Patient CharacteristicsValue
Age, median (range, year)69 (25–87)
Sex, female/male26/12
Primary disease
Melanoma 13
NSCLC13
BC3
SCC2
RCC2
MCC2
GC1
Oral Cancer 1
Breast Cancer 1
Drugs
Pembrolizumab 16
Nivolumab13
Durvalumab2
Ipilimumab + Nivolumab2
PD-L1 Inhibitor2
Avelumab1
Atezolizumab1
PD-1 Inhibitor1
Symptoms
LP30
LS8
Steroid Administration
Systemic 4
Topical 26
Systemic + Topical8
Steroid Response
Good35
Moderate2
Poor1
Outcomes
Complete LS Remission7
Partial LS Remission1
LS Required ICI Cessation 1
Complete LP Remission 29
Partial LS Remission 1
LP Required ICI Cessation16
NSCLC: non-small-cell lung cancer; BC: bladder cancer; LS: lichen sclerosus; LP: lichen planus; RCC: renal cell carcinoma; SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; F: female; M: male; MCC: Merkel cell carcinoma; GC: gastric cancer; PD-1: programmed death 1; PD-L1: programmed death ligand 1; ICI: immune checkpoint inhibitor.
Table 3. Treatment outcomes of patients with lichen sclerosus and lichen planus associated with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Table 3. Treatment outcomes of patients with lichen sclerosus and lichen planus associated with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Case Drug SymptomsManagementOutcomeSteroid ResponseReference
1NivolumabLS- Prednisolone
- ICI cessation
Resolved GoodBehera et al. [24]
2NivolumabLS - Topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% Resolved GoodMiraglia et al. [25]
3NivolumabLS - Topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% Resolved GoodWernham et al. [26]
4NivolumabLS - Topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% Resolved Gooddi Meo et al. [27]
5NivolumabLS- Topical fluticasone propionate 0.05% cream
- Thentopical clobetasol propionate 0.05% + oral prednisone
- Then narrowband UVB phototherapy
Partial improvementModerateVeronesi et al. [28]
6NivolumabLS- Mometasone 0.1% creamResolvedGoodAndrés et al. [29]
7Ipilimumab + NivolumabLS- Topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% cream + tacrolimus 0.1% ointmentResolvedGoodAhmad et al. [30]
8PD-1 InhibitorLS - Topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% ointment ResolvedGoodSchaberg et al. [31]
9NivolumabLP- Initial treatment super-potent topical steroids and betamethasone mouthwashesPartial improvementModerate
Ferguson et al. [32]
- Then systemic steroids and ICI cessationResolvedGood
10NivolumabLP- Topical clobetasol 0.05% ointment and bacitracin polymyxin ointment
- Followed by topical tacrolimus 0.1% ointment
- ICI temporarily held
ResolvedGoodJain et al. [33]
11NivolumabLP- Topical difluprednate 0.05% ointment
- ICI cessation
ResolvedGoodKomori et al. [34]
12NivolumabLP- Oral prednisone 40 mg
- Topical difluprednate 0.05% ointment
- ICI cessation
ResolvedGoodStrickley et al. [35]
13NivolumabLP Betamethasone cream-ResolvedGoodEconomopoulou et al. [36]
14NivolumabLP- Clobetasol propionate cream and topical methylprednisoloneResolvedGoodYilmaz et al. [37].
15NivolumabLP- Topical clobetasol and intralesional triamcinoloneResolvedGoodElizato et al. [38]
16Pembrolizumab LP Topical corticosteroids-ResolvedGoodYamashita et al. [39]
17Pembrolizumab LP- Systemic prednisone, metronidazole, and triamcinolone oral paste
- ICI cessation
Largely resolvedGoodPreti et al. [40]
18Pembrolizumab LP- Oral prednisolone 20 mg
- Urea cream 40%
- ICI cessation
No major improvementModerate
Sethi et al. [41]
19Pembrolizumab LP- Oral prednisolone 20 mg
- Urea cream 40%
- ICI cessation
ResolvedGoodLee et al. [42]
20Pembrolizumab LP- ICI cessation
- Oral prednisolone 40 mg
ResolvedGoodFontecilla et al. [43]
21Pembrolizumab LP- Oral prednisone 40 mg supplemented by clobetasol 0.05% ointment
- ICI cessation
ResolvedGoodKwon et al. [44]
22Pembrolizumab LP- Betamethasone dipropionate 0.05%
- Acitretin 0.2 mg/kg daily
Resolved
(with acitretin)
PoorWakade et al. [45]
23Pembrolizumab LP- ICI cessation
- IV methylprednisolone for 3 days followed by tapering of high-dose oral steroids
ResolvedGoodWakade et al. [45]
24Pembrolizumab LP- ICI cessation
- Topical betamethasone dipropionate 0.05% twice daily
ResolvedGoodWakade et al. [45]
25Pembrolizumab LP- Topical steroids and keratolytic ointment
- Systemic steroids added to the topical therapy
ResolvedGoodNiesert et al. [46]
26Pembrolizumab LP- Topical betamethasone, triamcinolone, 5-FU
- ICI cessation
ResolvedGoodAmeri et al. [47]
27Pembrolizumab LP- Triamcinolone
- 5-FU topical
ResolvedGoodAmeri et al. [47]
28Pembrolizumab LP- Topical corticosteroidsResolvedGoodOgawa et al. [48]
29Pembrolizumab LP- Clobetasol cream
- Tacrolimus ointment
ResolvedGoodChapman et al. [49]
30Pembrolizumab LP- ICI cessation
- Clobetasol propionate 0.05% ointment
ResolvedGoodBhattacharyya et al. [50]
31Pembrolizumab LP- Fluocinonide ointment (0.05%)
- Both acitretin (10 mg PO) and intralesional triamcinolone injections
ResolvedGoodMarques et al. [51]
32AtezolizumabLP- ICI cessation
- Topical corticosteroids
ResolvedGoodSenoo et al. [52]
33AvelumabLP- Topical triamcinolone 0.1% ointmentResolvedGoodCardis et al. [53]
34DurvalumabLP- ICI cessation
- Clobetasol propionate 0.05% ointment
ResolvedGoodMyrdal et al. [54]
35DurvalumabLP- ICI cessation
- Oral prednisone
ResolvedGoodManko et al. [55]
36Combination Ipilimumab and NivolumabLP- Topical clobetasol 0.05% ointment followed by alternating topical tacrolimus 0.1% ointmentResolvedGoodJain et al. [33]
37PD-L1 InhibitorLP- Dexamethasone elixirResolvedGoodSchaberg et al. [31]
38PD-L1 InhibitorLP- Topical clobetasol ointmentResolvedGoodSchaberg
et al. [31]
LS: lichen sclerosus; LP: lichen planus; ICI: immune checkpoint inhibitor; 5-FU: 5 fluorouracil; PD-1: programmed death 1; PD-L1: programmed death ligand 1.
Table 4. FAERS database, relative reporting ratio (RRR).
Table 4. FAERS database, relative reporting ratio (RRR).
Lichen Sclerosus
Drug NameNumber of CasesPercentageRelative Reporting Ratio (RRR)
Ipilimumab30.013.9
Nivolumab80.014.8
Pembrolizumab80.038.5
Atezolizumab10.0082.6
Avelumab000
Durvalumab000
Total 20--
Lichen Planus
Drug NameNumber of CasesPercentageRelative Reporting Ratio (RRR)
Ipilimumab50.021.7
Nivolumab930.1614.6
Pembrolizumab430.1312.04
Atezolizumab80.065.4
Avelumab10.054.8
Durvalumab10.021.8
Total 151--
Table 5. FAERS database, reporting odds ratio (ROR).
Table 5. FAERS database, reporting odds ratio (ROR).
DrugLichen Sclerosus
Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR)
(95%-CI)
Lichen Planus
Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR)
(95%-CI)
Ipilimumab3.9
(1.3; 12.2)
1.7
(0.7; 4.1)
Nivolumab4.9
(2.4; 9.8)
15.4
(12.5; 19)
Pembrolizumab8.7
(4.3; 17.5)
12.4
(9.1; 16.8)
Atezolizumab2.6
(0.4; 18.4)
5.4
(2.7; 10.9)
Avelumab-4.8
(0.7; 33.9)
Durvalumab-1.8
(0.3; 12.8)

6. Discussion

This is the first systematic review to assess lichen sclerosus (LS) and lichen planus (LP) risk with the use of ICIs. We found that most of the LS and LP cases with ICI use occurred in females (68.4%). LP (78.9%) was more prevalent than LS (21%), and it is most commonly associated with pembrolizumab and nivolumab use. Previous evidence showed no gender difference in terms of LP risk [56]. Our study, on the other hand, mostly reflects LP and shows higher female prevalence.
The severity of LS and LP appears to be mild to moderate and is manageable with suitable treatment, mainly corticosteroids and close monitoring. Although the evaluation of the risk of LS and LP with ICIs and the level of toxicity is unclear, a strong relationship between ICIs and the adverse events LS and LP is reported in the literature and FAERS database.
Schaberg et al. [31] reported the first detailed cases of lichen sclerosus and lichen planus associated with the use of ICIs. All three cases confirmed that anti-PD-L1 and anti-PD-1 are associated with LS and LP after dermatological evaluation several months after their first dose. Therefore, compared to most rashes associated with the anti-CTLA-4 medication ipilimumab, which generally arise within the first 34 weeks after starting therapy, these responses appear to have had a comparatively delayed onset. Fortunately, all three reported cases had modest symptoms and responded effectively to skin-directed treatment with topical steroid medications. Immunotherapy dosage decrease or withdrawal was not necessary [31].
Another case demonstrated that ipilimumab in combination with nivolumab is associated with LS. This event might help to explain the link between LS and ICIs, which could be a result of additive effect from both medications. Because ipilimumab boosts activate T cells and improves humoral immunity, while nivolumab blocks T lymphocyte deactivation, boosting self-reactive T cells, both medicines may cause autoimmune disorders, such as lichen sclerosus, as explained previously [30].
These results explain the evidence, which points out that cell-mediated immune response plays a primary role in developing LP. In LP lesions, CD4+ and CD8+ T cells accumulate in the dermis, while CD8+ T cells infiltrate the epidermis. The majority of lymphocytes in the LP infiltrate consist of CD8+ and CD45RO+ cells and express the a-b T cell receptor (TCR) and, to a lesser extent, the c-d receptor. These cells are responsible for the most characteristic change observed in the lichenoid reaction [17].
Another important finding was that available skin biopsy specimens were retrospectively reviewed in one retrospective study. A total of 20 patients treated with anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 presented with this marked toxicity. The majority of cases (80%) had a clinical morphology consisting of erythematous papules with scales in various distributions. Sixteen (94%) showed features of interfacial lichenoid dermatitis. Eighteen patients were treated with topical corticosteroids, and only one patient had to discontinue anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy [21]. Only 20% developed peripheral eosinophilia. Sixteen patients (80%) were taking concomitant medications previously reported to cause lichenoid drug eruptions. Ten patients were treated with nivolumab alone, while four were treated with nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab. One patient was treated with nivolumab in combination with bevacizumab; one patient was initially treated with nivolumab in addition to erlotinib and then continued on nivolumab alone. Two patients were treated with pembrolizumab alone, one patient was treated with atezolizumab alone, and one patient received atezolizumab combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The time of rash onset was variable, with a mean time of 4 months (3 days to 12.8 months). The majority of cases (80%) had a clinical morphology consisting of erythematous papules with scales either in a focal distribution such as localized lesions on a limb, neck, or chest (11 (55%)) or in a more general distribution of coalescing larger plaques on the trunk and extremities (nine (45%)). Other clinical morphologies were variable, ranging from keratotic plaques resembling hypertrophic lichen to discrete papules on the trunk that looked typical of Grover’s disease or transient acantholytic dermatosis. Notably, two patients had papules and plaques limited to a prominent palmoplantar distribution with additional oral mucosal lesions. Four patients developed oral lesions of variable appearance affecting the tongue, buccal mucosa, lips, and/or gums [21]. One patient developed 1 to 2 mm, flat-tipped, whitish papules with evident Wickham streaks on the bilateral buccal mucosa extending to the lateral commissures, while the other patients developed erosions consistent with oral lichen planus. Other unique presentations were inflammation of pre-existing seborrheic keratoses and erosive penile lesions clinically resembling erosive genital lichen planus in one patient. Histological analysis was available for 17 of the 20 patients. Almost all cases (16 of 17 (94%)) showed features of interfacial lichenoid dermatitis. In addition, many of the cases also showed features of spongiotic dermatitis (8 of 17 (47%)). One case, the patient who developed an acute rash temporally related to the administration of erlotinib, showed evidence of changes in the vacuolar interface [21]. Of the three biopsies for which supplemental immunostaining was performed, all showed intradermal and intraepithelial lymphocytes that were CD3 positive. Intradermal lymphocytes were CD4 positive while they were intraepithelial [21].
Interestingly, another retrospective study reported 43 patients who developed side effects that affected the skin. Patients had a history of melanoma and received pembrolizumab over 30 min at a dose of 2 mg/kg body weight every 3 weeks or nivolumab over 60 min at a dose of 3 mg/kg body weight every 2 weeks. Patients developed adverse events within 1–68 weeks of starting treatment with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. Reactions ranged in severity from grade 1 to grade 4. Skin adverse reactions included pruritus, rash, eczema, vitiligo, alopecia, aggravated psoriasis vulgaris, mucosal lichen planus, xerosis cutis, erysipelas-like dermatitis, body hair growth, hyperkeratosis, lichenoid skin reaction, cold hands, cytotoxic skin reaction, alopecia, lichen sclerosus et atrophicus, candy syndrome, penile edema, psoriasis vulgaris, reduced hair growth, lichen planus, patchy rash, and worsening atopic dermatitis [21,23].
Furthermore, these results are consistent with the reports from the FAERS database that suggest an association between ICIs and the risk of LS and LP. A total of 171 case reports of LS and LP events related to the use of ICIs drugs. We found the most common reported cases were for LP (151 cases) after the use of ICIs. Most of them used nivolumab (62%), with a high relative reporting ratio (RRR 14.6), followed by pembrolizumab (43 patients), atezolizumab (eight patients), and ipilimumab (five patients), while there was only one reported case for avelumab and durvalumab separately, which could be explained by the low utilization rate of these medications.
According to our study, LP and LS were reported with most ICIs. The adverse events could be of a class effect with ICI use. Thus, we recommend that healthcare providers (HCPs) and regulatory bodies become aware of these adverse events. We also advise topical steroids as a first-line treatment and consideration of oral steroids as a second-line treatment. HCPs are encouraged to report any new adverse event associated with ICIs in the future. This study has several strengths and limitations; it is considered the first systemic review which identifies the relationship between the risk of LS and LP with the use of ICIs in addition to its management. This is also the only study that compares the collected data to the FDA’s adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database. The current study did not address the severity and grading of LP and LS. Furthermore, it did not include the other skin toxicities associated with ICIs. Although the FAERS database organizes FDA’s safety information data, case reports can be incomplete, medically non-verified, or even duplicated. In addition, these data cannot establish causation or estimate the incidence. Future studies are still needed to address other skin toxicities related to ICI use.

7. Conclusions

This study confirms the association between ICIs and LS and LP. Corticosteroid (local/systemic or both) and calcineurin inhibitor treatment might improve patients’ pain and prevent the progression of adverse events. In addition, some cases require ICI cessation to achieve complete remission. Finally, lichen sclerosus and lichen planus should be included as a part of the immune-related side effects of checkpoint inhibitor medications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A., W.A. and A.A. (Ahmad Alharbi); methodology, A.H. and W.A.; formal analysis, A.K.; resources, A.H. and M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.H., A.N., W.A. and M.A.; writing—review and editing, A.H., A.N. and A.A. (Abdulmalik Alotaibi); supervision, A.H.; funding acquisition, A.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research at the Umm Al-Qura University for supporting this work by grant code 22UQU4290073DSR06.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and not do not necessarily reflect those of the SFDA or its stakeholders. Guaranteeing the accuracy and the validity of the data is a sole responsibility of the research team.

References

  1. Haugh, A.M.; Probasco, J.C.; Johnson, D.B. Neurologic complications of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Expert Opin. Drug Saf. 2020, 19, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sławiński, G.; Wrona, A.; Dąbrowska-Kugacka, A.; Raczak, G.; Lewicka, E. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and cardiac toxicity in patients treated for non-small lung cancer: A review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 7195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vaddepally, R.K.; Kharel, P.; Pandey, R.; Garje, R.; Chandra, A.B. Review of indications of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors per NCCN guidelines with the level of evidence. Cancers 2020, 12, 738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Jenkins, R.W.; Barbie, D.A.; Flaherty, K.T. Mechanisms of resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Br. J. Cancer 2018, 118, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Hussaini, S.; Chehade, R.; Boldt, R.G.; Raphael, J.; Blanchette, P.; Vareki, S.M.; Fernandes, R. Association between immune-related side effects and efficacy and benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors–a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2021, 92, 102134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Friedman, C.F.; Proverbs-Singh, T.A.; Postow, M.A. Treatment of the immune-related adverse effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors: A review. JAMA Oncol. 2016, 2, 1346–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lombardi, A.; Mondelli, M.U. immune checkpoint inhibitors and the liver, from therapeutic efficacy to side effects. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 50, 872–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Ameen, L.; Assaggaf, H.; Alsafi, R.; Minshawi, F.; Alghamdi, S.; Alharbi, A.; Qashqari, F.; Makhdoom, H.; Refaat, B.; Alsaif, B.; et al. Analysis of the Clinical Characteristics of COVID-19 Patient Severity Amongst Saudi Hospital Admission in 2020. J. Umm Al-Qura Univ. Med. Sci. 2022, 8, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jabłonowska, O.; Woźniacka, A.; Żebrowska, A. Lichen sclerosus. Dermatol. Rev. Prz. Dermatol. 2021, 108, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kirtschig, G. Lichen sclerosus–Beratungsanlass, Diagnose und therapeutisches Procedere. Dtsch. Arztebl. 2016, 113, 337–343. [Google Scholar]
  11. Krapf, J.M.; Mitchell, L.; Holton, M.A.; Goldstein, A.T. Vulvar lichen sclerosus: Current perspectives. Int. J. Women’s Health 2020, 12, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Singh, N.; Ghatage, P. Etiology, clinical features, and diagnosis of vulvar lichen sclerosus: A scoping review. Obstet. Gynecol. Int. 2020, 2020, 7480754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Alghamdi, M.; Alotaibi, F.; Ahmed, H.; Alharbi, F.; Bukhari, O.; Youssef, A.-R. Effect of medical education on the knowledge, attitude and compliance regarding infection control measures among dental students in Makkah. J. Umm Al-Qura Univ. Med. Sci. 2021, 7, 14–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Almangour, T.A.; Alenazi, B.; Ghonem, L.; Alhifany, A.A.; Aldakheel, B.A.; Alruwaili, A. Inhaled colistin for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia due to multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: A real-life experience in tertiary care hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Pharm. J. 2020, 28, 1009–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Almangour, T.A.; Ghonem, L.; Aljabri, A.; Alruwaili, A.; Al Musawa, M.; Damfu, N.; Almalki, M.S.; Alattas, M.; Abed, H.; Naeem, D. Ceftazidime-avibactam versus colistin for the treatment of infections due to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales: A multicenter cohort study. Infect. Drug Resist. 2022, 15, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hadi, M.A.; Karami, N.A.; Al-Muwalid, A.S.; Al-Otabi, A.; Al-Subahi, E.; Bamomen, A.; Mohamed, M.M.; Elrggal, M.E. Community pharmacists’ knowledge, attitude, and practices towards dispensing antibiotics without prescription (DAwP): A cross-sectional survey in Makkah Province, Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2016, 47, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Ioannides, D.; Vakirlis, E.; Kemeny, L.; Marinovic, B.; Massone, C.; Murphy, R.; Nast, A.; Ronnevig, J.; Ruzicka, T.; Cooper, S. European S1 guidelines on the management of lichen planus: A cooperation of the European Dermatology Forum with the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2020, 34, 1403–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Arnold, D.L.; Krishnamurthy, K. Lichen Planus; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  19. Terlou, A.; Santegoets, L.A.; Van Der Meijden, W.I.; Heijmans-Antonissen, C.; Swagemakers, S.M.; Van Der Spek, P.J.; Ewing, P.C.; Van Beurden, M.; Helmerhorst, T.J.; Blok, L.J. An autoimmune phenotype in vulvar lichen sclerosus and lichen planus: A Th1 response and high levels of microRNA-155. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2012, 132, 658–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Nishijima, T.F.; Muss, H.B.; Shachar, S.S.; Moschos, S.J. Comparison of efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) between younger and older patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2016, 45, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shi, V.J.; Rodic, N.; Gettinger, S.; Leventhal, J.S.; Neckman, J.P.; Girardi, M.; Bosenberg, M.; Choi, J.N. Clinical and histologic features of lichenoid mucocutaneous eruptions due to anti–programmed cell death 1 and anti–programmed cell death ligand 1 immunotherapy. JAMA Dermatol. 2016, 152, 1128–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Hofmann, L. Nivolumab/pembrolizumab. Reactions 2016, 1611, 123–132. [Google Scholar]
  24. Behera, T.R.; Song, J.M.; Arbesman, J.; Ko, J.; Philpott, J.; Funchain, P. Systemic lichenoid inflammation from immune checkpoint inhibition. Curr. Probl. Cancer Case Rep. 2021, 4, 100091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Miraglia, E.; Soda, G.; Giustini, S. Genital lichen sclerosus after nivolumab. Dermatol. Online J. 2020, 26, 100091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wernham, A.; Shah, F.; Velangi, S. Nivolumab PD-1 inhibitor immunotherapy associated with vulvar, perineal and perianal lichen sclerosus. Clin. Exp. Dermatol. 2019, 44, e22–e23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Di Meo, N.; Conforti, C.; Corneli, P.; Vezzoni, R.; Retrosi, C.; Pizzichetta, M.; Magaton Rizzi, G.; Zalaudek, I. Nivolumab-associated extragenital lichen sclerosus et atrophicus. Clin. Exp. Dermatol. 2020, 45, 350–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Veronesi, G.; Scarfì, F.; Misciali, C.; Tartari, F.; Melotti, B.; Patrizi, A.; Dika, E. An unusual skin reaction in uveal melanoma during treatment with nivolumab: Extragenital lichen sclerosus. Anti-Cancer Drugs 2019, 30, 969–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Andrés-Lencina, J.-J.; Burillo-Martínez, S.; Aragón-Miguel, R.; Calleja-Algarra, A.; Rodríguez-Peralto, J.-L.; Ortiz-Romero, P.-L.; Gargallo-Moneva, V. Eosinophilic fasciitis and lichen sclerosus in a patient treated with nivolumab. Australas. J. Dermatol. 2018, 59, e302–e304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Seyed Jafari, S.M.; Feldmeyer, L.; Hunger, R.E. Development of extragenital lichen sclerosus in malignant melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab in combination with nivolumab. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 573527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Schaberg, K.B.; Novoa, R.A.; Wakelee, H.A.; Kim, J.; Cheung, C.; Srinivas, S.; Kwong, B.Y. Immunohistochemical analysis of lichenoid reactions in patients treated with anti-PD-L1 and anti-PD-1 therapy. J. Cutan. Pathol. 2016, 43, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ferguson, L.; Ho, B.; Weir, J.; Francis, N.; West, K.; Rathbone, B.; Larkin, J.; Heelan, K. Extensive mucocutaneous, oesophageal and otic lichen planus secondary to nivolumab therapy. Ski. Health Dis. 2021, 1, e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Jain, N.; Panah, E.; Garfield, E.; Quan, V.; Shi, K. Oral Lichen Planus Developing after PD-1 Inhibitor Therapy in two Patients with Malignant Melanoma. J. Clin. Investig. Derm. 2019, 7, 2. [Google Scholar]
  34. Komori, T.; Honda, T.; Irie, H.; Otsuka, A.; Kabashima, K. Lichen planus in irradiated skin during nivolumab treatment. Acta Derm. -Venereol. 2017, 97, 391–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Strickley, J.D.; Vence, L.M.; Burton, S.K.; Callen, J.P. Nivolumab-induced lichen planus pemphigoides. Cutis 2019, 103, 224–226. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Economopoulou, P.; Nicolatou-Galitis, O.; Kotsantis, I.; Psyrri, A. Nivolumab-related lichen planus of the lip in a patient with head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol. 2020, 104, 104623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yilmaz, M.; Mese, S.G.; Celik, U. Nivolumab-induced lichen planus. J. Oncol. Pharm. Pract. 2020, 26, 758–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Veasey, E.N.; Callen, J.P.; Haeberle, T. Hypertrophic lichen planus secondary to nivolumab therapy. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2018, 79, AB154. [Google Scholar]
  39. Yamashita, A.; Akasaka, E.; Nakano, H.; Sawamura, D. Pembrolizumab-Induced Lichen Planus on the Scalp of a Patient with Non-Small-Cell Lung Carcinoma. Case Rep. Dermatol. 2021, 13, 487–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Preti, B.T.; Pencz, A.; Cowger, J.J.; Vincent, M.D.; Breadner, D. Skin Deep: A Fascinating Case Report of Immunotherapy-Triggered, Treatment-Refractory Autoimmune Lichen Planus and Keratoacanthoma. Case Rep. Oncol. 2021, 14, 1189–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sethi, A.; Raj, M. Pembrolizumab-Induced Lichenoid Dermatitis in a Patient With Metastatic Cancer of Unknown Primary. Cureus 2021, 13, e13768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lee, M.; Seetharamu, N. An atypical presentation of lichen planus-like reaction from pembrolizumab. Case Rep. Dermatol. Med. 2019, 2019, 4065437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Fontecilla, N.M.; Kittler, N.W.; Lopez, A.; Yang, C.; Geskin, L. Programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitor–induced granuloma annulare and hypertrophic lichen planus masquerading as squamous cell carcinoma. JAAD Case Rep. 2018, 4, 636–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Kwon, C.W.; Murthy, R.K.; Kudchadkar, R.; Stoff, B.K. Pembrolizumab-induced lichen planus pemphigoides in a patient with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. JAAD Case Rep. 2020, 6, 1045–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Wakade, D.V.; Carlos, G.; Hwang, S.J.; Chou, S.; Hui, R.; Fernandez-Peñas, P. PD-1 inhibitors induced bullous lichen planus-like reactions: A rare presentation and report of three cases. Melanoma Res. 2016, 26, 421–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Niesert, A.-C.; Guertler, A.; Schutti, O.; Engels, L.; Flaig, M.; French, L.E.; Schlaak, M.; Reinholz, M. Ulcerated Lichen Planus after Adjuvant Use of Programmed Cell Death-1-Inhibitor: A Case Report and Systematic Review of the Literature. Acta Derm. -Venereol. 2021, 101, adv00472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ameri, A.H.; Foreman, R.K.; Vedak, P.; Chen, S.; Miller, D.M.; Demehri, S. Hypertrophic lichen planus with histological features of squamous cell carcinoma associated with immune checkpoint blockade therapy. Oncology 2020, 25, 366–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Ogawa, T.; Aitake, U.; Matsuyama, M.; Hizawa, N.; Nomura, T. Linear lichen planus in the lines of Blaschko suggestive of immune-related adverse event. J. Cutan. Immunol. Allergy 2022, 5, 109–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chapman, S.; Ashack, K.; Dapprich, D.C. Hypertrophic Lichen Planus–like Eruption Following Pembrolizumab. Cutis 2021, 107, E10–E11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bhattacharyya, I.; Chehal, H.; Migliorati, C. Severe oral erosive lichenoid reaction to pembrolizumab therapy. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2020, 130, e301–e307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Marques-Piubelli, M.L.; Tetzlaff, M.T.; Nagarajan, P.; Duke, T.C.; Glitza Oliva, I.C.; Ledesma, D.A.; Aung, P.P.; Torres-Cabala, C.A.; Wistuba, I.I.; Prieto, V.G. Hypertrophic lichenoid dermatitis immune-related adverse event during combined immune checkpoint and exportin inhibitor therapy: A diagnostic pitfall for superficially invasive squamous cell carcinoma. J. Cutan. Pathol. 2020, 47, 954–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Senoo, H.; Kawakami, Y.; Yokoyama, E.; Yamasaki, O.; Morizane, S. Atezolizumab-induced lichen planus pemphigoides in a patient with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Dermatol. 2020, 47, e121–e122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Cardis, M.A.; Jiang, H.; Strauss, J.; Gulley, J.L.; Brownell, I. Diffuse lichen planus-like keratoses and clinical pseudo-progression associated with avelumab treatment for Merkel cell carcinoma, a case report. BMC Cancer 2019, 19, 539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Myrdal, C.N.; Sundararajan, S.; Curiel-Lewandrowski, C. Widespread hypertrophic lichen planus following programmed cell death ligand 1 blockade. Case Rep. Dermatol. 2020, 12, 119–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Manko, S.; Côté, B.; Provost, N. A case of durvalumab-induced lichenoid eruption evolving to bullous eruption after phototherapy: A case report. SAGE Open Med. Case Rep. 2021, 9, 2050313X21993279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Virgili, A.; Borghi, A.; Cazzaniga, S.; Di Landro, A.; Naldi, L.; Minghetti, S.; Verrone, A.; Stroppiana, E.; Caproni, M.; Nasca, M. New insights into potential risk factors and associations in genital lichen sclerosus: Data from a multicentre Italian study on 729 consecutive cases. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2017, 31, 699–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
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

Alharbi, A.; Khobrani, A.; Noor, A.; Alghamdi, W.; Alotaibi, A.; Alnuhait, M.; Haseeb, A. Risk of Lichen Sclerosus and Lichen Planus in Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010580

AMA Style

Alharbi A, Khobrani A, Noor A, Alghamdi W, Alotaibi A, Alnuhait M, Haseeb A. Risk of Lichen Sclerosus and Lichen Planus in Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(1):580. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010580

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alharbi, Ahmad, Attiah Khobrani, Afnan Noor, Waad Alghamdi, Abdulmalik Alotaibi, Mohammed Alnuhait, and Abdul Haseeb. 2023. "Risk of Lichen Sclerosus and Lichen Planus in Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 1: 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010580

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