BetaEntity Annotation Prototype
← Back to diseases

Annotated abstract

722 Dual perspectives, elevated impact: effect of short-format education with a multispecialty panel on treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma (aBCC)

jitc · 2025-11-04 · canonical JSON source

11 visible annotations · policy: published · automated confidence ≥ 75.00%

Document resource

Background While the majority of cases of BCC can be cured surgically, some cases progress to locally advanced or metastatic disease for which a systemic approach is warranted if surgery may cause significant disfigurement or functional impairment. While hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HHIs) are the standard first-line systemic therapy, long-term adherence is low due to the emergence of adverse events. An immunotherapy (IO), cemiplimab, was approved in patients with aBCC after failure or intolerance to HHIs.We aimed to determine if digital, short-form, medical education could improve dermatologists’ and nurses’ knowledge and competence (K/C) related to choosing patients with BCC who should receive systemic therapies, including IOs. We used a multidisciplinary panel consisting of an expert dermatologist and oncologist.Methods US-based dermatologists and nurses participated in a digital, 20-minute, accredited medical education activity, ‘A Clinician’s Roadmap to Improving Outcomes in aBCC: Guiding Principles for the Use of Immunotherapies’ consisting of videos and slides. The activity launched on September 4, 2024. Pre- and post-activity assessments were used to collect information regarding learners’ baseline scores as well as the impact of the education. A matched pair analysis was then conducted on these results.Results As of November 7, 2024, 2,513 clinicians had participated in the activity. Data collection is ongoing. Learners’ assessment scores improved by 138% as a result of the education. Specifically, participants improved in their ability to identify the guideline-recommended treatment options by 145% and outline the real-world considerations for use of IOs for aBCC by 138%. Baseline knowledge was low regarding the appropriate use of systemic therapies for aBCC. After the education, clinicians indicated that they were more likely to consider the use of IO as a first-line systemic in patients who are suspected to be intolerant to HHIs (53% of learners) and identify patients with aBCC who have a suboptimal response or intolerance to HHIs (41% of learners). Based on learners’ self-report of the number of patients with BCC that they typically treat per week, 8,912 patient interactions were potentially impacted, with 94% of the learners reporting an intention to change practice following participation in the activity.Conclusions Digital, short-form, CME improved K/C related to identifying patients with aBCC who would benefit from systemic treatment, including immunotherapy. As a result, these learners may be implementing evidence-based care that will enhance the outcomes of their patients by reducing the negative sequelae of surgeries that could lead to significant disfigurement or functional impairment.