Literature DB >> 16609051

Early-stage melanoma: staging criteria and prognostic modeling.

Merrick I Ross1.   

Abstract

Accurate risk assessment is central to the process of making rational surgical and systemic treatment recommendations for melanoma patients and in establishing appropriate clinical trial stratification criteria. The current American Joint Commission on Cancer melanoma staging system incorporated relevant prognostic variables to provide a framework for the estimation of risk for recurrence; however, significant prognostic heterogeneity exists within the stage groupings. In the stage I/II group, survival rates range from 40% to 95% as defined by the combination of tumor thickness and ulceration. The use of novel prognostic factors, such as mitotic rate, sentinel node biopsy, and prognostic modeling using a variety of factors, can minimize this prognostic heterogeneity and provide a more accurate and individualized prognostic profile. Recent modifications in the stage III criteria include the number of positive nodes, whether the nodal disease is microscopic or clinically apparent, and the presence of an ulcerated primary. Through these factors, survival estimates can be provided, but like the stage I/II group, wide ranges in prognosis exist. The complexion of the stage III population is in evolution as a result of increasing numbers of patients being diagnosed as having microscopic sentinel node disease. Contemporary efforts are focused on defining the prognosis and natural history of this group. Through prognostic modeling using the number of nodes involved, ulceration status, and a measure of disease burden--disease in the sentinel node--relatively homogeneous subgroups can be identified. Long-term follow-up of patients staged with PCR molecular techniques on sentinel nodes shows conflicting value in assessing prognosis and therefore cannot be routinely used outside a clinical trial. The combination of genomic profiling using microarray analyses and the development of targeted therapy holds the future promise of individualizing prognosis and therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16609051     DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-2643

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  5 in total

Review 1.  Melanoma and nuclear medicine.

Authors:  Andrés Perissinotti; Sergi Vidal-Sicart; Omgo Nieweg; Renato Valdés Olmos
Journal:  Melanoma Manag       Date:  2014-09-05

2.  Ki-67 expression is superior to mitotic count and novel proliferation markers PHH3, MCM4 and mitosin as a prognostic factor in thick cutaneous melanoma.

Authors:  Rita G Ladstein; Ingeborg M Bachmann; Oddbjørn Straume; Lars A Akslen
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2010-04-14       Impact factor: 4.430

3.  Genome-wide screen of promoter methylation identifies novel markers in melanoma.

Authors:  Yasuo Koga; Mattia Pelizzola; Elaine Cheng; Michael Krauthammer; Mario Sznol; Stephan Ariyan; Deepak Narayan; Annette M Molinaro; Ruth Halaban; Sherman M Weissman
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2009-06-02       Impact factor: 9.043

4.  Histologic features of conjunctival melanoma predictive of metastasis and death (an American Ophthalmological thesis).

Authors:  Bita Esmaeli; Dianna Roberts; Merrick Ross; Melissa Fellman; Hilda Cruz; Stella K Kim; Victor G Prieto
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2012-12

Review 5.  Controversies in the diagnosis and treatment of early cutaneous melanoma.

Authors:  O A Orzan; A Șandru; C R Jecan
Journal:  J Med Life       Date:  2015 Apr-Jun
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.