OBJECTIVE: To better understand the factors associated with the well-established gender difference in survival for patients with melanoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Gender is an important factor in patients with cutaneous melanoma. Male patients have a worse outcome when compared with females. The reasons for this difference are poorly understood. METHODS: This prospective multi-institutional study included patients aged 18 to 70 years with melanomas > or =1.0 mm Breslow thickness. Wide excision and sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy was performed in all patients. Clinicopathologic factors, including gender, were assessed and correlated with disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 3324 patients were included in the covariate analyses; 1829 patients had follow-up data available and were included in the survival analyses. Median follow-up was 30 months. On univariate analysis, men (n = 1906) were more likely than women to be older than 60 years (P < 0.0001), have thicker melanomas (P < 0.0001), have primary tumor regression (P = 0.0054), ulceration (P < 0.0001), and axial primary tumor location (P < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, age (P = 0.0002), thickness (P < 0.0001), ulceration (P = 0.015), and location (P < 0.0001) remained significant in the model. There was no difference in the rate of SLN metastasis between men and women (P = 0.37) on multivariate analysis. When factors affecting survival were considered, the prognosis was worse for men as validated by lower DFS (P = 0.0005), DDFS (P < 0.0001), and OS (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Male gender is associated with a greater incidence of unfavorable primary tumor characteristics without an increased risk for nodal metastasis. Nonetheless, gender is an independent factor affecting survival.
OBJECTIVE: To better understand the factors associated with the well-established gender difference in survival for patients with melanoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Gender is an important factor in patients with cutaneous melanoma. Male patients have a worse outcome when compared with females. The reasons for this difference are poorly understood. METHODS: This prospective multi-institutional study included patients aged 18 to 70 years with melanomas > or =1.0 mm Breslow thickness. Wide excision and sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy was performed in all patients. Clinicopathologic factors, including gender, were assessed and correlated with disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 3324 patients were included in the covariate analyses; 1829 patients had follow-up data available and were included in the survival analyses. Median follow-up was 30 months. On univariate analysis, men (n = 1906) were more likely than women to be older than 60 years (P < 0.0001), have thicker melanomas (P < 0.0001), have primary tumor regression (P = 0.0054), ulceration (P < 0.0001), and axial primary tumor location (P < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, age (P = 0.0002), thickness (P < 0.0001), ulceration (P = 0.015), and location (P < 0.0001) remained significant in the model. There was no difference in the rate of SLN metastasis between men and women (P = 0.37) on multivariate analysis. When factors affecting survival were considered, the prognosis was worse for men as validated by lower DFS (P = 0.0005), DDFS (P < 0.0001), and OS (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Male gender is associated with a greater incidence of unfavorable primary tumor characteristics without an increased risk for nodal metastasis. Nonetheless, gender is an independent factor affecting survival.
Authors: G Cocconi; M Bella; F Calabresi; M Tonato; R Canaletti; C Boni; F Buzzi; G Ceci; E Corgna; P Costa Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1992-08-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: W H Clark; D E Elder; D Guerry; L E Braitman; B J Trock; D Schultz; M Synnestvedt; A C Halpern Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1989-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: P Rümke; U R Kleeberg; R M MacKie; F J Lejeune; A S Planting; E B Bröcker; J F Bierhorst; M A Lentz Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 1992-09 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: C Garbe; P Büttner; J Bertz; G Burg; B d'Hoedt; H Drepper; I Guggenmoos-Holzmann; W Lechner; A Lippold; C E Orfanos Journal: Cancer Date: 1995-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Mario Mandalà; Gian Lorenzo Imberti; Dario Piazzalunga; Maurizio Belfiglio; Giuseppe Lucisano; Roberto Labianca; Lorenzo Marchesi; Barbara Merelli; Silvana Robone; Paola Poletti; Laura Milesi; Carlo Tondini Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Ximena Mimica; Marlena McGill; Ashley Hay; Daniella Karassawa Zanoni; Jatin P Shah; Richard J Wong; Alan L Ho; Marc A Cohen; Snehal G Patel; Ian Ganly Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Tina J Hieken; Amy E Glasgow; Elizabeth Ann L Enninga; Lisa A Kottschade; Roxana S Dronca; Svetomir N Markovic; Matthew S Block; Elizabeth B Habermann Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Eric J Stanelle; Klaus J Busam; Barrie S Rich; Emily R Christison-Lagay; Ira J Dunkel; Ashfaq A Marghoob; Allan Halpern; Daniel G Coit; Michael P La Quaglia Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2015-03-14 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Edward L Jones; Teresa S Jones; Nathan W Pearlman; Dexiang Gao; Robert Stovall; Csaba Gajdos; Nicole Kounalakis; Rene Gonzalez; Karl D Lewis; William A Robinson; Martin D McCarter Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Judit Dobos; Anita Mohos; József Tóvári; Erzsébet Rásó; Tamás Lőrincz; Gergely Zádori; József Tímár; Andrea Ladányi Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2012-12-01 Impact factor: 5.150