Literature DB >> 23408288

Ultrathin primary is a marker for worse prognosis in lymph node-positive cutaneous melanoma.

Sanjay P Bagaria1, Partha S Ray, Richard W Joseph, Michael G Heckman, Bhupendra Rawal, Richard J Gray, Barbara Pockaj, Nabil Wasif.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lymph lymph node metastasis from melanoma ≤0.50 mm (ultrathin) is an infrequent event. However, because many newly diagnosed melanomas are ultrathin, a significant proportion of patients who present with lymph node disease have an ultrathin melanoma. The authors hypothesized that ultrathin melanomas that present with lymph node metastasis represent biologically aggressive lesions with a worse prognosis.
METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data were queried to identify patients with cutaneous melanoma who presented with lymph node metastasis diagnosed between 1998 and 2008. Hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare disease-specific survival (DSS) between various tumor depths.
RESULTS: In total, 6134 patients with lymph node-positive melanoma were identified and stratified according to tumor depth, including 588 (10%) with a tumor depth ≤0.50 mm, 519 (8%) with a tumor depth from 0.51 to 1.00 mm, 1669 (27%) with a tumor depth from 1.01 to 2.00 mm, 1871 (31%) with a tumor depth from 2.01 to 4.00 mm, and 1487 (24%) with a tumor depth >4.00 mm; and the respective 5-year DSS rates were 63%, 76%, 75%, 60%, and 43%. Multivariable analysis confirmed a similar trend in HRs for DSS: The HR was 1.00 for a tumor depth ≤0.50 mm (reference category) and 0.64 (P < .001), 0.65 (P < .001), 0.95 (P = .57), and 1.42 (P < .001) for tumor depths of 0.51 to 1.00 mm, 1.01 to 2.00 mm, 2.01 to 4.00 mm, and >4.00 mm, respectively. This association of tumor depth with DSS persisted for N1 and N2 disease but not for N3 disease.
CONCLUSIONS: Ultrathin melanoma (≤0.50 mm) was identified as a marker of poor prognosis in the setting of lymph node metastasis. These results may improve recommendations for adjuvant therapy, surveillance protocols, and risk stratification for clinical trials.
Copyright © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23408288     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27985

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  5 in total

1.  Miscoding of Melanoma Thickness in SEER: Research and Clinical Implications.

Authors:  Phyllis A Gimotty; Ronald Shore; Nancy L Lozon; Jeanne Whitlock; Sidan He; Fawn D Vigneau; Lois Dickie; David E Elder; Xiaowei Xu; Ann G Schwartz; DuPont Guerry
Journal:  J Invest Dermatol       Date:  2016-06-25       Impact factor: 8.551

2.  Poor prognosis for thin ulcerated melanomas and implications for a more aggressive approach to treatment.

Authors:  Makenzie L Hawkins; Matthew J Rioth; Megan M Eguchi; Myles Cockburn
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 15.487

3.  Discordance of pathological thin melanoma thickness and T stage in SEER registry: impacts on clinical management and research directions.

Authors:  Zhichao Wang; Haizhou Li; Xinyang Liu; Jinhong Bae; Xin Huang; Yashan Gao; Xiangwen Xu; Jihan Guo; Lin Lu; Tao Zan; Qingfeng Li
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-10-24

4.  Is it Necessary to Perform Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Thin Melanoma? A Retrospective Single Center Analysis.

Authors:  A Kocsis; L Karsko; Zs Kurgyis; Zs Besenyi; L Pavics; E Dosa-Racz; E Kis; E Baltas; H Ocsai; E Varga; B Bende; A Varga; G Mohos; I Korom; J Varga; L Kemeny; I B Nemeth; J Olah
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 3.201

5.  Web-based nomograms for predicting the prognosis of adolescent and young adult skin melanoma, a large population-based real-world analysis.

Authors:  Chen Yang; Fei Liao; Li Cao
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 1.241

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.