BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of several histopathological prognostic features in cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the independent prognostic value of mitotic rate, regression, tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and growth phase in primary stage I and II CMMs. METHODS: Clinicohistopathological data were obtained from the Stockholm-Gotland registry for 4237 patients diagnosed with an incident primary stage I or II CMM followed up to December 2011. The risk of CMM-specific death was evaluated by a Cox regression model. RESULTS: A mitotic rate of 1-10 mitoses per mm(2) [hazard ratio (HR) 1·69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·16-2·45] and > 10 mitoses per mm(2) (HR 2·27, 95% CI 1·46-3·52) were significant; TILs and regression were not. A more detailed analysis of data assessed between 1989 and 1995 confirmed significantly increased HRs for the presence vs. absence of mitoses (HR1-5/mm² 2·25, 95% CI 1·36-3·76; HR6-10/mm² 2·34, 95% CI 1·23-4·44; HR> 10/mm² 2·64, 95% CI 1·39-4·99). Other prognosticators were increasing T-stage vs. T1, presence of ulceration and presence of vertical growth phase (VGP). In T1 CMMs, an increasing tumour thickness vs. < 0·7 mm (HR0·7-0·8 mm 2·24, 95% CI 1·24-4·04; HR>0·8 mm 2·92, 95% CI 1·57-5·43) and presence of ulceration were significantly associated with higher HRs; mitotic rate, TILs, regression and growth phase were not. CONCLUSIONS: Determinants of increased risk of CMM death in stage I and II CMMs were increasing T-stage, presence of ulceration, presence of mitoses and VGP. This was not found for TILs or regression.
BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of several histopathological prognostic features in cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the independent prognostic value of mitotic rate, regression, tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and growth phase in primary stage I and II CMMs. METHODS: Clinicohistopathological data were obtained from the Stockholm-Gotland registry for 4237 patients diagnosed with an incident primary stage I or II CMM followed up to December 2011. The risk of CMM-specific death was evaluated by a Cox regression model. RESULTS: A mitotic rate of 1-10 mitoses per mm(2) [hazard ratio (HR) 1·69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·16-2·45] and > 10 mitoses per mm(2) (HR 2·27, 95% CI 1·46-3·52) were significant; TILs and regression were not. A more detailed analysis of data assessed between 1989 and 1995 confirmed significantly increased HRs for the presence vs. absence of mitoses (HR1-5/mm² 2·25, 95% CI 1·36-3·76; HR6-10/mm² 2·34, 95% CI 1·23-4·44; HR> 10/mm² 2·64, 95% CI 1·39-4·99). Other prognosticators were increasing T-stage vs. T1, presence of ulceration and presence of vertical growth phase (VGP). In T1 CMMs, an increasing tumour thickness vs. < 0·7 mm (HR0·7-0·8 mm 2·24, 95% CI 1·24-4·04; HR>0·8 mm 2·92, 95% CI 1·57-5·43) and presence of ulceration were significantly associated with higher HRs; mitotic rate, TILs, regression and growth phase were not. CONCLUSIONS: Determinants of increased risk of CMM death in stage I and II CMMs were increasing T-stage, presence of ulceration, presence of mitoses and VGP. This was not found for TILs or regression.
Authors: Shona Hendry; Roberto Salgado; Thomas Gevaert; Prudence A Russell; Tom John; Bibhusal Thapa; Michael Christie; Koen van de Vijver; M V Estrada; Paula I Gonzalez-Ericsson; Melinda Sanders; Benjamin Solomon; Cinzia Solinas; Gert G G M Van den Eynden; Yves Allory; Matthias Preusser; Johannes Hainfellner; Giancarlo Pruneri; Andrea Vingiani; Sandra Demaria; Fraser Symmans; Paolo Nuciforo; Laura Comerma; E A Thompson; Sunil Lakhani; Seong-Rim Kim; Stuart Schnitt; Cecile Colpaert; Christos Sotiriou; Stefan J Scherer; Michail Ignatiadis; Sunil Badve; Robert H Pierce; Giuseppe Viale; Nicolas Sirtaine; Frederique Penault-Llorca; Tomohagu Sugie; Susan Fineberg; Soonmyung Paik; Ashok Srinivasan; Andrea Richardson; Yihong Wang; Ewa Chmielik; Jane Brock; Douglas B Johnson; Justin Balko; Stephan Wienert; Veerle Bossuyt; Stefan Michiels; Nils Ternes; Nicole Burchardi; Stephen J Luen; Peter Savas; Frederick Klauschen; Peter H Watson; Brad H Nelson; Carmen Criscitiello; Sandra O'Toole; Denis Larsimont; Roland de Wind; Giuseppe Curigliano; Fabrice André; Magali Lacroix-Triki; Mark van de Vijver; Federico Rojo; Giuseppe Floris; Shahinaz Bedri; Joseph Sparano; David Rimm; Torsten Nielsen; Zuzana Kos; Stephen Hewitt; Baljit Singh; Gelareh Farshid; Sibylle Loibl; Kimberly H Allison; Nadine Tung; Sylvia Adams; Karen Willard-Gallo; Hugo M Horlings; Leena Gandhi; Andre Moreira; Fred Hirsch; Maria V Dieci; Maria Urbanowicz; Iva Brcic; Konstanty Korski; Fabien Gaire; Hartmut Koeppen; Amy Lo; Jennifer Giltnane; Marlon C Rebelatto; Keith E Steele; Jiping Zha; Kenneth Emancipator; Jonathan W Juco; Carsten Denkert; Jorge Reis-Filho; Sherene Loi; Stephen B Fox Journal: Adv Anat Pathol Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 3.875
Authors: Paula Martínez-Fernández; Patricia Pose; Raquel Dolz-Gaitón; Arantxa García; Inmaculada Trigo-Sánchez; Enrique Rodríguez-Zarco; MJose Garcia-Ruiz; Ibon Barba; Marta Izquierdo-García; Jennifer Valero-Garcia; Carlos Ruiz; Marián Lázaro; Paula Carbonell; Pablo Gargallo; Carlos Méndez; Juan José Ríos-Martín; Alberto Palmeiro-Uriach; Natalia Camarasa-Lillo; Jerónimo Forteza-Vila; Inés Calabria Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-04-29
Authors: Trude Eid Robsahm; Per Helsing; Yngvar Nilssen; Linda Vos; Syed Mohammad H Rizvi; Lars A Akslen; Marit B Veierød Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Grzegorz Dyduch; Katarzyna E Tyrak; Anna Glajcar; Joanna Szpor; Krzysztof Okoń Journal: Postepy Dermatol Alergol Date: 2017-05-29 Impact factor: 1.837