Jung Min Bae1, Yoon Young Choi2, Dae Suk Kim3, Ji Hye Lee4, Hong Sun Jang3, Joo Hee Lee5, Heesu Kim6, Byung Ho Oh3, Mi Ryung Roh4, Kyoung Ae Nam7, Kee Yang Chung8. 1. Department of Dermatology, St Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea; Department of Dermatology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; Cutaneous Biology Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Dermatology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; Cutaneous Biology Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Cutaneous Biology Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; Department of Dermatology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 5. Department of Dermatology, St Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Dermatology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; Cutaneous Biology Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; Department of Dermatology, International St Mary's Hospital, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 7. Department of Dermatology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 8. Department of Dermatology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; Cutaneous Biology Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; Brain Korea 21 Project for Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: kychung@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) is a condition of metastatic melanoma without a primary lesion. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify the prognosis of MUP compared with melanoma of known primary (MKP). METHODS: We searched for observational studies containing at least 10 patients with MUP from MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 22, 2012. The outcomes of interest were overall and disease-free survival; meta-analyses of hazard ratio stratified by stage using a random effects model were performed. In addition, second systematic review identified risk factors influencing the survival of patients with MUP. RESULTS: Eighteen studies including 2084 patients with MUP and 5894 with MKP were included. MUP had a better overall survival compared with MKP in stage III (15 studies; hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.96, P = .010) and stage IV (6 studies; hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.75-0.96, P = .008). Secondly, 22 studies including 3312 patients with MUP were reviewed, and increased stage and old age were the risk factors in patients with MUP. LIMITATIONS: Diverse observational studies were reviewed, and selection and reporting biases are possible. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analyses suggest better survival outcomes in patients with MUP than those in patients with MKP with the same corresponding tumor stage.
BACKGROUND:Melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) is a condition of metastatic melanoma without a primary lesion. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify the prognosis of MUP compared with melanoma of known primary (MKP). METHODS: We searched for observational studies containing at least 10 patients with MUP from MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 22, 2012. The outcomes of interest were overall and disease-free survival; meta-analyses of hazard ratio stratified by stage using a random effects model were performed. In addition, second systematic review identified risk factors influencing the survival of patients with MUP. RESULTS: Eighteen studies including 2084 patients with MUP and 5894 with MKP were included. MUP had a better overall survival compared with MKP in stage III (15 studies; hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.96, P = .010) and stage IV (6 studies; hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.75-0.96, P = .008). Secondly, 22 studies including 3312 patients with MUP were reviewed, and increased stage and old age were the risk factors in patients with MUP. LIMITATIONS: Diverse observational studies were reviewed, and selection and reporting biases are possible. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analyses suggest better survival outcomes in patients with MUP than those in patients with MKP with the same corresponding tumor stage.
Authors: Francesca M Bosisio; James S Wilmott; Nathalie Volders; Marjorie Mercier; Jasper Wouters; Marguerite Stas; Willeke Am Blokx; Daniela Massi; John F Thompson; Richard A Scolyer; Nicolas van Baren; Joost J van den Oord Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: James P De Andrade; Paul Wong; Michael P O'Leary; Vishwas Parekh; Arya Amini; Hans F Schoellhammer; Kim A Margolin; Michelle Afkhami; Laleh G Melstrom Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Kierstin Utter; Chloe Goldman; Sarah A Weiss; Richard L Shapiro; Russell S Berman; Melissa Ann Wilson; Anna C Pavlick; Iman Osman Journal: Oncology Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Jeffrey F Scott; Ruzica Z Conic; Cheryl L Thompson; Meg R Gerstenblith; Jeremy S Bordeaux Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Natalie Vandeven; Christopher W Lewis; Vladimir Makarov; Nadeem Riaz; Kelly G Paulson; Daniel Hippe; Amy Bestick; Ryan Doumani; Tessa Marx; Seesha Takagishi; Timothy A Chan; Jaehyuk Choi; Paul Nghiem Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Deborah Kuk; Alexander N Shoushtari; Christopher A Barker; Katherine S Panageas; Rodrigo R Munhoz; Parisa Momtaz; Charlotte E Ariyan; Mary Sue Brady; Daniel G Coit; Kita Bogatch; Margaret K Callahan; Jedd D Wolchok; Richard D Carvajal; Michael A Postow Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-06-10
Authors: Jeffrey F Scott; Cheryl L Thompson; Ritva Vyas; Kord Honda; Chad Zender; Rod Rezaee; Pierre Lavertu; Henry Koon; Kevin D Cooper; Meg R Gerstenblith Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Yun Song; Andrew D Tieniber; Phyllis A Gimotty; Tara C Mitchell; Ravi K Amaravadi; Lynn M Schuchter; Douglas L Fraker; Giorgos C Karakousis Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 5.344