Shoshana M Landow1, Annie Gjelsvik2, Martin A Weinstock3. 1. Dermatoepidemiology Unit, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; Dermatology Department, The Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. Electronic address: Shoshana_Landow@brown.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 3. Dermatoepidemiology Unit, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; Dermatology Department, The Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thin melanomas cause a high death toll despite excellent prognosis. OBJECTIVE: We examined melanoma mortality burden and prognosis by categories of thickness within Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 13 Registry 1992-2013. METHODS: We divided 49,319 stage I and II melanoma cases diagnosed between 1992 and 2003 into T1 through T4 and then subdivided T1 into 0.01-0.25 mm, 0.26-0.50 mm, 0.51-0.75 mm, and 0.76-1.00 mm categories. We determined the number and proportion of deaths due to melanoma within 10 years of diagnosis for each thickness category and proportions within T1 subcategories with ulceration. RESULTS: We confirmed prognosis worsened as melanoma thickened from T1 to T4; however, most deaths resulted from melanomas that were diagnosed at the T1 stage. The smallest number of deaths within T1 resulted from 0.01-0.25 mm-thick melanomas; however, the risk for death within 10 years was greater for those diagnosed with melanoma when tumor depth was 0.01-0.25 mm than for those diagnosed when tumor depth was 0.26-0.50 mm. Prognosis worsened with depths starting at 0.51 mm. The pattern within T1 was not explained by ulceration. LIMITATIONS: We did not evaluate melanoma subtype, mitotic rate, or other associated features. CONCLUSION: Thin melanomas are a substantial public health burden. Efforts should be made to diagnose melanoma at the in situ stage. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Thin melanomas cause a high death toll despite excellent prognosis. OBJECTIVE: We examined melanoma mortality burden and prognosis by categories of thickness within Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 13 Registry 1992-2013. METHODS: We divided 49,319 stage I and II melanoma cases diagnosed between 1992 and 2003 into T1 through T4 and then subdivided T1 into 0.01-0.25 mm, 0.26-0.50 mm, 0.51-0.75 mm, and 0.76-1.00 mm categories. We determined the number and proportion of deaths due to melanoma within 10 years of diagnosis for each thickness category and proportions within T1 subcategories with ulceration. RESULTS: We confirmed prognosis worsened as melanoma thickened from T1 to T4; however, most deaths resulted from melanomas that were diagnosed at the T1 stage. The smallest number of deaths within T1 resulted from 0.01-0.25 mm-thick melanomas; however, the risk for death within 10 years was greater for those diagnosed with melanoma when tumor depth was 0.01-0.25 mm than for those diagnosed when tumor depth was 0.26-0.50 mm. Prognosis worsened with depths starting at 0.51 mm. The pattern within T1 was not explained by ulceration. LIMITATIONS: We did not evaluate melanoma subtype, mitotic rate, or other associated features. CONCLUSION: Thin melanomas are a substantial public health burden. Efforts should be made to diagnose melanoma at the in situ stage. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Alexander M M Eggermont; Domenico Bellomo; Suzette M Arias-Mejias; Enrica Quattrocchi; Sindhuja Sominidi-Damodaran; Alina G Bridges; Julia S Lehman; Tina J Hieken; James W Jakub; Dennis H Murphree; Mark R Pittelkow; Jason C Sluzevich; Mark A Cappel; Sanjay P Bagaria; Charles Perniciaro; Félicia J Tjien-Fooh; Barbara Rentroia-Pacheco; Renske Wever; Martin H van Vliet; Jvalini Dwarkasing; Alexander Meves Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2020-10-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Kathleen Conway; Sharon N Edmiston; Joel S Parker; Pei Fen Kuan; Yi-Hsuan Tsai; Pamela A Groben; Daniel C Zedek; Glynis A Scott; Eloise A Parrish; Honglin Hao; Michelle V Pearlstein; Jill S Frank; Craig C Carson; Matthew D Wilkerson; Xiaobei Zhao; Nathaniel A Slater; Stergios J Moschos; David W Ollila; Nancy E Thomas Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Andrew J Sinnamon; Madalyn G Neuwirth; Pratyusha Yalamanchi; Phyllis Gimotty; David E Elder; Xiaowei Xu; Rachel R Kelz; Robert E Roses; Emily Y Chu; Michael E Ming; Douglas L Fraker; Giorgos C Karakousis Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Shirin Bajaj; Douglas Donnelly; Melissa Call; Paul Johannet; Una Moran; David Polsky; Richard Shapiro; Russell Berman; Anna Pavlick; Jeffrey Weber; Judy Zhong; Iman Osman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Taylor J Aiken; Christopher C Stahl; Patrick B Schwartz; James Barrett; Alexandra W Acher; Deborah Lemaster; Glen Leverson; Sharon Weber; Heather Neuman; Daniel E Abbott Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Georgia M Beasley; Aaron D Therien; Eda K Holl; Rami Al-Rohil; Maria Angelica Selim; Nellie E Farrow; Liuliu Pan; Premi Haynes; Yan Liang; Douglas S Tyler; Brent A Hanks; Smita K Nair Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 6.968