S Ribero1, S Podlipnik2, S Osella-Abate3, E Sportoletti-Baduel4, E Manubens2, A Barreiro2, V Caliendo5, M Chavez-Bourgeois6, C Carrera7, P Cassoni3, J Malvehy8, M T Fierro4, S Puig9. 1. Dermatology Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Dermatology Clinic, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. 2. Dermatology Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Institut D'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain. 3. Department of Medical Sciences, Section of Surgical Pathology, University of Turin, Italy. 4. Dermatology Clinic, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. 5. Section of Dermatologic Surgery, AOU Citta Della Salute e Della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy. 6. Dermatology Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Dermatology Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Medical Sciences, Section of Surgical Pathology, University of Turin, Italy; CIBER on Rare Disease, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain. 8. Dermatology Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Institut D'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain; CIBER on Rare Disease, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain. 9. Dermatology Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Institut D'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain; CIBER on Rare Disease, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: susipuig@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Different protocols have been used to follow up melanoma patients in stage I-II. However, there is no consensus on the complementary tests that should be requested or the appropriate intervals between visits. Our aim is to compare an ultrasound-based follow-up with a clinical follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analysis of two prospectively collected cohorts of melanoma patients in stage IB-IIA from two tertiary referral centres in Barcelona (clinical-based follow-up [C-FU]) and Turin (ultrasound-based follow-up [US-FU]). Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), disease-free interval (DFI), nodal metastases-free survival (NMFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS). RESULTS: A total of 1149 patients in the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IB and IIA were included in this study, of which 554 subjects (48%) were enrolled for a C-FU, and 595 patients (52%) received a protocolised US-FU. The median age was 53.8 years (interquartile range [IQR] 41.5-65.2) with a median follow-up time of 4.14 years (IQR 1.2-7.6). During follow-up, 69 patients (12.5%) in C-FU and 72 patients (12.1%) in US-FU developed disease progression. Median time to relapse for the first metastatic site was 2.11 years (IQR 1.14-4.04) for skin metastases, 1.32 (IQR 0.57-3.29) for lymph node metastases and 2.84 (IQR 1.32-4.60) for distant metastases. The pattern of progression and the total proportion of metastases were not significantly different (P = .44) in the two centres. No difference in DFI, DMFS, NMFS and MSS was found between the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-based follow-up does not increase the survival of melanoma patients in stage IB-IIA.
INTRODUCTION: Different protocols have been used to follow up melanomapatients in stage I-II. However, there is no consensus on the complementary tests that should be requested or the appropriate intervals between visits. Our aim is to compare an ultrasound-based follow-up with a clinical follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analysis of two prospectively collected cohorts of melanomapatients in stage IB-IIA from two tertiary referral centres in Barcelona (clinical-based follow-up [C-FU]) and Turin (ultrasound-based follow-up [US-FU]). Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), disease-free interval (DFI), nodal metastases-free survival (NMFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS). RESULTS: A total of 1149 patients in the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IB and IIA were included in this study, of which 554 subjects (48%) were enrolled for a C-FU, and 595 patients (52%) received a protocolised US-FU. The median age was 53.8 years (interquartile range [IQR] 41.5-65.2) with a median follow-up time of 4.14 years (IQR 1.2-7.6). During follow-up, 69 patients (12.5%) in C-FU and 72 patients (12.1%) in US-FU developed disease progression. Median time to relapse for the first metastatic site was 2.11 years (IQR 1.14-4.04) for skin metastases, 1.32 (IQR 0.57-3.29) for lymph node metastases and 2.84 (IQR 1.32-4.60) for distant metastases. The pattern of progression and the total proportion of metastases were not significantly different (P = .44) in the two centres. No difference in DFI, DMFS, NMFS and MSS was found between the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-based follow-up does not increase the survival of melanomapatients in stage IB-IIA.
Authors: S Podlipnik; C Carrera; A Boada; N A Richarz; J L López-Estebaranz; F Pinedo-Moraleda; M Elosua-González; M M Martín-González; R Carrillo-Gijón; P Redondo; E Moreno; J Malvehy; S Puig Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 6.166