Makenzie L Hawkins1, Matthew J Rioth2, Megan M Eguchi1, Myles Cockburn3. 1. University of Colorado Cancer Center, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado. 2. University of Colorado Cancer Center, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado; Department of Medicine-Biomedical Informatics and Personalized Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado. 3. University of Colorado Cancer Center, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado; Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado; Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: myles.cockburn@ucdenver.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines for the treatment of melanoma are based largely on the behavior of thicker tumors. As a result, little is known about survival differences among patients with thinner tumors. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the variability in survival for American Joint Committee on Cancer stage T1 thin melanoma tumors, defined as tumors less than 1 mm thick at diagnosis. METHODS: This population-based series included 43,008 non-Hispanic whites in whom cutaneous melanoma was diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 from the California Cancer Registry. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate risk of death. RESULTS: Survival for patients with thin ulcerated tumors was comparable to that for patients with stage II tumors, who are currently treated more aggressively. At 12 months, patients with thin ulcerated tumors had approximately 6% lower survival (92.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 90.6%-93.9%]) compared with patients with thin nonulcerated tumors (98.2% [95% CI, 98.0%-98.3%]). At 24 months, this survival difference increased (85.2% [95% CI, 82.8%-87.4%] vs 96.1% [95% CI, 95.8-96.3%] for those with thin ulcerated and thin nonulcerated tumors, respectively) and a greater than 15% survival difference was seen at 60 months. LIMITATIONS: Previous reports of cancer registry data have noted some evidence of miscoding of thin tumors. CONCLUSION: The poorer survival in patients with ulcerated tumors less than 1 mm thick implies the need for additional studies to determine potential benefits of more aggressive treatment.
BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines for the treatment of melanoma are based largely on the behavior of thicker tumors. As a result, little is known about survival differences among patients with thinner tumors. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the variability in survival for American Joint Committee on Cancer stage T1 thin melanoma tumors, defined as tumors less than 1 mm thick at diagnosis. METHODS: This population-based series included 43,008 non-Hispanic whites in whom cutaneous melanoma was diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 from the California Cancer Registry. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate risk of death. RESULTS: Survival for patients with thin ulcerated tumors was comparable to that for patients with stage II tumors, who are currently treated more aggressively. At 12 months, patients with thin ulcerated tumors had approximately 6% lower survival (92.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 90.6%-93.9%]) compared with patients with thin nonulcerated tumors (98.2% [95% CI, 98.0%-98.3%]). At 24 months, this survival difference increased (85.2% [95% CI, 82.8%-87.4%] vs 96.1% [95% CI, 95.8-96.3%] for those with thin ulcerated and thin nonulcerated tumors, respectively) and a greater than 15% survival difference was seen at 60 months. LIMITATIONS: Previous reports of cancer registry data have noted some evidence of miscoding of thin tumors. CONCLUSION: The poorer survival in patients with ulcerated tumors less than 1 mm thick implies the need for additional studies to determine potential benefits of more aggressive treatment.
Authors: Christina Mitteldorf; Hans Peter Bertsch; Klaus Jung; Kai-Martin Thoms; Michael Peter Schön; Michael Tronnier; Lutz Kretschmer Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 5.344
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
Authors: Giorgos Karakousis; Phyllis A Gimotty; Edmund K Bartlett; Myung-Shin Sim; Madalyn G Neuwirth; Douglas Fraker; Brian J Czerniecki; Mark B Faries Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sanjay P Bagaria; Partha S Ray; Richard W Joseph; Michael G Heckman; Bhupendra Rawal; Richard J Gray; Barbara Pockaj; Nabil Wasif Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jeffrey Weber; Mario Mandala; Michele Del Vecchio; Helen J Gogas; Ana M Arance; C Lance Cowey; Stéphane Dalle; Michael Schenker; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Ivan Marquez-Rodas; Jean-Jacques Grob; Marcus O Butler; Mark R Middleton; Michele Maio; Victoria Atkinson; Paola Queirolo; Rene Gonzalez; Ragini R Kudchadkar; Michael Smylie; Nicolas Meyer; Laurent Mortier; Michael B Atkins; Georgina V Long; Shailender Bhatia; Celeste Lebbé; Piotr Rutkowski; Kenji Yokota; Naoya Yamazaki; Tae M Kim; Veerle de Pril; Javier Sabater; Anila Qureshi; James Larkin; Paolo A Ascierto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-09-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Georgina V Long; Axel Hauschild; Mario Santinami; Victoria Atkinson; Mario Mandalà; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; James Larkin; Marta Nyakas; Caroline Dutriaux; Andrew Haydon; Caroline Robert; Laurent Mortier; Jacob Schachter; Dirk Schadendorf; Thierry Lesimple; Ruth Plummer; Ran Ji; Pingkuan Zhang; Bijoyesh Mookerjee; Jeff Legos; Richard Kefford; Reinhard Dummer; John M Kirkwood Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-09-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew J Hayes; Lauren Maynard; Gillian Coombes; Julia Newton-Bishop; Michael Timmons; Martin Cook; Jeffrey Theaker; Judith M Bliss; J Meirion Thomas Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 41.316