BACKGROUND: Nodular melanoma (NM) is more likely to be fatal compared with other melanoma subtypes, an effect attributed to its greater Breslow thickness. METHODS: Clinicopathological features of NM and superficial spreading melanoma (SSM) diagnosed in 17 centers in Europe (n = 15), the United States, and Australia between 2006 and 2015, were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression analysis, with emphasis on thin (T1 ≤ 1.0 mm) melanomas. Cox analysis assessed melanoma-specific survival. All statistical tests were two sided. RESULTS: In all, 20 132 melanomas (NM: 5062, SSM: 15 070) were included. Compared with T1 SSM, T1 NM was less likely to have regression (odds ratio [OR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.29 to 0.72) or nevus remnants histologically (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.42 to 0.85), and more likely to have mitoses (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.33 to 2.93) and regional metastasis (OR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.02 to 3.05). T1 NM had a higher mitotic rate than T1 SSM (adjusted geometric mean = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.9 to 2.5 vs 1.6, 95% CI = 1.5 to 1.7 per mm2, P < .001). Cox multivariable analysis showed a higher risk for melanoma-specific death for NM compared with SSM for T1 (HR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.24 to 3.56) and T2 melanomas (HR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.68), and after accounting for center heterogeneity, the difference was statistically significant only for T1 (HR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.28 to 3.78). The NM subtype did not confer increased risk within each stratum (among localized tumors or cases with regional metastasis). CONCLUSIONS: T1 NM (compared with T1 SSM) was associated with a constellation of aggressive characteristics that may confer a worse prognosis. Our results indicate NM is a high-risk melanoma subtype that should be considered for inclusion in future prognostic classifications of melanoma.
BACKGROUND:Nodular melanoma (NM) is more likely to be fatal compared with other melanoma subtypes, an effect attributed to its greater Breslow thickness. METHODS: Clinicopathological features of NM and superficial spreading melanoma (SSM) diagnosed in 17 centers in Europe (n = 15), the United States, and Australia between 2006 and 2015, were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression analysis, with emphasis on thin (T1 ≤ 1.0 mm) melanomas. Cox analysis assessed melanoma-specific survival. All statistical tests were two sided. RESULTS: In all, 20 132 melanomas (NM: 5062, SSM: 15 070) were included. Compared with T1 SSM, T1 NM was less likely to have regression (odds ratio [OR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.29 to 0.72) or nevus remnants histologically (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.42 to 0.85), and more likely to have mitoses (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.33 to 2.93) and regional metastasis (OR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.02 to 3.05). T1 NM had a higher mitotic rate than T1 SSM (adjusted geometric mean = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.9 to 2.5 vs 1.6, 95% CI = 1.5 to 1.7 per mm2, P < .001). Cox multivariable analysis showed a higher risk for melanoma-specific death for NM compared with SSM for T1 (HR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.24 to 3.56) and T2 melanomas (HR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.68), and after accounting for center heterogeneity, the difference was statistically significant only for T1 (HR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.28 to 3.78). The NM subtype did not confer increased risk within each stratum (among localized tumors or cases with regional metastasis). CONCLUSIONS: T1 NM (compared with T1 SSM) was associated with a constellation of aggressive characteristics that may confer a worse prognosis. Our results indicate NM is a high-risk melanoma subtype that should be considered for inclusion in future prognostic classifications of melanoma.
Authors: Y Teramoto; U Keim; A Gesierich; G Schuler; E Fiedler; T Tüting; C Ulrich; U Wollina; J C Hassel; R Gutzmer; S Goerdt; C Zouboulis; U Leiter; T K Eigentler; C Garbe Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Rachel M Cymerman; Yongzhao Shao; Kun Wang; Yilong Zhang; Era C Murzaku; Lauren A Penn; Iman Osman; David Polsky Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Michael Lattanzi; Yesung Lee; Danny Simpson; Una Moran; Farbod Darvishian; Randie H Kim; Eva Hernando; David Polsky; Doug Hanniford; Richard Shapiro; Russell Berman; Anna C Pavlick; Melissa A Wilson; Tomas Kirchhoff; Jeffrey S Weber; Judy Zhong; Iman Osman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Joanne F Aitken; Danny R Youlden; Peter D Baade; H Peter Soyer; Adèle C Green; B Mark Smithers Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Clio Dessinioti; Alan C Geller; Aravella Stergiopoulou; Susan M Swetter; Eszter Baltas; Jonathan E Mayer; Timothy M Johnson; John Talaganis; Myrto Trakatelli; Dimitrios Tsoutsos; Gerasimos Tsourouflis; Alexander J Stratigos Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Joseph Michael Yardman-Frank; Baillie Bronner; Stefano Rosso; Lynn From; Klaus Busam; Pam Groben; Paul Tucker; Anne Cust; Bruce Armstrong; Anne Kricker; Loraine Marrett; Hoda Anton-Culver; Stephen Gruber; Rick Gallagher; Roberto Zanetti; Lidia Sacchetto; Terry Dwyer; Alison Venn; Irene Orlow; Peter Kanetsky; Li Luo; Nancy Thomas; Colin Begg; Marianne Berwick Journal: JAAD Int Date: 2021-06-01
Authors: M Mandalà; P Rutkowski; F Galli; R Patuzzo; V De Giorgi; E Rulli; A Gianatti; B Valeri; B Merelli; A Szumera-Ciećkiewicz; D Massi; A Maurichi; P Teterycz; M Santinami Journal: ESMO Open Date: 2022-04-11
Authors: Mary-Ann El Sharouni; Paul Johannes van Diest; Arjen Joost Witkamp; Vigfús Sigurdsson; Carla Henrica van Gils Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2020-10-23
Authors: Francesco Sabbatino; Giosuè Scognamiglio; Luigi Liguori; Antonio Marra; Anna Maria Anniciello; Giovanna Polcaro; Jessica Dal Col; Alessandro Caputo; Anna Lucia Peluso; Gerardo Botti; Pio Zeppa; Soldano Ferrone; Stefano Pepe Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 7.561