Mary-Ann El Sharouni1, Paul Johannes van Diest2, Arjen Joost Witkamp3, Vigfús Sigurdsson1, Carla Henrica van Gils4. 1. Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to investigate the role of melanoma subtype on survival and focus on the effects stratified by Breslow thickness and ulceration status. METHODS: Patients with cutaneous melanoma stage I, II, or III diagnosed between 2000 and 2014 were derived from the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Registry and overall survival data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were followed until 2018. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, hazard ratios were calculated for each melanoma subtype, per Breslow thickness category and ulceration status, and adjusted for age, sex, stage, and localization. RESULTS: A total of 48 361 patients were included: 79.3% had superficial spreading melanoma (SSM), 14.6% nodular melanoma (NM), 5.2% lentigo maligna melanoma, and 0.9% acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM). In the total patient group, using SSM as the reference category, adjusted hazard ratios were 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01 to 1.12) for NM, 1.02 (95% CI = 0.93 to 1.13) for lentigo maligna melanoma, and 1.26 (95% = CI 1.06 to 1.50) for ALM. Among patients with 1.0 mm or less Breslow thickness and no ulceration, NM showed a twofold increased risk (hazard ratio = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.58 to 2.45) compared with SSM. Compared with 1.0 mm or less SSM without ulceration, the hazard ratio for 1.0 mm or less SSM with ulceration was 1.94 (95% CI = 1.55 to 2.44), and the hazard ratio for 1.0 mm or less NM with ulceration was 3.46 (95% CI = 2.17 to 5.50). NM patients with tumors greater than 1.0 mm did not show worse survival than SSM patients with tumors greater than 1.0 mm. CONCLUSIONS: In this large nationwide study, ALM patients showed worse survival than SSM patients. Among patients with melanomas that were thin (1.0 mm or less), NM subtype patients also showed worse survival than SSM patients.
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to investigate the role of melanoma subtype on survival and focus on the effects stratified by Breslow thickness and ulceration status. METHODS: Patients with cutaneous melanoma stage I, II, or III diagnosed between 2000 and 2014 were derived from the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Registry and overall survival data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were followed until 2018. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, hazard ratios were calculated for each melanoma subtype, per Breslow thickness category and ulceration status, and adjusted for age, sex, stage, and localization. RESULTS: A total of 48 361 patients were included: 79.3% had superficial spreading melanoma (SSM), 14.6% nodular melanoma (NM), 5.2% lentigo maligna melanoma, and 0.9% acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM). In the total patient group, using SSM as the reference category, adjusted hazard ratios were 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01 to 1.12) for NM, 1.02 (95% CI = 0.93 to 1.13) for lentigo maligna melanoma, and 1.26 (95% = CI 1.06 to 1.50) for ALM. Among patients with 1.0 mm or less Breslow thickness and no ulceration, NM showed a twofold increased risk (hazard ratio = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.58 to 2.45) compared with SSM. Compared with 1.0 mm or less SSM without ulceration, the hazard ratio for 1.0 mm or less SSM with ulceration was 1.94 (95% CI = 1.55 to 2.44), and the hazard ratio for 1.0 mm or less NM with ulceration was 3.46 (95% CI = 2.17 to 5.50). NM patients with tumors greater than 1.0 mm did not show worse survival than SSM patients with tumors greater than 1.0 mm. CONCLUSIONS: In this large nationwide study, ALM patients showed worse survival than SSM patients. Among patients with melanomas that were thin (1.0 mm or less), NM subtype patients also showed worse survival than SSM patients.
Authors: Lori A Pollack; Jun Li; Zahava Berkowitz; Hannah K Weir; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Umed A Ajani; Donatus U Ekwueme; Chunyu Li; Brian P Pollack Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 11.527
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: M A El Sharouni; A J Witkamp; V Sigurdsson; P J van Diest; M W J Louwman; N A Kukutsch Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Melanie A Warycha; Paul J Christos; Madhu Mazumdar; Farbod Darvishian; Richard L Shapiro; Russell S Berman; Anna C Pavlick; Alfred W Kopf; David Polsky; Iman Osman Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Trude Eid Robsahm; Per Helsing; Yngvar Nilssen; Linda Vos; Syed Mohammad H Rizvi; Lars A Akslen; Marit B Veierød Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: M Casparie; A T M G Tiebosch; G Burger; H Blauwgeers; A van de Pol; J H J M van Krieken; G A Meijer Journal: Cell Oncol Date: 2007 Impact factor: 6.730
Authors: Krisztina Jámbor; Viktória Koroknai; Tímea Kiss; István Szász; Péter Pikó; Margit Balázs Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2022-08-24 Impact factor: 2.874