Melanoma and melanoma in-situ diagnosis after excision of atypical intraepidermal melanocytic proliferation: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence to guide surgical management of biopsies yielding the histologic descriptor atypical intraepidermal melanocytic proliferation (AIMP). OBJECTIVE: Determine frequency of and factors associated with melanoma and melanoma in-situ (MIS) diagnoses after excision of AIMP and evaluate margins used to completely excise AIMP. METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional study of 1127 biopsies reported as AIMP and subsequently excised within one academic institution. RESULTS: Melanoma (in situ, stage 1A) was diagnosed after excision in 8.2% (92/1127) of AIMP samples. Characteristics associated with melanoma/MIS diagnosis included age 60-79 years (odds ratio [OR] 8.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-26.2), age ≥80 years (OR 7.2, 95% CI 1.7-31.5), head/neck location (OR 4.9, 95% CI 3.1-7.7), clinical lesion partially biopsied (OR 11.0, 95% CI 6.7-18.1), and lesion extending to deep biopsy margin (OR 15.1, 95% CI 1.7-136.0). Average ± standard deviation surgical margin used to excise AIMP lesions was 4.5 ± 1.8 mm. LIMITATIONS: Single-site, retrospective, observational study; interobserver variability across dermatopathologists. CONCLUSION: Dermatologists and pathologists can endeavor to avoid ambiguous melanocytic designations whenever possible through excisional biopsy technique, interdisciplinary communication, and ancillary studies. In the event of AIMP biopsy, physicians should consider the term a histologic description rather than a diagnosis, and, during surgical planning, use clinicopathologic correlation while bearing in mind factors that might predict true melanoma/MIS.

Atypical Melanocytic Proliferations: A Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Ambiguous histopathologic diagnoses represent a challenge for clinicians because of a lack of definitive diagnosis and related uncertainty about management. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on atypical melanocytic proliferations and detail synonymous terms, epidemiology, diagnostic work-up, histopathology, treatment, and prognosis. METHODS: Databases from PubMed and Web of Science were searched for articles related to atypical melanocytic proliferations. RESULTS: Intraepidermal melanocytic proliferations with features worrisome for possible melanoma in situ (MIS) are generally excised as for MIS. Reported rates of upstaging of such cases to invasive melanoma on review of the excision are very low. Because invasion, lymph node spread, and metastasis can occur in atypical melanocytic lesions with a thick intradermal component, these are often treated as for malignant melanoma. CONCLUSION: Because the diagnosis dictates treatment, it is incumbent to establish a diagnosis as definitive as possible, obtaining second or third opinions and using ancillary studies when appropriate. When the diagnosis remains uncertain, it is difficult to provide guidelines for treatment. Clinical care decisions for patients with an uncertain diagnosis are best done on a case-by-case basis weighing probabilities of adverse outcomes against potential benefits and risks from various treatment options.

Pruritus in patients treated with targeted cancer therapies: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pruritus has been anecdotally described in association with targeted cancer therapies. The risk of pruritus has not been systematically ascertained. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted for axitinib, cetuximab, dasatinib, erlotinib, everolimus, gefitinib, imatinib, ipilimumab, lapatinib, nilotinib, panitumumab, pazopanib, rituximab, sorafenib, temsirolimus, tositumomab, vandetanib, and vemurafenib. METHODS: Databases from PubMed, Web of Science (January 1998 through July 2012), and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstracts (2004 through 2012) were searched. Incidence and relative risk of pruritus were calculated using random- or fixed-effects model. RESULTS: The incidences of all-grade and high-grade pruritus were 17.4% (95% confidence interval 16.0%-19.0%) and 1.4% (95% confidence interval 1.2%-1.6%), respectively. There was an increased risk of all-grade pruritus (relative risk 2.90 [95% confidence interval 1.76-4.77, P < .001]) and variation among different drugs (P < .001). LIMITATIONS: The reporting of pruritus may vary, resulting from concomitant medications, comorbidities, and underlying malignancies. We found a higher incidence of pruritus in patients with solid tumors, concordant with those targeted therapies with the highest pruritus incidences. CONCLUSION: There is a significant risk of developing pruritus in patients receiving targeted therapies. To prevent suboptimal dosing and decreased quality of life, patients should be counseled and treated against this untoward symptom.

Pruritus to anticancer agents targeting the EGFR, BRAF, and CTLA-4.

In the past decade, the expanded use of targeted anticancer drugs has significantly prolonged survival in patients treated for a variety of cancers. Despite their increased specificity, agents such as epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRIs), BRAF inhibitors, and targeted immunotherapies have commonly been associated with a number of dermatologic adverse events, often necessitating treatment modifications and negatively impacting patients' quality of life. Although toxicities such as rash and xerosis are frequently discussed, symptomatic pruritus, or itch, has emerged as an important, and frequently neglected, event. The present study reviews the incidence and clinical presentation of pruritus with the EFGRIs, and with two novel anti-melanoma drugs, vemurafenib and ipilimumab, with a focus on the putative underlying pathophysiology, and current management strategies.

Psoriasiform drug eruption secondary to sorafenib: case series and review of the literature.

The expanding use of novel targeted anticancer agents such as sorafenib has led to an increasing number of dermatologic adverse events. Although cutaneous adverse events are commonly described in patients taking sorafenib, there are few reports describing psoriasis secondary to this medication. In this report, we describe 3 patients with sorafenib-induced psoriasiform drug eruption and review the available literature of similar patient cases. Our findings highlight shared characteristics among affected patients and potential treatment options for patients in whom sorafenib cannot be discontinued. Increased awareness of such drug eruptions and management options is critical to prevent suboptimal dosing and decreased quality of life.