RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is currently no staging system for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) that is adapted to decision-making and universally used. Experts have unconscious ability to simplify the heterogeneity of clinical situations into a few relevant groups to drive their therapeutic decisions. Therefore, we have used unsupervised clustering of real cases by experts to generate an operational classification of cSCCs, an approach that was successful for basal cell carcinomas. OBJECTIVE: To generate a consensual and operational classification of cSCCs. METHOD: Unsupervised independent clustering of 248 cases of cSCCs considered difficult-to-treat. Eighteen international experts from different specialties classified these cases into what they considered homogeneous clusters useful for management, each with freedom regarding clustering criteria. Convergences and divergences between clustering were analysed using a similarity matrix, the K-mean approach and the average silhouette method. Mathematical modelling was used to look for the best consensual clustering. The operability of the derived classification was validated on 23 new practitioners. RESULTS: Despite the high heterogeneity of the clinical cases, a mathematical consensus was observed. It was best represented by a partition into five clusters, which appeared a posteriori to describe different clinical scenarios. Applicability of this classification was shown by a good concordance (94%) in the allocation of cases between the new practitioners and the 18 experts. An additional group of easy-to-treat cSCC was included, resulting in a six-group final classification: easy-to-treat/complex to treat due to tumour and/or patient characteristics/multiple/locally advanced/regional disease/visceral metastases. CONCLUSION: Given the methodology based on the convergence of unguided intuitive clustering of cases by experts, this new classification is relevant for clinical practice. It does not compete with staging systems, but they may complement each other, whether the objective is to select the best therapeutic approach in tumour boards or to design homogeneous groups for trials.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Adjuvant treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors like PD1-antibodies (ICI) ± CTLA4-antibodies (cICI) or targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors (TT) in high-risk melanoma patients demonstrate a significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS). Due to specific side effects, the choice of treatment is very often driven by the risk for toxicity. This study addressed for the first time in a multicenter setting the attitudes and preferences of melanoma patients for adjuvant treatment with (c)ICI and TT. METHODS: In this study ("GERMELATOX-A"), 136 low-risk melanoma patients from 11 skin cancer centers were asked to rate side effect scenarios typical for each (c)ICI and TT with mild-to-moderate or severe toxicity and melanoma recurrence leading to cancer death. We asked patients about the reduction in melanoma relapse and the survival increase at 5 years they would require to tolerate defined side-effects. RESULTS: By VAS, patients on average valued melanoma relapse worse than all scenarios of side-effects during treatment with (c)ICI or TT. In case of severe side effects, patients required a 15% higher rate of DFS at 5 years for (c)ICI (80%) compared to TT (65%). For survival, patients required an increase of 5-10% for melanoma survival during (c)ICI (85%/80%) compared to TT (75%). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated a pronounced variation of patient preferences for toxicity and outcomes and a clear preference for TT. As adjuvant melanoma treatment with (c)ICI and TT will be increasingly implemented in earlier stages, precise knowledge of the patient perspective can be helpful for decision making.