Impact of personal genomic risk information on melanoma prevention behaviors and psychological outcomes: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on sun-related behaviors and psychological outcomes. METHODS: In this parallel group, open, randomized controlled trial, 1,025 Australians of European ancestry without melanoma and aged 18-69 years were recruited via the Medicare database (3% consent). Participants were randomized to the intervention (n = 513; saliva sample for genetic testing, personalized melanoma risk booklet based on a 40-variant polygenic risk score, telephone-based genetic counseling, educational booklet) or control (n = 512; educational booklet). Wrist-worn ultraviolet (UV) radiation dosimeters (10-day wear) and questionnaires were administered at baseline, 1 month postintervention, and 12 months postbaseline. RESULTS: At 12 months, 948 (92%) participants completed dosimetry and 973 (95%) the questionnaire. For the primary outcome, there was no effect of the genomic risk intervention on objectively measured UV exposure at 12 months, irrespective of traditional risk factors. For secondary outcomes at 12 months, the intervention reduced sunburns (risk ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.54-0.96), and increased skin examinations among women. Melanoma-related worry was reduced. There was no overall impact on general psychological distress. CONCLUSION: Personalized genomic risk information did not influence sun exposure patterns but did improve some skin cancer prevention and early detection behaviors, suggesting it may be useful for precision prevention. There was no evidence of psychological harm.

Improved Risk Prediction Calculator for Sentinel Node Positivity in Patients With Melanoma: The Melanoma Institute Australia Nomogram.

PURPOSE: For patients with primary cutaneous melanoma, the risk of sentinel node (SN) metastasis varies according to several clinicopathologic parameters. Patient selection for SN biopsy can be assisted by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and ASCO/Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) guidelines and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) online nomogram. We sought to develop an improved online risk calculator using alternative clinicopathologic parameters to more accurately predict SN positivity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 3,477 patients with melanoma who underwent SN biopsy at Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) were analyzed. A new nomogram was developed by replacing body site and Clark level from the MSKCC model with mitotic rate, melanoma subtype, and lymphovascular invasion. The predictive performance of the new nomogram was externally validated using data from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (n = 3,496). RESULTS: The MSKCC model receiver operating characteristic curve had a predictive accuracy of 67.7% (95% CI, 65.3% to 70.0%). The MIA model had a predictive accuracy of 73.9% (95% CI, 71.9% to 75.9%), a 9.2% increase in accuracy over the MSKCC model (P < .001). Among the 2,748 SN-negative patients, SN biopsy would not have been offered to 22.1%, 13.4%, and 12.4% based on the MIA model, the MSKCC model, and NCCN or ASCO/SSO criteria, respectively. External validation generated a C-statistic of 75.0% (95% CI, 73.2% to 76.7%). CONCLUSION: A robust nomogram was developed that more accurately estimates the risk of SN positivity in patients with melanoma than currently available methods. The model only requires the input of 6 widely available clinicopathologic parameters. Importantly, the number of patients undergoing unnecessary SN biopsy would be significantly reduced compared with use of the MSKCC nomogram or the NCCN or ASCO/SSO guidelines, without losing sensitivity. An online calculator is available at www.melanomarisk.org.au.

The Prognostic and Predictive Value of Melanoma-related MicroRNAs Using Tissue and Serum: A MicroRNA Expression Analysis.

The overall 5-year survival for melanoma is 91%. However, if distant metastasis occurs (stage IV), cure rates are < 15%. Hence, melanoma detection in earlier stages (stages I-III) maximises the chances of patient survival. We measured the expression of a panel of 17 microRNAs (miRNAs) (MELmiR-17) in melanoma tissues (stage III; n = 76 and IV; n = 10) and serum samples (collected from controls with no melanoma, n = 130; and patients with melanoma (stages I/II, n = 86; III, n = 50; and IV, n = 119)) obtained from biobanks in Australia and Germany. In melanoma tissues, members of the 'MELmiR-17' panel were found to be predictors of stage, recurrence, and survival. Additionally, in a minimally-invasive blood test, a seven-miRNA panel (MELmiR-7) detected the presence of melanoma (relative to controls) with high sensitivity (93%) and specificity (≥ 82%) when ≥ 4 miRNAs were expressed. Moreover, the 'MELmiR-7' panel characterised overall survival of melanoma patients better than both serum LDH and S100B (delta log likelihood = 11, p < 0.001). This panel was found to be superior to currently used serological markers for melanoma progression, recurrence, and survival; and would be ideally suited to monitor tumour progression in patients diagnosed with early metastatic disease (stages IIIa-c/IV M1a-b) to detect relapse following surgical or adjuvant treatment.

High- and average-risk individuals' beliefs about, and perceptions of, malignant melanoma: an Australian perspective.

Despite expanding knowledge regarding the genetics of melanoma, there have been few attempts to define the psychosocial experiences of individuals with a family history of this disease. This study explored the ways in which individuals at varying levels of risk perceive, and respond to, melanoma. Forty semi-structured interviews were undertaken with affected (n = 20) and unaffected (n = 20) individuals with or without a family history of melanoma. Data were analysed for potential thematic differences between risk groups, genders, and intentions to pursue genetic testing for melanoma risk. Overall, participants with a family history were in acceptance of their increased risk status and had developed ways of coping without major disruption to their daily lives. However, some participants expressed ambiguity regarding the causes of melanoma and the effectiveness of health behaviours such as sun protection. Major thematic patterns identified for those intending to pursue genetic testing were: negative emotional associations with melanoma; an emphasis on screening and sun avoidance, but not sun protection; and heightened perceptions of personal susceptibility to melanoma. In contrast, thematic patterns identified for those likely to decline testing were: ready access to stories of melanoma survival; and an emphasis on the causal role of sun exposure, whilst still believing that genetic factors may contribute to melanoma susceptibility. Compared to males, females reported a greater tendency to completely avoid the sun in order to reduce their melanoma risk. The data provide preliminary evidence for the importance of identifying misconceptions that may impede informed decision-making about genetic testing for melanoma risk.