Establishing Consensus for Mohs Micrographic Surgical Techniques in the Treatment of Melanoma in Situ for Future Clinical Trials: A Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a promising treatment modality for melanoma in situ (MIS). However, variations in surgical technique limit the generalizability of existing data and may impede future study of MMS in clinical trials. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was selected to establish consensus on optimal MMS techniques for treating MIS in future clinical trials. The Delphi method was selected due to the limited current data, the wide range of techniques used in the field, and the intention to establish a standardized technique for future clinical trials. A literature review and interviews with experienced MMS surgeons were performed to identify dimensions of the MMS technique for MIS that (1) likely impacted costs or outcomes of the procedure, and (2) showed significant variability between surgeons. A total of 8 dimensions of technical variation were selected. The Delphi process consisted of 2 rounds of voting and commentary, during which 44 expert Mohs surgeons across the United States rated their agreement with specific recommendations using a Likert scale. RESULTS: Five of eight recommendations achieved consensus in Round 1. All 3 of the remaining recommendations achieved consensus in Round 2. Techniques achieving consensus in Round 1 included the use of a starting peripheral margin of ≤5 mm, application of immunohistochemistry, frozen tissue processing, and resecting to the depth of subcutaneous fat. Consensus on the use of Wood's lamp, dermatoscope, and negative tissue controls was established in Round 2. CONCLUSIONS: This study generated 8 consensus recommendations intended to offer guidance for Mohs surgeons treating MIS. The adoption of these recommendations will promote standardization to facilitate comparisons of aggregate data in multicenter clinical trials.

Standardizing Retrospective Observational Research in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Expert Panel Guidelines from ITSCC.

Importance: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is the second most common malignant disease in the US. Although it typically carries a good prognosis, a subset of CSCCs are highly aggressive, carrying regional and distant metastatic potential. Due to its high incidence, this aggressive subset is responsible for considerable mortality, with an overall annual mortality estimated to equal or even surpass melanoma. Despite this morbidity, CSCC is excluded from national cancer registries, making it difficult to study its epidemiology and outcomes. Therefore, the bulk of the CSCC literature is composed of single-center and multi-institutional retrospective cohort analyses. Given variations in reporting measures and analyses in these studies, interpretability between studies and the ability to pool results are limited. Objective: To define standardized reporting measures for retrospective CSCC studies. Findings: An expert panel was convened to determine standardized guidelines for recording and analyzing retrospective CSCC data. A total of 13 dermatologists and dermatologic surgeons with more than 5 years of posttraining experience and considerable experience with performing CSCC outcomes research were recruited to the panel. Consensus recommendations were achieved for CSCC retrospective study reporting measures, definitions, and analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: The recommendations in this report present the potential to standardize future CSCC retrospective studies. With such standardization, future work may have greater interstudy interpretability and allow for pooled analyses.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) association with Melanoma.

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are forms of abuse, neglect, or household dysfunction before the age of 18. We found individuals exposed to ACEs are at increased odds of receiving a melanoma diagnosis. ACEs range from people whose parents divorced in childhood (OR 1.64) to people who were physically hurt by their parents (OR 2.41).

Disparities in Receipt of Adjuvant Immunotherapy among Stage III Melanoma Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Melanoma survival has greatly improved with the advent of immunotherapy, but unequal access to these medications may exist due to nonmedical patient factors such as insurance status, educational background, and geographic proximity to treatment. METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to assess patients with nonmetastatic cutaneous melanoma who underwent surgical resection and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) with tumor involvement from 2015 to 2020. We evaluated rates of adjuvant immunotherapy among this patient population based on patient, tumor, and facility variables, including insurance status, socioeconomic status, pathologic stage (IIIA-IIID), and treatment facility type and volume. RESULTS: Adjuvant immunotherapy was associated with improved survival for stage III melanoma, with a slight increase in 5-year OS for stage IIIA (87.9% vs. 85.9%, P=0.044) and a higher increase in stages IIIB-D disease (70.3% vs. 59.6%, P<0.001). Receipt of adjuvant immunotherapy was less likely for patients who were older, low socioeconomic status, or uninsured. Low-volume and community cancer centers had higher rates of adjuvant immunotherapy overall for all stage III patients, whereas high-volume and academic centers used adjuvant immunotherapy much less often for stage IIIA patients compared with those in stages IIIB-D. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate inconsistent use of adjuvant immunotherapy among patients with stage III melanoma despite a significant association with improved survival. Notably, there was a lower use of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients of lower SES and those treated at high-volume centers. Equity in access to novel standards of care represents an opportunity to improve outcomes for patients with melanoma.

Neoadjuvant Dual Checkpoint Inhibitors vs Anti-PD1 Therapy in High-Risk Resectable Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis.

Importance: Despite the clear potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy, the optimal neoadjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk resectable melanoma (HRRM) is not known. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibitors with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD1) therapy in a neoadjuvant setting among patients with HRRM. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pooled analysis of clinical trials, studies were selected provided they investigated immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, were published between January 2018 and March 2023, and were phase 1, 2, or 3 clinical trials. Participant data included in the analysis were derived from trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 monotherapy and the combination of anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 with anti-PD1 in the neoadjuvant setting, specifically among patients with HRRM. Interventions: Patients were treated with either anti-PD1 monotherapy; dual checkpoint inhibition (DCPI) with a conventional dose of 3-mg/kg ipilimumab and 1-mg/kg nivolumab; or DCPI with an alternative-dose regimen of 1-mg/kg ipilimumab and 3-mg/kg nivolumab. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were radiologic complete response (rCR), radiologic overall objective response (rOOR), and radiologic progressive disease. Also, pathologic complete response (pCR), the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection, and occurrence of grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were considered. Results: Among 573 patients enrolled in 6 clinical trials, neoadjuvant therapy with DCPI was associated with higher odds of achieving pCR compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 3.16; P < .001). DCPI was associated with higher odds of grade 3 or 4 irAEs compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (OR, 3.75; P < .001). When comparing the alternative-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) regimen with conventional-dose IPI-NIVO, no statistically significant difference in rCR, rOOR, radiologic progressive disease, or pCR was noted. However, the conventional-dose IPI-NIVO regimen was associated with increased grade 3 or 4 irAEs (OR, 4.76; P < .001). Conventional-dose IPI-NIVO was associated with greater odds of achieving improved rOOR (OR, 1.95; P = .046) and pCR (OR, 2.99; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The alternative dose of IPI-NIVO also was associated with higher odds of achieving rCR (OR, 2.55; P = .03) and pCR (OR, 3.87; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs is higher with both the conventional-dose (OR, 9.59; P < .001) and alternative-dose IPI-NIVO regimens (OR, 2.02; P = .02) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. Conclusion and Relevance: In this pooled analysis of 6 clinical trials, although DCPI was associated with increased likelihood of achieving pathological and radiologic responses, the associated risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs was significantly lower with anti-PD1 monotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for HRRM. Additionally, compared with alternative-dose IPI-NIVO, the conventional dose of IPI-NIVO was associated with increased risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs, with no significant distinctions in radiologic or pathologic efficacy.

Disparities in the Receipt of Systemic Treatment in Metastatic Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, immunotherapy and targeted therapy revolutionized melanoma treatment. However, inequities in their use may limit the benefits seen by certain patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients in the National Cancer Database for patients with stage IV melanoma from 2 time periods: 2004-2010 and 2016-2020, distinguishing between those who received systemic therapy and those who did not. We investigated the rates and factors associated with treatment omission. We employed Kaplan-Meier analysis to explore the impact of treatment on overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 19,961 patients met the inclusion criteria: 7621 patients were diagnosed in 2004-2010 and 12,340 patients in 2016-2020, of whom 54.9% and 28.3% did not receive systemic treatment, respectively. The rate of "no treatment" has decreased to a plateau of ∼25% in 2020. Median overall survival was improved with treatment in both time periods (2004-2010: 8.8 vs. 5.6 mo [ P <0.05]; and 2016-2020: 25.9 vs. 4.3 mo [ P <0.05]). Nonmedical factors associated with the omission of treatment in both periods included low socioeconomic status, Medicaid or no health insurance, and treatment at low-volume centers. In the period from 2016 to 2020, patients treated at nonacademic programs were also less likely to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic therapies significantly improve survival for patients with metastatic melanoma, but significant disparities exist with their receipt. Local efforts are needed to ensure all patients benefit from these revolutionary treatments.

What Should Be the Surgical Technique for Treating Thin Melanoma?

Surgical Technique for Treating Thin MelanomaProspective data comparing the safety and efficacy of complete margin assessment and conventional wide excision in the treatment of melanoma are lacking. This article reviews the evidence and proposes a trial to determine which surgical method is better for treating thin invasive melanoma and melanoma in situ in high-risk anatomical locations.