Validation of a microRNA liquid biopsy assay for diagnosis and risk stratification of invasive cutaneous melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive molecular biomarkers are needed to improve the early, accurate and precise diagnosis of invasive cutaneous melanoma. OBJECTIVES: To independently validate a previously identified circulating microRNA signature of melanoma (MEL38), and, secondly, to develop a complementary microRNA signature, optimized for prognostication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MicroRNA expression profiling was performed on plasma samples from a multicentre observational case-control study, involving patients with primary or metastatic melanoma, melanoma in situ, nonmelanoma skin cancer, or benign naevi. MicroRNA profiles from patients with length of survival, treatment and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) data were used to develop the prognostic signature. The primary outcome of interest for MEL38 was its association with melanoma status, including area under the curve, binary diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, and incidence-adjusted positive and negative predictive values. The prognostic signature was assessed using rates of survival per risk group and relationship to conventional predictors of outcome. RESULTS: Circulating microRNA profiles of 372 patients with invasive melanoma and 210 control individuals were generated. The average age of all participants was 59 years; 49% were male. A MEL38 score > 5.5 indicated the presence of invasive melanoma. Overall, 551/582 (95%) of patients were correctly diagnosed, with 93% sensitivity and 98% specificity. MEL38 score ranged from 0 to 10 with an area under the curve of 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.97-0.99, P < 0.001). A novel prognostic 12-microRNA signature (MEL12) developed from 232 patients identified low-, standard- or high-risk groups, with 94%, 78% and 58% rates of 10-year melanoma-specific survival, respectively (log-rank P < 0.001). MEL12 prognostic risk groups were significantly associated with clinical staging (χ2, P < 0.001) and SLNB status (P = 0.027). Patients who were classified as high risk by MEL12 were approximately three times more likely to have melanoma detected in their sentinel lymph nodes compared to low-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: The circulating MEL38 signature may assist in diagnosing patients with invasive melanoma vs. other conditions associated with a lower - or negligible - risk of mortality. A complementary and prognostic MEL12 signature is predictive of SLNB status, clinical stage and probability of survival. Plasma microRNA profiling may help to optimize existing diagnostic pathways as well as enable personalized, risk-informed melanoma treatment decisions.

Practitioner characteristics, diagnostic accuracy metrics and discovering-individual with respect to 637 melanomas documented by 27 general practitioners on the Skin Cancer Audit Research Database.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Knowledge of accuracy for melanoma diagnosis and melanoma discovering-individual in primary care is limited. We describe general practitioner (GP) characteristics and analyse defined diagnostic accuracy metrics for GPs in the current study comparing this with a previous study for GPs common to both, and we analyse the individual first discovering each melanoma as a lesion of concern. METHODS: The characteristics and diagnostic accuracy of 27 Australasian GPs documenting 637 melanomas on the Skin Cancer Audit Research Database (SCARD) in 2013 were described and analysed. The number needed to treat (NNT) and percentage of melanomas that were in situ (percentage in situ) were analysed as surrogates for specificity and sensitivity, respectively. The discovering-individual was analysed according to patient age and sex and lesion Breslow thickness. RESULTS: The average NNT and percentage in situ were 5.73% and 65.07%, respectively. For 21 GPs in both a 2008-2010 study and the current study, the NNT was 10.78 and 5.56, respectively (p = 0.0037). A consistent trend of decreasing NNT and increasing percentage in situ through increasingly subspecialised GP categories did not reach statistical significance. NNT trended high at ages and sites for which melanoma was rare. While the patient or family member was more likely to discover thick melanomas and melanomas in patients under 40 years, GPs discovered 73.9% of the melanomas as lesions of concern. CONCLUSIONS: GPs were the discovering-individuals for the majority of melanomas in the current study and their accuracy metrics compared favourably with published figures for dermatologists and GPs.

Development of melanoma clinical quality indicators for the Australian melanoma clinical outcomes registry (MelCOR): A modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical quality registries aim to identify significant variations in care and provide anonymised feedback to institutions to improve patient outcomes. Thirty-six Australian organisations with an interest in melanoma, raised funds through three consecutive Melanoma Marches, organised by Melanoma Institute Australia, to create a national Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry (MelCOR). This study aimed to formally develop valid clinical quality indicators for the diagnosis and early management of cutaneous melanoma as an important step in creating the registry. METHODS: Potential clinical quality indicators were identified by examining the literature, including Australian and international melanoma guidelines, and by consulting with key melanoma and registry opinion leaders. A modified two-round Delphi survey method was used, with participants invited from relevant health professions routinely managing melanoma as well as relevant consumer organisations. RESULTS: Nineteen participants completed at least one round of the Delphi process. 12 of 13 proposed clinical quality indictors met the validity criteria. The clinical quality indicators included acceptable biopsy method, appropriate excision margins, standardised pathology reporting, indications for sentinel lymph node biopsy, and involvement of multidisciplinary care and referrals. CONCLUSION: This study provides a multi-stakeholder consensus for important clinical quality indicators that define optimal practice that will now be used in the Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry (MelCOR).

Characteristics, treatment and outcomes of 589 melanoma patients documented by 27 general practitioners on the Skin Cancer Audit Research Database.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: General practitioners manage more melanomas than dermatologists or surgeons in Australia. Previously undescribed, the management and outcomes of melanoma patients treated by multiple Australasian general practitioners are examined. METHODS: The characteristics, management and outcomes of 589 melanoma patients, managed by 27 Australasian general practitioners and documented on the Skin Cancer Audit Research Database (SCARD), were analysed. RESULTS: Most patients (58.9%) were males with mean age at diagnosis of 62.7 years (range 18-96), and most melanomas were in situ or thin-invasive. Patients aged under 40 years had fewer melanomas, but a higher proportion (the majority) were invasive, compared with older patients (P < 0.0001). Most (55.9%) melanomas were diagnosed following elliptical excision biopsy, the rate of unintended involved margins being eightfold higher for shave biopsies. Wide re-excision was performed by the treating general practitioner for most (74.9%) melanomas, with thick melanomas preferentially referred to surgeons. The average Breslow thickness of invasive melanomas re-excised by general practitioners was 0.67 mm compared with 1.99 mm for those referred to other specialists (P < 0.0001). Of 205 patients with invasive melanoma, 14 progressed to metastatic disease, 50% of these being associated with nodular melanoma. Nine patients progressed to melanoma-specific death. The 5-year survival rate for patients with invasive melanoma was 95.2% (95% CI: 91.2-98.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic and therapeutic management of a series of melanoma patients by Australasian general practitioners were closely aligned with current guidelines and 5-year survival with respect to invasive melanoma was at least as favourable as national population-based metrics.

Perspectives and Experiences of Patient-Led Melanoma Surveillance Using Digital Technologies From Clinicians Involved in the MEL-SELF Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial: Qualitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: The growing number of melanoma patients who need long-term surveillance increasingly exceeds the capacity of the dermatology workforce, particularly outside of metropolitan areas. Digital technologies that enable patients to perform skin self-examination and send dermoscopic images of lesions of concern to a dermatologist (mobile teledermoscopy) are a potential solution. If these technologies and the remote delivery of melanoma surveillance are to be incorporated into routine clinical practice, they need to be accepted by clinicians providing melanoma care, such as dermatologists and general practitioners (GPs). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore perceptions of potential benefits and harms of mobile teledermoscopy, as well as experiences with this technology, among clinicians participating in a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patient-led melanoma surveillance. METHODS: This qualitative study was nested within a pilot RCT conducted at dermatologist and skin specialist GP-led melanoma clinics in New South Wales, Australia. We conducted semistructured interviews with 8 of the total 11 clinicians who were involved in the trial, including 4 dermatologists (3 provided teledermatology, 2 were treating clinicians), 1 surgical oncologist, and 3 GPs with qualifications in skin cancer screening (the remaining 3 GPs declined an interview). Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data with reference to the concepts of "medical overuse" and "high-value care." RESULTS: Clinicians identified several potential benefits, including increased access to dermatology services, earlier detection of melanomas, reassurance for patients between scheduled visits, and a reduction in unnecessary clinic visits. However, they also identified some potential concerns regarding the use of the technology and remote monitoring that could result in diagnostic uncertainty. These included poor image quality, difficulty making assessments from a 2D digital image (even if good quality), insufficient clinical history provided, and concern that suspicious lesions may have been missed by the patient. Clinicians thought that uncertainty arising from these concerns, together with perceived potential medicolegal consequences from missing a diagnosis, might lead to increases in unnecessary clinic visits and procedures. Strategies suggested for achieving high-value care included managing clinical uncertainty to decrease the potential for medical overuse and ensuring optimal placement of patient-led teledermoscopy within existing clinical care pathways to increase the potential for benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians were enthusiastic about the potential and experienced benefits of mobile teledermoscopy; however, managing clinical uncertainty will be necessary to achieve these benefits in clinical care outside of trial contexts and minimize potential harms from medical overuse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001716459; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371865.

Assessing the Potential for Patient-led Surveillance After Treatment of Localized Melanoma (MEL-SELF): A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Patient-led surveillance is a promising new model of follow-up care following excision of localized melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient-led surveillance in patients with prior localized primary cutaneous melanoma is as safe, feasible, and acceptable as clinician-led surveillance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a pilot for a randomized clinical trial at 2 specialist-led clinics in metropolitan Sydney, Australia, and a primary care skin cancer clinic managed by general practitioners in metropolitan Newcastle, Australia. The participants were 100 patients who had been treated for localized melanoma, owned a smartphone, had a partner to assist with skin self-examination (SSE), and had been routinely attending scheduled follow-up visits. The study was conducted from November 1, 2018, to January 17, 2020, with analysis performed from September 1, 2020, to November 15, 2020. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized (1:1) to 6 months of patient-led surveillance (the intervention comprised usual care plus reminders to perform SSE, patient-performed dermoscopy, teledermatologist assessment, and fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits) or clinician-led surveillance (the control was usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of eligible and contacted patients who were randomized. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (eg, SSE knowledge, attitudes, and practices, psychological outcomes, other health care use) and clinical outcomes (eg, clinic visits, skin surgeries, subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma). RESULTS: Of 326 patients who were eligible and contacted, 100 (31%) patients (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [12.0] years; 53 [53%] men) were randomized to patient-led (n = 49) or clinician-led (n = 51) surveillance. Data were available on patient-reported outcomes for 66 participants and on clinical outcomes for 100 participants. Compared with clinician-led surveillance, patient-led surveillance was associated with increased SSE frequency (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% CI, 0.9 to 14.0) and thoroughness (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.8 to 5.7), had no detectable adverse effect on psychological outcomes (fear of cancer recurrence subscale score; mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -3.1 to 0.5), and increased clinic visits (risk ratio [RR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.1), skin lesion excisions (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.0), and subsequent melanoma diagnoses and subsequent melanoma diagnoses (risk difference, 10%; 95% CI, -2% to 23%). New primary melanomas and 1 local recurrence were diagnosed in 8 (16%) of the participants in the intervention group, including 5 (10%) ahead of routinely scheduled visits; and in 3 (6%) of the participants in the control group, with none (0%) ahead of routinely scheduled visits (risk difference, 10%; 95% CI, 2% to 19%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This pilot of a randomized clinical trial found that patient-led surveillance after treatment of localized melanoma appears to be safe, feasible, and acceptable. Experiences from this pilot study have prompted improvements to the trial processes for the larger trial of the same intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616001716459.

Assessment of a Diagnostic Classification System for Management of Lesions to Exclude Melanoma.

Importance: The proposed MOLEM (Management of Lesion to Exclude Melanoma) schema is more clinically relevant than Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MATH-Dx) for the management classification of melanocytic and nonmelanocytic lesions excised to exclude melanoma. A more standardized way of establishing diagnostic criteria will be crucial in the training of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. Objective: To examine pathologists' variability, reliability, and confidence in reporting melanocytic and nonmelanocytic lesions excised to exclude melanoma using the MOLEM schema in a population of higher-risk patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study enrolled higher-risk patients referred to a primary care skin clinic in New South Wales, Australia, between April 2019 and December 2019. Baseline demographic characteristics including age, sex, and related clinical details (eg, history of melanoma) were collected. Patients with lesions suspicious for melanoma assessed by a primary care physician underwent clinical evaluation, dermoscopy imaging, and subsequent excision biopsy of the suspected lesion(s). A total of 217 lesions removed and prepared by conventional histologic method and stained with hematoxylin-eosin were reviewed by up to 9 independent pathologists for diagnosis using the MOLEM reporting schema. Pathologists evaluating for MOLEM schema were masked to the original histopathologic diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics of the lesions were described and the concordance of cases per MOLEM class was assessed. Interrater agreement and the agreement between pathologists' ratings and the majority MOLEM diagnosis were calculated by Gwet AC1 with quadratic weighting applied. The diagnostic confidence of pathologists was then assessed. Results: A total of 197 patients were included in the study (102 [51.8%] male; 95 [48.2%] female); mean (SD) age was 64.2 (15.8) years (range, 24-93 years). Overall, 217 index lesions were assessed with a total of 1516 histological diagnoses. Of 1516 diagnoses, 677 (44.7%) were classified as MOLEM class I; 120 (7.9%) as MOLEM class II; 564 (37.2%) as MOLEM class III; 114 (7.5%) as MOLEM class IV; and 55 (3.6%) as MOLEM class V. Concordance rates per MOLEM class were 88.6% (class I), 50.8% (class II), 76.2% (class III), 77.2% (class IV), and 74.2% (class V). The quadratic weighted interrater agreement was 91.3%, with a Gwet AC1 coefficient of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81). The quadratic weighted agreement between pathologists' ratings and majority MOLEM was 94.7%, with a Gwet AC1 coefficient of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.84-0.88). The confidence in diagnosis data showed a relatively high level of confidence (between 1.0 and 1.5) when diagnosing classes I (mean [SD], 1.3 [0.3]), IV (1.3 [0.3]) and V (1.1 [0.1]); while classes II (1.8 [0.2]) and III (1.5 [0.4]) were diagnosed with a lower level of pathologist confidence (≥1.5). The quadratic weighted interrater confidence rating agreement was 95.2%, with a Gwet AC1 coefficient of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.94) for the 1314 confidence ratings collected. The confidence agreement for each MOLEM class was 95.0% (class I), 93.5% (class II), 95.3% (class III), 96.5% (class IV), and 97.5% (class V). Conclusions and Relevance: The proposed MOLEM schema better reflects clinical practice than the MPATH-Dx schema in lesions excised to exclude melanoma by combining diagnoses with similar prognostic outcomes for melanocytic and nonmelanocytic lesions into standardized classification categories. Pathologists' level of confidence appeared to follow the MOLEM schema diagnostic concordance trend, ie, atypical naevi and melanoma in situ diagnoses were the least agreed upon and the most challenging for pathologists to confidently diagnose.

Characteristics of 637 melanomas documented by 27 general practitioners on the Skin Cancer Audit Research Database.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Most melanomas (including melanomas in situ), in Australasia, are treated by general practitioners (GPs). Previously undescribed, the characteristics of a series of melanomas treated by multiple GPs are examined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Six hundred and thirty-seven melanomas treated by 27 Australasian GPs during 2013 and documented on the Skin Cancer Audit Research Database (SCARD) were analysed by anatomical site, subtype, Breslow thickness, diameter, associated naevi and linked adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Most melanomas (59.7%) were on males, mean age at diagnosis being 62.7 years (range 18-96). Most (65.0%) were in situ, with a high incidence of lentiginous melanoma (LM) (38.8%) and 32% were naevus associated. Most LM (86.4%) were in situ, compared to 55% of superficial spreading melanoma (SSM) (P < 0.0001). There was male predominance on the head, neck and trunk and female predominance on extremities. There was no significant association between Breslow thickness and diameter, with small melanomas as likely to be thick as large melanomas, and melanomas ≤3 mm diameter, on average, more likely to be invasive than larger melanomas. There was a positive correlation between age and both melanoma diameter and Breslow thickness. Seven cases progressed to melanoma-specific death: Five nodular melanoma (NM) and two SSM, one of which was thin (Breslow thickness 0.5 mm). CONCLUSIONS: A large series of melanomas treated by Australasian GPs were predominantly in situ, with a high proportion of LM subtype. With implications for GP training, NM linked to death was over-represented and there was a novel finding that older patients had larger diameter melanomas.

Can patient-led surveillance detect subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas and reduce the need for routinely scheduled follow-up? A protocol for the MEL-SELF randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas might be self-detected if patients are trained to systematically self-examine their skin and have access to timely medical review (patient-led surveillance). Routinely scheduled clinic visits (clinician-led surveillance) is resource-intensive and has not been shown to improve health outcomes; fewer visits may be possible if patient-led surveillance is shown to be safe and effective. The MEL-SELF trial is a randomised controlled trial comparing patient-led surveillance with clinician-led surveillance in people who have been previously treated for localised melanoma. METHODS: Stage 0/I/II melanoma patients (n = 600) from dermatology, surgical, or general practice clinics in NSW Australia, will be randomised (1:1) to the intervention (patient-led surveillance, n = 300) or control (usual care, n = 300). Patients in the intervention will undergo a second randomisation 1:1 to polarised (n = 150) or non-polarised (n = 150) dermatoscope. Patient-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet, skin self-examination (SSE) instructional videos; 3-monthly email/SMS reminders to perform SSE; patient-performed dermoscopy with teledermatologist feedback; clinical review of positive teledermoscopy through fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits; and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. Clinician-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. The primary outcome, measured at 12 months, is the proportion of participants diagnosed with a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma at an unscheduled clinic visit. Secondary outcomes include time from randomisation to diagnosis (of a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and of a new keratinocyte cancer), clinicopathological characteristics of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas (including AJCC stage), psychological outcomes, and healthcare use. A nested qualitative study will include interviews with patients and clinicians, and a costing study we will compare costs from a societal perspective. We will compare the technical performance of two different models of dermatoscope (polarised vs non-polarised). DISCUSSION: The findings from this study may inform guidance on evidence-based follow-up care, that maximises early detection of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and patient wellbeing, while minimising costs to patients, health systems, and society. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000176864 . Registered on 18 February 2021.

Efficiency of Detecting New Primary Melanoma Among Individuals Treated in a High-risk Clinic for Skin Surveillance.

Importance: A previous single-center study observed fewer excisions, lower health care costs, thinner melanomas, and better quality of life when surveillance of high-risk patients was conducted in a melanoma dermatology clinic with a structured surveillance protocol involving full-body examinations every 6 months aided by total-body photography (TBP) and sequential digital dermoscopy imaging (SDDI). Objective: To examine longer-term sustainability and expansion of the surveillance program to numerous practices, including a primary care skin cancer clinic setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study recruited 593 participants assessed from 2012 to 2018 as having very high risk of melanoma, with a median of 2.9 years of follow-up (interquartile range, 1.9-3.3 years), from 4 melanoma high-risk clinics (3 dermatology clinics and 1 primary care skin cancer clinic) in New South Wales, Australia. Data analyses were conducted from February to September 2020. Exposures: Six-month full-body examination with the aid of TBP and SDDI. For equivocal lesions, the clinician performed SDDI at 3 or 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: All suspect monitored or excised lesions were recorded, and pathology reports obtained. Outcomes included the incidence and characteristics of new lesions and the association of diagnostic aids with rates of new melanoma detection. Results: Among 593 participants, 340 (57.3%) were men, and the median age at baseline was 58 years (interquartile range, 47-66 years). There were 1513 lesions excised during follow-up, including 171 primary melanomas. The overall benign to malignant excision ratio, including keratinocyte carcinomas, was 0.8:1.0; the benign melanocytic to melanoma excision ratio was 2.4:1.0; and the melanoma in situ to invasive melanoma ratio was 2.2:1.0. The excision ratios were similar across the 4 centers. The risk of developing a new melanoma was 9.0% annually in the first 2 years and increased with time, particularly for those with multiple primary melanomas. The thicker melanomas (>1-mm Breslow thickness; 7 of 171 melanomas [4.1%]) were mostly desmoplastic or nodular (4 of 7), self-detected (2 of 7), or clinician detected without the aid of TBP (3 of 7). Overall, new melanomas were most likely to be detected by a clinician with the aid of TBP (54 of 171 [31.6%]) followed by digital dermoscopy monitoring (50 of 171 [29.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The structured surveillance program for high-risk patients may be implemented at a larger scale given the present cohort study findings suggesting the sustainability and replication of results in numerous settings, including a primary care skin cancer clinic.

Variability in the Histopathological Diagnosis of Non-Melanocytic Lesions Excised to Exclude Melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: The differential diagnosis of lesions excised to exclude melanoma include a variety of benign and malignant melanocytic and non-melanocytic lesions. OBJECTIVES: We examined the variability between pathologists in diagnosing non-melanocytic lesions. METHODS: As part of a larger study prospectively examining the diagnosis of lesions excised to exclude melanoma in 198 patients at a primary care skin cancer clinic in Newcastle, Australia, we compared diagnosis made by 5 experienced dermatopathologists, of 44 non-melanocytic lesions in 44 patients aged 22-90. RESULTS: Forty-four lesions (out of 217 in total) were non-melanocytic. Among the 5 pathologists who examined each case there was marked variability in the terminology used to diagnose each case. The most common variability was found between seborrheic keratosis, large cell acanthoma, solar lentigo, and lichenoid keratosis. The diagnosis made by the majority of the pathologists was deemed to be the reference diagnosis. Versus majority diagnosis, 4% of benign lesions were considered malignant, and 7% of malignant diagnoses were considered as benign. CONCLUSIONS: The different terminology adopted and lack of consensus in the diagnosis of these non-melanocytic lesions in this setting suggests that training AI systems using gold standards may be problematic. We propose a new management classification scheme called MOLEM (Management of Lesions Excised to exclude Melanoma) which expands the previously described MPATH-dx to include non-melanocytic lesions.