The Utility of Radiologic Imaging and Full Body Skin Examination in Patients With Melanoma of Unknown Primary.

Although most melanomas have a cutaneous origin, melanomas are rarely discovered without an overt primary site and are found in the metastatic stage. This phenomenon is called melanoma of unknown primary (MUP), which was first recorded in 1963.Melanoma can also rarely present as tumoral melanosis, which has completely regressed. By definition, this does not have viable melanocytes and histologically presents as an infiltration of melanophages and melanin. A 71-year-old female presented for dermatologic evaluation after being found to have melanoma of unknown primary (MUP). The MUP, located in multiple lymph nodes of the left superior and inferior inguinal region, was found on preoperative imaging indicated for surgical management of endometrial carcinoma. After the biopsy, a positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) scan was performed to determine the extent of involvement, which noted focal uptake of the left heel of just medial to midline with an SUV max of 2.1. Based on the PET-CT findings, the patient was questioned about the lesion on her heel. She had suspected this was due to friction and stated it had been asymptomatic and present for years. This unique case demonstrates that combined total skin examination and whole-body radiologic imaging (preferably PET-CT) are both critical elements in the evaluation of MUP. Since melanoma of unknown primary is at least American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8 Stage III (due to N1 status), imaging is reasonable in these patients.

Landscape review of active vaccine safety surveillance activities for COVID-19 vaccines globally.

Background: Evidence of COVID-19 vaccine safety relied upon the global vaccine monitoring infrastructure due to shortened clinical development timelines and emergency use licensure. Differences in AVSS capacity between high-income countries (HICs) versus low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were known prior to the pandemic. Objective: To assess the global landscape of COVID-19 vaccine AVSS activities to identify gaps in safety evidence generation across vaccine products and populations with a focus on LMICs. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in January 2022 on AVSS activities evaluating adverse events following immunization (AEFI). Data collected included country, targeted population, COVID-19 vaccine product(s), design of surveillance/monitoring activities or study, and AEFIs to be monitored.To supplement these findings, we conducted a literature review of COVID-19 vaccine safety activities published in PubMed through January 2023. Observational activities assessing AEFI, specifically adverse events of special interest (AESI), following routine use of COVID-19 vaccines in medical practice were included; systematic reviews, benefit/risk assessments, clinical trials, and case reports/series were excluded. Results: The survey, completed by 34 respondents and compiled with reviews of 7 publicly available Risk Management Plans from five vaccine manufacturers, identified 79 monitoring activities in HICs, 24 in LMICs, and 9 in multiple regions. Most activities in LMICs were planned cohort event monitoring (CEM) studies (n = 18); two multi-national hospital-based sentinel surveillance studies for AESI were ongoing. Activities in LMICs evaluated multiple COVID-19 vaccine products simultaneously and were sponsored by health authorities. The literature review identified 1245 unique citations, of which 379 met inclusion criteria. The majority evaluated vaccines primarily used in high-income countries: Pfizer BioNTech (Comirnaty; n = 303), Moderna (mRNA-1273; n = 164), AstraZeneca (AZD1222; n = 126), and Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S); n = 62); 14 citations assessed vaccines used exclusively in LMICs: Sinovac (CoronaVac), Beijing CNBG (BBIBP-Corv), Bharat (Covaxin), SII (Covashield), and Gamaleya (Gam-Covid-Vac) vaccines. Conclusions: Robust safety evidence for input into benefit/risk assessments is likely unavailable for most COVID-19 vaccines used primarily in LMICs due to emphasis on cohort event monitoring methods. Goals for equitable vaccine access should be coupled with investment and support for building infrastructure and capacity for safety evidence generation to inform policy and regulatory decisions at local levels.

A Systematic Review of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Efficacy and Effectiveness Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection and Disease.

Billions of doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been administered globally, dramatically reducing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) incidence and severity in some settings. Many studies suggest vaccines provide a high degree of protection against infection and disease, but precise estimates vary and studies differ in design, outcomes measured, dosing regime, location, and circulating virus strains. In this study, we conduct a systematic review of COVID-19 vaccines through February 2022. We included efficacy data from Phase 3 clinical trials for 15 vaccines undergoing World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing evaluation and real-world effectiveness for 8 vaccines with observational studies meeting inclusion criteria. Vaccine metrics collected include protection against asymptomatic infection, any infection, symptomatic COVID-19, and severe outcomes including hospitalization and death, for partial or complete vaccination, and against variants of concern Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron. We additionally review the epidemiological principles behind the design and interpretation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness studies, including important sources of heterogeneity.