Early Detection and Prognostic Assessment of Cutaneous Melanoma: Consensus on Optimal Practice and the Role of Gene Expression Profile Testing.

Importance: Therapy for advanced melanoma has transformed during the past decade, but early detection and prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma (CM) remain paramount goals. Best practices for screening and use of pigmented lesion evaluation tools and gene expression profile (GEP) testing in CM remain to be defined. Objective: To provide consensus recommendations on optimal screening practices and prebiopsy diagnostic, postbiopsy diagnostic, and prognostic assessment of CM. Evidence Review: Case scenarios were interrogated using a modified Delphi consensus method. Melanoma panelists (n = 60) were invited to vote on hypothetical scenarios via an emailed survey (n = 42), which was followed by a consensus conference (n = 51) that reviewed the literature and the rationale for survey answers. Panelists participated in a follow-up survey for final recommendations on the scenarios (n = 45). Findings: The panelists reached consensus (≥70% agreement) in supporting a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening in clinical settings and public screening events, screening personnel recommendations (self/partner, primary care provider, general dermatologist, and pigmented lesion expert), screening intervals, and acceptable appointment wait times. Participants also reached consensus that visual and dermoscopic examination are sufficient for evaluation and follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions deemed innocuous. The panelists reached consensus on interpreting reflectance confocal microscopy and some but not all results from epidermal tape stripping, but they did not reach consensus on use of certain pigmented lesion evaluation tools, such as electrical impedance spectroscopy. Regarding GEP scores, the panelists reached consensus that a low-risk prognostic GEP score should not outweigh concerning histologic features when selecting patients to undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy but did not reach consensus on imaging recommendations in the setting of a high-risk prognostic GEP score and low-risk histology and/or negative nodal status. Conclusions and Relevance: For this consensus statement, panelists reached consensus on aspects of a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening and follow-up as well as use of visual examination and dermoscopy. These findings support a practical approach to diagnosing and evaluating CM. Panelists did not reach consensus on a clearly defined role for GEP testing in clinical decision-making, citing the need for additional studies to establish the clinical use of existing GEP assays.

Five-year survival in patients with nodular and superficial spreading melanomas in the US population.

BACKGROUND: Although superficial spreading melanomas (SSM) are diagnosed as thinner lesions, nodular melanomas (NM) have a more rapid growth rate and are biologically more aggressive compared with other histologic subtypes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the difference in 5-year relative survival in patients with NM and SSM at the same Breslow depth and TNM stage. METHODS: A population-based cross-sectional analysis compared the 5-year relative survival of patients with NM and SSM using data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)∗Stat software (version 8.2.1-8.3.5). Chi-square tests compared the proportions, and Kaplan-Meier method with Z-score compared 5-year relative survival. RESULTS: For patients receiving a diagnosis between 2004 and 2009, 5-year relative survival was lower in NM compared with SSM (53.7% vs 87.3%; Z score, -41.35; P < .001). Similarly, for patients receiving a diagnosis between 2010 and 2015, 5-year relative survival was lower in NM compared with SSM (61.5% vs 89.7%; Z score, -2.7078; P < .01). Subgroup analyses showed inferior survival in NM in T1b, and survival differences remained significant after excluding patients with nodal or distant metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Five-year relative survival is worse in NM compared with SSM especially in T1b, T2a, and T2b melanomas. Melanoma subtype should be taken into consideration when making treatment recommendations.

Prognostic Gene Expression Profiling in Cutaneous Melanoma: Identifying the Knowledge Gaps and Assessing the Clinical Benefit.

Importance: Use of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) testing in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is rising despite a lack of endorsement as standard of care. Objective: To develop guidelines within the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) on integration of GEP testing into the management of patients with CM, including (1) review of published data using GEP tests, (2) definition of acceptable performance criteria, (3) current recommendations for use of GEP testing in clinical practice, and (4) considerations for future studies. Evidence Review: The MPWG members and other international melanoma specialists participated in 2 online surveys and then convened a summit meeting. Published data and meeting abstracts from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. Findings: The MPWG members are optimistic about the future use of prognostic GEP testing to improve risk stratification and enhance clinical decision-making but acknowledge that current utility is limited by test performance in patients with stage I disease. Published studies of GEP testing have not evaluated results in the context of all relevant clinicopathologic factors or as predictors of regional nodal metastasis to replace sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The performance of GEP tests has generally been reported for small groups of patients representing particular tumor stages or in aggregate form, such that stage-specific performance cannot be ascertained, and without survival outcomes compared with data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition melanoma staging system international database. There are significant challenges to performing clinical trials incorporating GEP testing with SLNB and adjuvant therapy. The MPWG members favor conducting retrospective studies that evaluate multiple GEP testing platforms on fully annotated archived samples before embarking on costly prospective studies and recommend avoiding routine use of GEP testing to direct patient management until prospective studies support their clinical utility. Conclusions and Relevance: More evidence is needed to support using GEP testing to inform recommendations regarding SLNB, intensity of follow-up or imaging surveillance, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. The MPWG recommends further research to assess the validity and clinical applicability of existing and emerging GEP tests. Decisions on performing GEP testing and patient management based on these results should only be made in the context of discussion of testing limitations with the patient or within a multidisciplinary group.

Skin cancer screening: recommendations for data-driven screening guidelines and a review of the US Preventive Services Task Force controversy.

Melanoma is usually apparent on the skin and readily detected by trained medical providers using a routine total body skin examination, yet this malignancy is responsible for the majority of skin cancer-related deaths. Currently, there is no national consensus on skin cancer screening in the USA, but dermatologists and primary care providers are routinely confronted with making the decision about when to recommend total body skin examinations and at what interval. The objectives of this paper are: to propose rational, risk-based, data-driven guidelines commensurate with the US Preventive Services Task Force screening guidelines for other disorders; to compare our proposed guidelines to recommendations made by other national and international organizations; and to review the US Preventive Services Task Force's 2016 Draft Recommendation Statement on skin cancer screening.

Addressing the knowledge gap in clinical recommendations for management and complete excision of clinically atypical nevi/dysplastic nevi: Pigmented Lesion Subcommittee consensus statement.

IMPORTANCE: The management of clinically atypical nevi/dysplastic nevi (CAN/DN) is controversial, with few data to guide the process. Management recommendations for DN with positive histologic margins were developed by the Delphi method to achieve consensus among members of the Pigmented Lesion Subcommittee (PLS) of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) after reviewing the current evidence. OBJECTIVES: To outline key issues related to the management of CAN/DN: (1) biopsies of CAN and how positive margins arise, (2) whether incompletely excised DN evolve into melanoma, (3) current data on the outcomes of DN with positive histologic margins, (4) consensus recommendations, and (5) a proposal for future studies, including a large-scale study to help guide the management of DN with positive margins. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The literature, including recent studies examining management and outcomes of DN with positive margins between 2009 to 2014, was reviewed. FINDINGS: A consensus statement by the PLS of the MPWG following review of the literature, group discussions, and a structured Delphi method consensus. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This consensus statement reviews the complexities of management of CAN/DN. A review of the literature and 2 rounds of a structured Delphi consensus resulted in the following recommendations: (1) mildly and moderately DN with clear margins do not need to be reexcised, (2) mildly DN biopsied with positive histologic margins without clinical residual pigmentation may be safely observed rather than reexcised, and (3) observation may be a reasonable option for management of moderately DN with positive histologic margins without clinically apparent residual pigmentation; however, more data are needed to make definitive recommendations in this clinical scenario.

Verruciform xanthoma of the upper-extremity in the absence of chronic skin disease or syndrome: a case report and review of the literature.

Verruciform xanthoma is a rare, benign lesion classically presenting on the oral mucosa or genital area. The etiology is not yet completely understood; however, verruciform xanthoma is often associated with (a) conditions of chronic inflammation or trauma, such as lichen sclerosis, recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, and pemphigus vulgaris, as well as in a setting of (b) chronic lymphedema, (c) chronic graft versus host disease, or (d) congenital epidermal nevi, such as those associated with the Congenital Hemidysplasia with Ichthyosiform nevus and Limb Defects (CHILD) syndrome. We report a case of a solitary verruciform xanthoma on the forearm of an 82-year-old man without history of chronic dystrophic skin disease or syndrome. In addition, a thorough literature review of extra-oral and extra-genital verruciform xanthomas is presented. On the basis of this review, we believe this case is an extremely rare presentation of a solitary verruciform xanthoma on the upper-extremity of an otherwise healthy individual.

Analysis of sentinel lymph node positivity in patients with thin primary melanoma.

BACKGROUND: A minority of patients with T1 melanoma will have a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy (SLNB) finding. Identifying who will develop metastatic disease is important in determining prognosis and treatment. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify clinical and histologic features predictive of a positive SLNB result and determine its prognostic significance in patients with T1 melanoma. METHODS: Clinical and histologic parameters were evaluated in 484 patients with T1 melanoma for their ability to predict a positive SLNB result. The impact of various factors on SLN positivity was evaluated. SLN status was examined as a predictor of overall survival. RESULTS: In all, 34 patients had a positive SLNB finding. Four factors predicted a higher risk of SLN positivity: age 43 years or younger, Breslow depth 0.8 mm or greater, tumors on the lower extremity and trunk, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte level. By multivariate analysis, low tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (P = .0015) and decreasing age (P = .0058) independently predicted SLN positivity. If 0 to 2 of these factors were present, the rate of a positive SLNB result was 3%; this increased to 15% with 3 factors present and to 30% if all 4 factors were present (P < .002). SLN-positive patients had significantly decreased survival (P = .003), and SLN status was the most powerful predictor of survival (P = .009). LIMITATIONS: Our data analysis includes patients from 1994 to 2007 and therefore information on mitotic rate, a recently defined T1b criterion, is not recorded for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combining clinical and histologic prognostic factors may help identify subgroups of T1 patients at higher risk of SLN positivity. SLN status has significant prognostic impact in patients with thin melanomas.