Search

Is there nowadays any benefit of continuing the practice of routine wide local excision (WLE) for primary stage I/II cutaneous melanoma?WLE aims to eradicate potential microsatellites around melanomas and thereby reduce local recurrence rates and improve overall survival. Six large prospective randomised trials investigated WLE versus wider WLE, they all failed to show any effect on overall survival (OS).A literature search was performed to identify data on outcome after omitting WLE. Additionally circumstantial evidence was gathered from pathology studies and outcomes of modified surgical techniques, as well as publications on morbidity.No prospective and one retrospective study was found. The retrospective study showed no difference in OS after correction for confounding factors. Pathology studies showed a low incidence of residual melanoma in WLE specimen (0-4.2%). Mohs surgery does not show a difference in recurrence rates or OS. WLE is associated with considerable postoperative morbidity, which increases with wider excision margins.There is no solid prospective evidence to support the classic dogma of a 2-step approach with the use of WLE for primary cutaneous melanoma that has been completely excised on diagnostic excision biopsy. We recommend to setup and conduct a prospective randomised trial to compare the classical 2-step approach with WLE to a complete diagnostic excision only to abolish the routine practice of WLE in the future.

Background Patients with synchronous clinical stage III melanoma can present with primary melanoma lesions, locally recurrent melanoma or in-transit metastases. Neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab induces high pathologic response rates and an impressive relapse-free survival in patients with nodal macroscopic stage III melanoma. Whether primary site melanoma and in-transit metastases respond similarly to lymph node metastases with neoadjuvant immunotherapy is largely unknown. Such data would clarify whether surgical excision of these melanoma lesions should be performed before neoadjuvant therapy or whether it could be deferred and performed in conjunction with lymphadenectomy following neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Patients Patients with synchronous clinical stage III melanoma were identified from the OpACIN, OpACIN-neo and PRADO neoadjuvant trials, where all patients were treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab. An additional case treated outside those clinical trials was included. Results Seven patients were identified; six patients had a concordant response in primary site melanoma lesions or in-transit metastasis and the lymph node metastases. One patient had concordant progression in both the primary and nodal tumour lesions and developed stage IV disease during neoadjuvant treatment, and thus, no resection was performed. Conclusion Pathologic response following neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in primary site melanoma lesions or in-transit metastasis is concordant with a response in the lymph node metastases, indicating that there may be no need to perform upfront surgery to these melanoma lesions prior to neoadjuvant treatment.

Background: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy remains crucial for melanoma staging. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Melanoma Group recommends performing immunohistochemical stainings for reproducible identification of melanoma metastases. S100 protein (pS100) is a commonly used melanocytic antigen because of its high sensitivity in spite of relatively low specificity. SRY-related HMG-box 10 protein (SOX10) is a transcription factor characterising neural crest-derived cells. It is uniformly expressed mostly in the nuclei of melanocytes, neural, and myoepithelial cells. Pathologists sometimes prefer SOX10 as a melanoma marker, but it has not yet been investigated on a large-scale to confirm that it is reliable and recommendable for routine SLN evaluation. Methods: Four hundred one treatment-naïve lymph node (LN) metastatic melanomas were included in high-density tissue microarrays and were assessed for the presence of SOX10 and pS100 by immunohistochemistry. The slides were digitalised, shared and evaluated by a panel of experienced melanoma pathologists. Results: The vast majority of melanomas were double-positive for pS100 and SOX10 (93.2%); a small percentage of the cases (3.9%) were double-negative melanomas. Discordance between the two markers was observed: 1.9% pS100(−)/SOX10(+) and 0.75% pS100(+)/SOX10(−). SOX10 was not expressed by immune cell types in the LN, resulting in a less controversial interpretation of the staining. Conclusions: SOX10 is as equally specific as pS100 for the detection of melanoma metastases in LNs. The interpretation of SOX10 staining is highly reproducible among different centres and different pathologists because of the absence of staining of immune cells.

Background: The American Joint Committee on Cancer-8 (AJCC) classification of melanoma was implemented in January 2018. It was based on data gathered when checkpoint inhibitors were not used as adjuvant therapy in stage III melanoma. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325/KEYNOTE-054 double-blind phase III trial evaluated pembrolizumab vs placebo in AJCC-7 stage IIIA (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm), IIIB or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis) patients after complete lymphadenectomy. Patients, methods and results: Patients (n = 1019) were randomised 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks (total of 18 doses, ∼1 year). At 1.25-year median follow-up, pembrolizumab prolonged relapse-free survival (RFS) in the total population (1-year RFS rate: 75.4% vs 61.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.57; logrank P < 0.0001) and consistently in the AJCC-7 subgroups. Prognostic and predictive values of AJCC-8 for RFS were evaluated in this study. Patient distribution according to the AJCC-8 stage subgroups was 8% (IIIA), 34.7% (IIIB), 49.7% (IIIC), 3.7% (IIID) and 3.8% (unknown). AJCC-8 classification was strongly associated with RFS (HRs for stage IIIB, IIIC and IIID vs IIIA were 4.0, 5.7 and 12.2, respectively) but showed no predictive importance for the treatment comparison regarding RFS (test for interaction: P = 0.68). The 1-year RFS rate for pembrolizumab vs placebo and the HRs (99% confidence interval) within each AJCC-8 subgroup were as follows: stage IIIA (92.7% vs 92.5%; 0.76 [0.11–5.43]), IIIB (79.0% vs 65.5%; 0.59 [0.35–0.99]), IIIC (73.6% vs 53.9%; 0.48 [0.33–0.70]) and IIID (50.0% vs 33.3%; 0.69 [0.24–2.00]). Conclusions: AJCC-8 staging had a strong prognostic importance for RFS but no predictive importance: the RFS benefit of pembrolizumab was observed across AJCC-8 subgroups in resected high-risk stage III melanoma patients.

Background: Cutaneous malignant melanoma causes the majority of skin cancer related deaths and features increasing incidence and mortality rates in the Netherlands. Conditional survival analysis is performed on patients who survived the preceding year(s). Methods: Patients with invasive melanoma, as recorded in the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry, were included. To assess prognosis of melanoma survivors according to gender and Breslow thickness, conditional five-year relative survival was calculated for lymph node negative melanoma patients and conditional one-year relative survival was analysed for melanoma patients with and without nodal involvement. Findings: Between 1994 and 2008, 40,050 patients developed a melanoma (stage I-III, of whom 6% with nodal involvement). Six to 8 years after diagnosis, survival of patients with a 1-2 mm (T2) thick melanoma equalised the general population. Conditional five-year relative survival for patients with > 4 mm thick (T4) melanomas increased from about 60% at diagnosis to 90% at 7 years after diagnosis. Largest improvements were found in patients with thick melanomas and female patients with nodal involvement. Interpretation: The prognosis for melanoma survivors improved with each additional year of survival after diagnosis, except for patients with a

Locoregional treatment is often insufficient to guarantee long-term disease-free survival (DFS) in American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIIB melanoma, and, in order to improve survival, effective neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies are needed . Selecting patients for these strategies requires risk stratification, for which clinical and molecular biomarkers can be used. We aimed to detect clinical biomarkers to identify high-risk stage IIIB melanoma patients.We performed retrospective analysis of stage IIIB melanoma patients who underwent lymph node dissection (LND) in our institution between 2000 and 2015. Sentinel node-positive patients with ulcerated primary tumors, as well as patients with clinically detectable nodal metastasis with non-ulcerated tumors, were included. Baseline characteristics, melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and DFS were assessed, and prognostic factors for recurrence and survival were analyzed, using univariate and multivariate analysis.Overall, 250 patients were included. Median follow-up was 52 months (interquartile range 29-108 months), median MSS was 141 months, and median DFS was 36 months. Five- and 10-year MSS was 59 and 52 %, respectively, and 5- and 10-year DFS was 47 and 41 %, respectively. Age50 years, Breslow thickness2 versus ≤2 mm, and N2 versus N1 disease all carried an increased risk of death by melanoma. Age50 years and extracapsular extension carried an increased risk of disease recurrence after LND.Age50 years, Breslow thickness2 mm and N2 versus N1 disease are prognostic factors for poor survival in stage IIIB melanoma. These characteristics can be used to further stratify risk of death by melanoma in this already high-risk patient population and to help select the appropriate population for adjuvant therapy (trials).

However, we would like to expressa great concern regarding the pathology protocols,which were used. The authors claim to have used theEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment ofCancer (EORTC) Melanoma Group (MG) protocol.However there is an internal contradiction between theabstract and methods in their description of this proto-col and furthermore neither of the methods describedadequately reflects the EORTC protocol. There appearsto be a misunderstanding between the meaning of stepsand levels. A step is the distance between levels, a level isa section or sections stained to represent that level. TheEORTC protocol as it has evolved consists of six pairsof sections, each stained with haematoxylin–eosin andS100. These are separated by steps at 50 lm thickness,so there are five steps and six levels whereas in theabstract there is a description of five sections 50 m apartand in the methods there is a description of six levels50 m apart. It was then stated that the first five levelswere treated differently. Furthermore in Fig. 1 there isagain confusion between the words steps and sectionsor levels.Despite this confusion we would like to acknowledgethat increased sampling will lead to increased detectionrates, as it was also demonstrated by the study by Cooket al. The extensive protocol identified 33.8% versus 25.2for the EORTC MG protocol, this is close to the detec-tion rate achieved by RT-PCR.