Search

Introduction Different protocols have been used to follow up melanoma patients in stage I–II. However, there is no consensus on the complementary tests that should be requested or the appropriate intervals between visits. Our aim is to compare an ultrasound-based follow-up with a clinical follow-up. Patients and methods Analysis of two prospectively collected cohorts of melanoma patients in stage IB–IIA from two tertiary referral centres in Barcelona (clinical-based follow-up [C-FU]) and Turin (ultrasound-based follow-up [US-FU]). Kaplan–Meier curves were used to evaluate distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), disease-free interval (DFI), nodal metastases-free survival (NMFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS). Results A total of 1149 patients in the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IB and IIA were included in this study, of which 554 subjects (48%) were enrolled for a C-FU, and 595 patients (52%) received a protocolised US-FU. The median age was 53.8 years (interquartile range [IQR] 41.5–65.2) with a median follow-up time of 4.14 years (IQR 1.2–7.6). During follow-up, 69 patients (12.5%) in C-FU and 72 patients (12.1%) in US-FU developed disease progression. Median time to relapse for the first metastatic site was 2.11 years (IQR 1.14–4.04) for skin metastases, 1.32 (IQR 0.57–3.29) for lymph node metastases and 2.84 (IQR 1.32–4.60) for distant metastases. The pattern of progression and the total proportion of metastases were not significantly different (P = .44) in the two centres. No difference in DFI, DMFS, NMFS and MSS was found between the two cohorts. Conclusion Ultrasound-based follow-up does not increase the survival of melanoma patients in stage IB–IIA.

The mechanisms of extracorporeal photochemotherapy (ExP) therapeutic activity in cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCLs) are not yet well understood, even though it has been suggested that a major mechanism may be induction of apoptosis. In vitro studies demonstrate that UVA-induced apoptosis is mediated by CD95-Fas expression and inhibited by Bcl-2 up-regulation and that UVA irradiation is able to down-regulate Bcl-2 expression. High-resolution multiparameter flow-cytometric analyses were used to evaluate Bcl-2/CD95-Fas expression on phenotypically identifiable circulating clonal T cells from 7 patients with CTCL (4 with Sezary syndrome and 3 with mycosis fungoides with peripheral involvement) before and during ExP, in an attempt to ascertain whether Bcl-2/CD95-Fas status can be related to the hematologic response. A Bcl-2 normal phenotype before ExP or a normalization in Bcl-2 expression during ExP were related to a better clinical response, whereas a persistent Bcl-2 high expression was a negative prognostic factor. On the other hand, no response was found in patients with a CD95-Fas-negative phenotype, whereas the expression of CD95-Fas was associated with hematologic remission. Although further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results, this study suggests that Bcl-2 and CD95-Fas expression could be evaluated, together with the other known clinical and immunologic factors, as additional parameters related to clinical response in patients with CTCL undergoing ExP. (J Am Acad Dermatol 2001;44:40-7.)

Background BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) and MEK inhibitor (MEKi) frequently cause cutaneous adverse events. Objective We sought to investigate the cutaneous safety profile of BRAFi versus BRAFi and MEKi combination regimens. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study, collecting data from 44 patients with melanoma treated either with BRAFi (vemurafenib or dabrafenib) or BRAFi and MEKi combination regimens (vemurafenib + cobimetinib or dabrafenib + trametinib). Patient characteristics, and the occurrence and severity of cutaneous adverse events, are described. Results The development of cutaneous adverse events was significantly less frequent ( P = .012) and occurred after longer treatment time ( P = .025) in patients treated with BRAFi and MEKi combination regimen compared with patients treated with BRAFi monotherapy. Among patients who received both BRAFi and the combination of BRAFi and MEKi at different time points during their treatment course, the development of squamous cell carcinoma or keratoacanthoma was significantly less frequent when they received the combination regimen ( P = .008). Patients receiving vemurafenib developed more cutaneous adverse events ( P = .001) and in particular more photosensitivity ( P = .010) than patients who did not. Limitations There were a limited number of patients. Conclusion Combination regimen with BRAFi and MEKi shows fewer cutaneous adverse events and longer cutaneous adverse event-free interval compared with BRAFi monotherapy.