Search

PURPOSE Indications for offering adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with early-stage melanomas with low disease burden sentinel node (SN) micrometastases, namely, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC; eighth edition) stage IIIA disease, are presently controversial. The current study sought to identify high-risk SN-positive AJCC stage IIIA patients who are more likely to derive benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy. METHODS Patients were recruited from an intercontinental (Australia/Europe/North America) consortium of nine high-volume cancer centers. All were adult patients with pathologic stage pT1b/pT2a primary cutaneous melanomas who underwent SN biopsy between 2005 and 2020. Patient data, primary tumor and SN characteristics, and survival outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS Three thousand six hundred seven patients were included. The median follow-up was 34 months. Pairwise disease comparison demonstrated no significant survival difference between N1a and N2a subgroups. Survival analysis identified a SN tumor deposit maximum dimension of 0.3 mm as the optimal cut point for stratifying survival. Five-year disease-specific survival rates were 80.3% and 94.1% for patients with SN metastatic tumor deposits ≥ 0.3 mm and < 0.3 mm, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.26 [1.11 to 1.44]; P < .0001). Similar findings were seen for overall disease-free and distant metastasis-free survival. There were no survival differences between the AJCC IB patients and low-risk (< 0.3 mm) AJCC IIIA patients. The newly identified high-risk (≥ 0.3 mm) subgroup comprised 271 (66.4%) of the AJCC IIIA cohort, whereas only 142 (34.8%) patients had SN tumor deposits > 1 mm in maximum dimension. CONCLUSION Patients with AJCC IIIA melanoma with SN tumor deposits ≥ 0.3 mm in maximum dimension are at higher risk of disease progression and may benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy or enrollment into a clinical trial. Patients with SN deposits < 0.3 mm in maximum dimension can be managed similar to their SN-negative, AJCC IB counterparts, thereby avoiding regular radiological surveillance and more intensive follow-up.

Background: Electrochemotherapy (ECT) is an effective local treatment for cutaneous tumors. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of ECT in ulcerated vs. non-ulcerated tumors and investigate the effect on tumor-associated symptoms.Methods: Twenty cancer centers in the International Network for Sharing Practices on Electrochemotherapy (InspECT) prospectively collected data. ECT was performed following ESOPE protocol. Response was evaluated by lesion size development. Pain, symptoms, performance status (ECOG-Index) and health status (EQ-5D questionnaire) were evaluated.Results: 716 patients with ulcerated (n = 302) and non-ulcerated (n = 414) cutaneous tumors and metastases were included (minimum follow-up of 45 days). Non-ulcerated lesions responded to ECT better than ulcerated lesions (complete response 65 % vs. 51 %, p = 0.0061). Only 38 % (115/302) with ulcerated lesions before ECT presented with ulcerated lesions at final follow-up. Patients with ulcerated lesions reported higher pain and more severe symptoms compared to non- ulcerated lesions, which significantly and continuously improved following ECT. In non-ulcerated lesions however, pain spiked during the treatment. No serious adverse events were reported.Conclusions: ECT is a safe and effective local treatment for cutaneous tumors. While ECT improves symptoms especially in patients with ulcerated lesions, data suggest the implementation of a perioperative pain management in non-ulcerated lesions during ECT.

Background There is a lack of consensus regarding optimal surgical excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma > 1 mm in Breslow thickness (BT). A narrower surgical margin is expected to be associated with lower morbidity, improved quality of life (QoL), and reduced cost. We report the results of a pilot international study (MelMarT) comparing a 1 versus 2-cm surgical margin for patients with primary melanoma > 1 mm in BT. Methods This phase III, multicentre trial [NCT02385214] administered by the Australia & New Zealand Medical Trials Group (ANZMTG 03.12) randomised patients with a primary cutaneous melanoma > 1 mm in BT to a 1 versus 2-cm wide excision margin to be performed with sentinel lymph node biopsy. Surgical closure technique was at the discretion of the treating surgeon. Patients’ QoL was measured (FACT-M questionnaire) at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after randomisation. Results Between January 2015 and June 2016, 400 patients were randomised from 17 centres in 5 countries. A total of 377 patients were available for analysis. Primary melanomas were located on the trunk (56.9%), extremities (35.6%), and head and neck (7.4%). More patients in the 2-cm margin group required reconstruction (34.9 vs. 13.6%; p p = 0.036). After 12 months’ follow-up, no differences were noted in QoL between groups. Discussion This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of a large international RCT to provide a definitive answer to the optimal excision margin for patients with intermediate- to high-risk primary cutaneous melanoma.

'Mersey Burns App' is a smartphone/tablet application that aids in the assessment of total burn surface area (TBSA) and calculation of fluid resuscitation protocols in burns. This paper presents two studies assessing the speed and accuracy of calculations using Mersey Burns (App) in comparison with a Lund and Browder chart (paper) when a burn is assessed by medical students and clinicians.The first study compared the speed and accuracy of TBSA and resuscitation calculation for a photograph of a burn with App and paper using burns and plastics and emergency medicine trainees and consultants. Developing on some of the feedback and results of that study, a second study was then carried out using burns-naive medical students assessing a fully simulated burn with both modalities. Preference and ease of use of each modality were assessed anonymously.The clinician study showed a lower variance in TBSA and fluid calculations using the App (p0.05). The student study showed no difference in mean TBSA estimations (p=0.7). Mean time to completion of calculations was faster and calculations were more likely to be correct with the App (p0.001). Students favoured the App in the following categories: preference in emergency setting, confidence in output, accuracy, speed, ease of calculation, overall use and shading (p0.0001).Mersey Burns App can facilitate quicker and more accurate calculations than Lund and Browder charts. Students also preferred the App. This suggests a useful role for the App in the care of patients with burns by inexperienced staff.