Melanoma

CHICAGO – Adjuvant pembrolizumab for resected high-risk melanoma slowed the rate of recurrence or death by 43% compared with placebo in a phase 3 trial of 1,519 patients.

After 15 months of follow-up, 12-month rates of recurrence-free survival (RFS) were 75% for pembrolizumab and 61% for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.57; P less than .001), Alexander M.M. Eggermont, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

By 18 months, the RFS difference between the arms had widened even more (71% versus 53%), Dr. Eggermont and his associates said at the meeting. The report was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab was effective irrespective of PD-L1 tumor expression status. In a subgroup of more than 800 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, 12-month RFS rates were 77% for pembrolizumab and 63% for placebo (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.69; P less than .001). Among 116 patients who were PD-L1-negative, these rates were 72% and 52%, respectively (HR, 0.47; P = .01).

Treatment produced no new safety signals, said Dr. Eggermont of Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris and University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France. Grade 3 or higher toxicities affected 15% of pembrolizumab patients. Myositis caused one pembrolizumab-related death.

The findings bolster data suggesting that adjuvant therapy can stop or delay recurrence in resected high-risk melanoma. Previously, adjuvant ipilimumab was approved after significantly extending RFS and overall survival in the placebo-controlled European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 18071 trial. More recently, adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib reduced the risk of recurrence compared with placebo in completely resected stage III melanoma with BRAF mutations (COMBI-AD), and adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved RFS and was less toxic than was ipilimumab in patients with advanced resected BRAF-mutated and BRAF-wild-type melanomas (CheckMate 238).

SOURCE: Eggermont AMM et al. AACR Annual Meeting Abstract CT001.

CHICAGO – Adjuvant pembrolizumab for resected high-risk melanoma slowed the rate of recurrence or death by 43% compared with placebo in a phase 3 trial of 1,519 patients.

After 15 months of follow-up, 12-month rates of recurrence-free survival (RFS) were 75% for pembrolizumab and 61% for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.57; P less than .001), Alexander M.M. Eggermont, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

By 18 months, the RFS difference between the arms had widened even more (71% versus 53%), Dr. Eggermont and his associates said at the meeting. The report was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab was effective irrespective of PD-L1 tumor expression status. In a subgroup of more than 800 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, 12-month RFS rates were 77% for pembrolizumab and 63% for placebo (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.69; P less than .001). Among 116 patients who were PD-L1-negative, these rates were 72% and 52%, respectively (HR, 0.47; P = .01).

Treatment produced no new safety signals, said Dr. Eggermont of Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris and University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France. Grade 3 or higher toxicities affected 15% of pembrolizumab patients. Myositis caused one pembrolizumab-related death.

The findings bolster data suggesting that adjuvant therapy can stop or delay recurrence in resected high-risk melanoma. Previously, adjuvant ipilimumab was approved after significantly extending RFS and overall survival in the placebo-controlled European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 18071 trial. More recently, adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib reduced the risk of recurrence compared with placebo in completely resected stage III melanoma with BRAF mutations (COMBI-AD), and adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved RFS and was less toxic than was ipilimumab in patients with advanced resected BRAF-mutated and BRAF-wild-type melanomas (CheckMate 238).

SOURCE: Eggermont AMM et al. AACR Annual Meeting Abstract CT001.

CHICAGO – Adjuvant pembrolizumab for resected high-risk melanoma slowed the rate of recurrence or death by 43% compared with placebo in a phase 3 trial of 1,519 patients.

After 15 months of follow-up, 12-month rates of recurrence-free survival (RFS) were 75% for pembrolizumab and 61% for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.57; P less than .001), Alexander M.M. Eggermont, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

By 18 months, the RFS difference between the arms had widened even more (71% versus 53%), Dr. Eggermont and his associates said at the meeting. The report was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab was effective irrespective of PD-L1 tumor expression status. In a subgroup of more than 800 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, 12-month RFS rates were 77% for pembrolizumab and 63% for placebo (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.69; P less than .001). Among 116 patients who were PD-L1-negative, these rates were 72% and 52%, respectively (HR, 0.47; P = .01).

Treatment produced no new safety signals, said Dr. Eggermont of Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris and University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France. Grade 3 or higher toxicities affected 15% of pembrolizumab patients. Myositis caused one pembrolizumab-related death.

The findings bolster data suggesting that adjuvant therapy can stop or delay recurrence in resected high-risk melanoma. Previously, adjuvant ipilimumab was approved after significantly extending RFS and overall survival in the placebo-controlled European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 18071 trial. More recently, adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib reduced the risk of recurrence compared with placebo in completely resected stage III melanoma with BRAF mutations (COMBI-AD), and adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved RFS and was less toxic than was ipilimumab in patients with advanced resected BRAF-mutated and BRAF-wild-type melanomas (CheckMate 238).

SOURCE: Eggermont AMM et al. AACR Annual Meeting Abstract CT001.

CHICAGO – Investigators have identified four genes that are overexpressed in primary melanoma, including one, CXCL1, that holds promise as a strong predictor of future metastatic disease, according to study results presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

The study implicated four genes strongly expressed in primary melanoma tumors of patients who develop distant metastases – CXCL1, CXCL2, CBL, and CD276 – said Jennifer Erdrich, MD, MPH, of Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. However, CXCL1 stood out. “CXCL1 overexpression is an independent predictor of developing metastatic disease. Patients with CXCL1 overexpression in the primary tumor in our study had decreased overall 5-year survival.” CXCL1 may be a useful predictive marker in primary melanoma and a potential target for immunotherapy, she said.

copyright Kativ/iStockphoto

SOURCE: Erdrich J et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 82.

CHICAGO – Investigators have identified four genes that are overexpressed in primary melanoma, including one, CXCL1, that holds promise as a strong predictor of future metastatic disease, according to study results presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

The study implicated four genes strongly expressed in primary melanoma tumors of patients who develop distant metastases – CXCL1, CXCL2, CBL, and CD276 – said Jennifer Erdrich, MD, MPH, of Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. However, CXCL1 stood out. “CXCL1 overexpression is an independent predictor of developing metastatic disease. Patients with CXCL1 overexpression in the primary tumor in our study had decreased overall 5-year survival.” CXCL1 may be a useful predictive marker in primary melanoma and a potential target for immunotherapy, she said.

copyright Kativ/iStockphoto

SOURCE: Erdrich J et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 82.

CHICAGO – Investigators have identified four genes that are overexpressed in primary melanoma, including one, CXCL1, that holds promise as a strong predictor of future metastatic disease, according to study results presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

The study implicated four genes strongly expressed in primary melanoma tumors of patients who develop distant metastases – CXCL1, CXCL2, CBL, and CD276 – said Jennifer Erdrich, MD, MPH, of Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. However, CXCL1 stood out. “CXCL1 overexpression is an independent predictor of developing metastatic disease. Patients with CXCL1 overexpression in the primary tumor in our study had decreased overall 5-year survival.” CXCL1 may be a useful predictive marker in primary melanoma and a potential target for immunotherapy, she said.

copyright Kativ/iStockphoto

SOURCE: Erdrich J et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 82.

CHICAGO – Extracapsular extension, or extracapsular spread (ECS), has been recognized as a risk factor in melanoma patients with macrometastatic (N+) disease, but a study from the United Kingdom has found it may also be an important indicator of progression-free and overall survival in patients who have sentinel node positive (SLN+) micrometastatic disease, a researcher reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“There is limited published data on ECS in micrometastatic disease, although there is progression-free survival data published in the literature,” Michelle Lo, MBCHB, MRCS, of Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, said in presenting the results. “The goal of the study was to determine the incidence of ECS in the micrometastatic group and to determine the prognostic significance of this.”

The study found that the incidence of ECS in the N+ group was significantly higher than the SLN+ group, 52.4% vs. 16.2% (P less than .0001). ECS proved to be a significant prognostic indicator of disease-specific survival and overall survival for both N+ and SLN+ disease. “There was no statistical difference in Breslow thickness between the two groups regardless of ECS,” she said.

Both the N+ and SLN+ groups with ECS had more lymph nodes than the ECS-absent subgroups, Dr. Lo said. However, in the ECS-absent subgroups, N+ patients had twice the number of lymph nodes than SLN+ patients. “This would suggest that ECS is a high-risk phenotype from the outset of metastases rather than something that’s developed over time,” she said. “Our data is in line with international staging data.”

SOURCE: Lo M, et al. SSO 2018 Abstract 70.

CHICAGO – Extracapsular extension, or extracapsular spread (ECS), has been recognized as a risk factor in melanoma patients with macrometastatic (N+) disease, but a study from the United Kingdom has found it may also be an important indicator of progression-free and overall survival in patients who have sentinel node positive (SLN+) micrometastatic disease, a researcher reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“There is limited published data on ECS in micrometastatic disease, although there is progression-free survival data published in the literature,” Michelle Lo, MBCHB, MRCS, of Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, said in presenting the results. “The goal of the study was to determine the incidence of ECS in the micrometastatic group and to determine the prognostic significance of this.”

The study found that the incidence of ECS in the N+ group was significantly higher than the SLN+ group, 52.4% vs. 16.2% (P less than .0001). ECS proved to be a significant prognostic indicator of disease-specific survival and overall survival for both N+ and SLN+ disease. “There was no statistical difference in Breslow thickness between the two groups regardless of ECS,” she said.

Both the N+ and SLN+ groups with ECS had more lymph nodes than the ECS-absent subgroups, Dr. Lo said. However, in the ECS-absent subgroups, N+ patients had twice the number of lymph nodes than SLN+ patients. “This would suggest that ECS is a high-risk phenotype from the outset of metastases rather than something that’s developed over time,” she said. “Our data is in line with international staging data.”

SOURCE: Lo M, et al. SSO 2018 Abstract 70.

CHICAGO – Extracapsular extension, or extracapsular spread (ECS), has been recognized as a risk factor in melanoma patients with macrometastatic (N+) disease, but a study from the United Kingdom has found it may also be an important indicator of progression-free and overall survival in patients who have sentinel node positive (SLN+) micrometastatic disease, a researcher reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“There is limited published data on ECS in micrometastatic disease, although there is progression-free survival data published in the literature,” Michelle Lo, MBCHB, MRCS, of Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, said in presenting the results. “The goal of the study was to determine the incidence of ECS in the micrometastatic group and to determine the prognostic significance of this.”

The study found that the incidence of ECS in the N+ group was significantly higher than the SLN+ group, 52.4% vs. 16.2% (P less than .0001). ECS proved to be a significant prognostic indicator of disease-specific survival and overall survival for both N+ and SLN+ disease. “There was no statistical difference in Breslow thickness between the two groups regardless of ECS,” she said.

Both the N+ and SLN+ groups with ECS had more lymph nodes than the ECS-absent subgroups, Dr. Lo said. However, in the ECS-absent subgroups, N+ patients had twice the number of lymph nodes than SLN+ patients. “This would suggest that ECS is a high-risk phenotype from the outset of metastases rather than something that’s developed over time,” she said. “Our data is in line with international staging data.”

SOURCE: Lo M, et al. SSO 2018 Abstract 70.

KAUAI, HAWAII – Melanoma staging in the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition Cancer Staging Manual implements better stratification of stage III melanoma patients, resulting in an evidence-based improved prognosis for many of them, Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Skin Disease Education Foundation/Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Ferris, of the department of dermatology, University of Pittsburgh, highlighted some of the key changes in the eighth edition of the AJCC staging manual, which is now in effect. She also described the clinical implications of important updates introduced in the 2018 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of melanoma.

The AJCC eighth edition

The eighth edition is built upon an AJCC database of more than 46,000 patients with stage I-III melanoma diagnosed since 1998 at 10 academic medical centers. The AJCC panel made no changes in stage IV melanoma guidance because the newer targeted therapies have rapidly changed treatment outcomes in that setting and longer follow-up is needed to assess the full impact.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

The current edition of the AJCC melanoma staging manual creates a new subcategory within pathologic stage III. In the melanoma staging world, that’s exciting news, especially because this change has important implications for prognosis.

This fourth subcategory, stage IIID, is for melanomas, which in the Tumor, Nodes, Metastasis (TNM) classification scheme, are primary tumor stage T4b, meaning greater than 4.0 mm in thickness and with ulceration; regional lymph node N3a, b, or c, based upon the number of metastatic nodes involved and whether they were clinically occult nodal metastases detected by sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or clinically detected; and M0, meaning no distant metastatic disease. In the 8th edition, the AJCC staging system can be applied in patients with T2 through T4 primary melanoma only if they have undergone SLNB.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

Among the other key points to remember about the eighth edition of AJCC:

• Tumor thickness is now measured to the nearest 0.1 mm rather than to the nearest 0.01 mm, as previously. Thus, a 0.75-mm-thick melanoma is now rounded up to 0.8 mm, while a 0.74-mm melanoma becomes a 0.7-mm tumor.
• Based upon recent evidence, tumors that are 0.8-1.0 mm thick, with or without ulceration, are now classified at T1b. So are ulcerated lesions that are less than 0.8 mm.
• Dermal mitotic rate is no longer used in staging T1 tumors, although it’s still supposed to be included in pathology reports.
• The T category definitions of primary tumors have been clarified in the eighth edition. A tumor is now classified as T0 only if there is no evidence of a primary tumor. Tx is employed when the primary tumor thickness can’t be determined, as for example when the biopsy specimen was obtained by curettage. Tis is utilized for melanoma in situ.
• The N subcategory definitions of regional nodal status have been revised. Microsatellites, clinical satellites, and in-transit metastases are now categorized as N1c, N2c, or N3c based upon the number of tumor-involved regional lymph nodes. These features are no longer defined by their size or distance from the primary tumor.

2018 NCCN melanoma guidelines

The guidelines have been revised to recommend against SLNB if a patient’s pretest probability of finding a positive SLN is less than 5%. This includes patients who have a clinical stage IA/T1a melanoma with a Breslow thickness of less than 0.8 mm without ulceration.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

What about completion lymphadenectomy in the SLN-positive melanoma patient?

Completion lymph node dissection looks increasingly like a procedure in search of an indication. Results of the National Cancer Institute–sponsored Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial–II (MSLT-II) demonstrated not even a hint of a difference in 3-year melanoma-specific survival in 1,934 melanoma patients with sentinel lymph node metastases regardless of whether they were randomized to immediate completion lymph node dissection or ultrasound-based nodal monitoring. Moreover, completion lymphadenectomy was associated with significant morbidity: a 24.1% incidence of lymphedema, compared with a 6.3% rate in the observation group (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 8;376[23]:2211-22).

On the other hand, Dr. Ferris noted that many newer drugs are being approved for the treatment of stage III melanoma, and in all the pivotal clinical trials, patients had to have undergone completion lymph node dissection as a condition of participation. So the surgery becomes a consideration if physicians want to use the newer agents the way they were used successfully in the trials.

The full eighth edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual is available for purchase. For physicians with a specific interest in melanoma, Dr. Ferris recommended as an extremely useful alternative the AJCC expert writing panel’s free downloadable summary of the evidence-based changes made in melanoma staging (CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Nov;67[6]:472-92). The 2018 NCCN guidelines (Melanoma. Version 1.2018 Oct. 11, 2017) are available for free (www.NCCN.org).

Dr. Ferris reported serving as a consultant to DermTech.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

KAUAI, HAWAII – Melanoma staging in the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition Cancer Staging Manual implements better stratification of stage III melanoma patients, resulting in an evidence-based improved prognosis for many of them, Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Skin Disease Education Foundation/Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Ferris, of the department of dermatology, University of Pittsburgh, highlighted some of the key changes in the eighth edition of the AJCC staging manual, which is now in effect. She also described the clinical implications of important updates introduced in the 2018 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of melanoma.

The AJCC eighth edition

The eighth edition is built upon an AJCC database of more than 46,000 patients with stage I-III melanoma diagnosed since 1998 at 10 academic medical centers. The AJCC panel made no changes in stage IV melanoma guidance because the newer targeted therapies have rapidly changed treatment outcomes in that setting and longer follow-up is needed to assess the full impact.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

The current edition of the AJCC melanoma staging manual creates a new subcategory within pathologic stage III. In the melanoma staging world, that’s exciting news, especially because this change has important implications for prognosis.

This fourth subcategory, stage IIID, is for melanomas, which in the Tumor, Nodes, Metastasis (TNM) classification scheme, are primary tumor stage T4b, meaning greater than 4.0 mm in thickness and with ulceration; regional lymph node N3a, b, or c, based upon the number of metastatic nodes involved and whether they were clinically occult nodal metastases detected by sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or clinically detected; and M0, meaning no distant metastatic disease. In the 8th edition, the AJCC staging system can be applied in patients with T2 through T4 primary melanoma only if they have undergone SLNB.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

Among the other key points to remember about the eighth edition of AJCC:

• Tumor thickness is now measured to the nearest 0.1 mm rather than to the nearest 0.01 mm, as previously. Thus, a 0.75-mm-thick melanoma is now rounded up to 0.8 mm, while a 0.74-mm melanoma becomes a 0.7-mm tumor.
• Based upon recent evidence, tumors that are 0.8-1.0 mm thick, with or without ulceration, are now classified at T1b. So are ulcerated lesions that are less than 0.8 mm.
• Dermal mitotic rate is no longer used in staging T1 tumors, although it’s still supposed to be included in pathology reports.
• The T category definitions of primary tumors have been clarified in the eighth edition. A tumor is now classified as T0 only if there is no evidence of a primary tumor. Tx is employed when the primary tumor thickness can’t be determined, as for example when the biopsy specimen was obtained by curettage. Tis is utilized for melanoma in situ.
• The N subcategory definitions of regional nodal status have been revised. Microsatellites, clinical satellites, and in-transit metastases are now categorized as N1c, N2c, or N3c based upon the number of tumor-involved regional lymph nodes. These features are no longer defined by their size or distance from the primary tumor.

2018 NCCN melanoma guidelines

The guidelines have been revised to recommend against SLNB if a patient’s pretest probability of finding a positive SLN is less than 5%. This includes patients who have a clinical stage IA/T1a melanoma with a Breslow thickness of less than 0.8 mm without ulceration.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

What about completion lymphadenectomy in the SLN-positive melanoma patient?

Completion lymph node dissection looks increasingly like a procedure in search of an indication. Results of the National Cancer Institute–sponsored Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial–II (MSLT-II) demonstrated not even a hint of a difference in 3-year melanoma-specific survival in 1,934 melanoma patients with sentinel lymph node metastases regardless of whether they were randomized to immediate completion lymph node dissection or ultrasound-based nodal monitoring. Moreover, completion lymphadenectomy was associated with significant morbidity: a 24.1% incidence of lymphedema, compared with a 6.3% rate in the observation group (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 8;376[23]:2211-22).

On the other hand, Dr. Ferris noted that many newer drugs are being approved for the treatment of stage III melanoma, and in all the pivotal clinical trials, patients had to have undergone completion lymph node dissection as a condition of participation. So the surgery becomes a consideration if physicians want to use the newer agents the way they were used successfully in the trials.

The full eighth edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual is available for purchase. For physicians with a specific interest in melanoma, Dr. Ferris recommended as an extremely useful alternative the AJCC expert writing panel’s free downloadable summary of the evidence-based changes made in melanoma staging (CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Nov;67[6]:472-92). The 2018 NCCN guidelines (Melanoma. Version 1.2018 Oct. 11, 2017) are available for free (www.NCCN.org).

Dr. Ferris reported serving as a consultant to DermTech.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

KAUAI, HAWAII – Melanoma staging in the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition Cancer Staging Manual implements better stratification of stage III melanoma patients, resulting in an evidence-based improved prognosis for many of them, Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Skin Disease Education Foundation/Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Ferris, of the department of dermatology, University of Pittsburgh, highlighted some of the key changes in the eighth edition of the AJCC staging manual, which is now in effect. She also described the clinical implications of important updates introduced in the 2018 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of melanoma.

The AJCC eighth edition

The eighth edition is built upon an AJCC database of more than 46,000 patients with stage I-III melanoma diagnosed since 1998 at 10 academic medical centers. The AJCC panel made no changes in stage IV melanoma guidance because the newer targeted therapies have rapidly changed treatment outcomes in that setting and longer follow-up is needed to assess the full impact.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

The current edition of the AJCC melanoma staging manual creates a new subcategory within pathologic stage III. In the melanoma staging world, that’s exciting news, especially because this change has important implications for prognosis.

This fourth subcategory, stage IIID, is for melanomas, which in the Tumor, Nodes, Metastasis (TNM) classification scheme, are primary tumor stage T4b, meaning greater than 4.0 mm in thickness and with ulceration; regional lymph node N3a, b, or c, based upon the number of metastatic nodes involved and whether they were clinically occult nodal metastases detected by sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or clinically detected; and M0, meaning no distant metastatic disease. In the 8th edition, the AJCC staging system can be applied in patients with T2 through T4 primary melanoma only if they have undergone SLNB.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

Among the other key points to remember about the eighth edition of AJCC:

• Tumor thickness is now measured to the nearest 0.1 mm rather than to the nearest 0.01 mm, as previously. Thus, a 0.75-mm-thick melanoma is now rounded up to 0.8 mm, while a 0.74-mm melanoma becomes a 0.7-mm tumor.
• Based upon recent evidence, tumors that are 0.8-1.0 mm thick, with or without ulceration, are now classified at T1b. So are ulcerated lesions that are less than 0.8 mm.
• Dermal mitotic rate is no longer used in staging T1 tumors, although it’s still supposed to be included in pathology reports.
• The T category definitions of primary tumors have been clarified in the eighth edition. A tumor is now classified as T0 only if there is no evidence of a primary tumor. Tx is employed when the primary tumor thickness can’t be determined, as for example when the biopsy specimen was obtained by curettage. Tis is utilized for melanoma in situ.
• The N subcategory definitions of regional nodal status have been revised. Microsatellites, clinical satellites, and in-transit metastases are now categorized as N1c, N2c, or N3c based upon the number of tumor-involved regional lymph nodes. These features are no longer defined by their size or distance from the primary tumor.

2018 NCCN melanoma guidelines

The guidelines have been revised to recommend against SLNB if a patient’s pretest probability of finding a positive SLN is less than 5%. This includes patients who have a clinical stage IA/T1a melanoma with a Breslow thickness of less than 0.8 mm without ulceration.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

What about completion lymphadenectomy in the SLN-positive melanoma patient?

Completion lymph node dissection looks increasingly like a procedure in search of an indication. Results of the National Cancer Institute–sponsored Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial–II (MSLT-II) demonstrated not even a hint of a difference in 3-year melanoma-specific survival in 1,934 melanoma patients with sentinel lymph node metastases regardless of whether they were randomized to immediate completion lymph node dissection or ultrasound-based nodal monitoring. Moreover, completion lymphadenectomy was associated with significant morbidity: a 24.1% incidence of lymphedema, compared with a 6.3% rate in the observation group (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 8;376[23]:2211-22).

On the other hand, Dr. Ferris noted that many newer drugs are being approved for the treatment of stage III melanoma, and in all the pivotal clinical trials, patients had to have undergone completion lymph node dissection as a condition of participation. So the surgery becomes a consideration if physicians want to use the newer agents the way they were used successfully in the trials.

The full eighth edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual is available for purchase. For physicians with a specific interest in melanoma, Dr. Ferris recommended as an extremely useful alternative the AJCC expert writing panel’s free downloadable summary of the evidence-based changes made in melanoma staging (CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Nov;67[6]:472-92). The 2018 NCCN guidelines (Melanoma. Version 1.2018 Oct. 11, 2017) are available for free (www.NCCN.org).

Dr. Ferris reported serving as a consultant to DermTech.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

CHICAGO – Surgical resection is an effective treatment in selected patients with advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint blockade immunotherapy, according to a study of an institutional database at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“In the era of improved systemic therapy, checkpoint blockade for metastatic melanoma and the ability to surgically resect all disease after treatment is associated with an estimated survival of 75%, better than what’s been previously reported,” said Danielle M. Bello, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering.

The study analyzed a cohort of 237 patients who had unresectable stage III and IV melanoma and were treated with checkpoint blockade, including CTLA-4, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, and then had surgical resection during 2003-2017.

Dr. Bello noted two previous studies that had reported encouraging outcomes in advanced melanoma. The first highlighted the role for surgery in stage IV melanoma. In that phase 3 clinical trial, patients had resection of up to five sites of metastatic disease and were then randomized to one of two treatment arms: bacillus Calmette-Guérin and allogeneic whole-cell vaccine (Canvaxin) or bacillus Calmette-Guérin and placebo. While this trial found no difference in overall survival between groups, it did report a 5-year overall survival exceeding 40% in both treatment arms, which highlighted that Stage IV patients who underwent resection of all their disease had survival outcomes superior to outcomes previously reported (Ann Surg Onc. 2017 Dec;24[13]:3991-4000). The second trial, the recent Checkmate 067 trial, emphasized the role of effective systemic checkpoint blockade in advanced stage III and IV melanoma. It reported that patients treated with combined nivolumab/ipilimumab therapy had not reached median overall survival at minimum 36 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1345-56).

“We know that checkpoint inhibitor therapy has revolutionized the landscape of unresectable stage III and IV melanoma,” Dr. Bello said. However, despite encouraging trial readouts of overall survival, progression-free survival is a different story. “We know that the median progression-free survival even in our best combination therapy is 11.5 months, meaning that 50% of patients will go on to progress in a year and many will go on to surgical resection of their disease and do quite well,” she said.

Dr. Bello and her coauthors set out to describe outcomes of a “highly selective group” of patients who had surgical resection after checkpoint inhibitor therapy. “The majority of patients in our study had a cutaneous primary melanoma,” she said. Median age was 63 years, and 88% had stage IV disease. Regarding checkpoint blockade regimen, 62% received anti–CTLA-4, and 29% received combination anti–PD-1 and anti–CLTA-4 either sequentially or concomitantly prior to resection.

The median time from the start of immunotherapy to the first operation was 7 months. Forty-six percent had no further postoperative treatment after resection. In those, who did require further treatment, the majority received anti–PD-1 followed by targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, she said.

The analysis stratified patients into the following three categories based on radiological response to immunotherapy:

• Overall response to checkpoint blockade and the index lesion was either smaller since initiation of therapy or stabilized (12; 5.1%). Half of this group had a pathological complete response.
• Isolated site of progressive disease with residual stable disease elsewhere or as the only site of progressive disease (106; 44.7%).
• Multiple sites of progressive and palliative operations (119; 50.2%).

Median overall survival was 21 months in the entire study cohort with a median follow-up of 23 months, Dr. Bello said. “Those resected to no evidence of disease (NED) – 87 patients – had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 75%.” The NED group did not reach median OS.

The analysis also stratified overall survival by response to immunotherapy. “Patients with responding or stable disease had an estimated 90% 5-year overall survival,” Dr. Bellow said. “Those with one isolated progressive lesion that was resected had a 60% 5-year overall survival.” A more detailed analysis of the latter group found that those who had a resection to NED had an improved overall survival of 75% at 5 years. Resected patients who had residual remaining disease had a 30% 5-year overall survival.

“Further follow-up is needed to assess the durability and contributions of surgery, and further studies are underway to identify biomarkers associated with improved survival after immunotherapy and surgery,” Dr. Bello said.

SOURCE: Bello DM et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 5.

CHICAGO – Surgical resection is an effective treatment in selected patients with advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint blockade immunotherapy, according to a study of an institutional database at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“In the era of improved systemic therapy, checkpoint blockade for metastatic melanoma and the ability to surgically resect all disease after treatment is associated with an estimated survival of 75%, better than what’s been previously reported,” said Danielle M. Bello, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering.

The study analyzed a cohort of 237 patients who had unresectable stage III and IV melanoma and were treated with checkpoint blockade, including CTLA-4, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, and then had surgical resection during 2003-2017.

Dr. Bello noted two previous studies that had reported encouraging outcomes in advanced melanoma. The first highlighted the role for surgery in stage IV melanoma. In that phase 3 clinical trial, patients had resection of up to five sites of metastatic disease and were then randomized to one of two treatment arms: bacillus Calmette-Guérin and allogeneic whole-cell vaccine (Canvaxin) or bacillus Calmette-Guérin and placebo. While this trial found no difference in overall survival between groups, it did report a 5-year overall survival exceeding 40% in both treatment arms, which highlighted that Stage IV patients who underwent resection of all their disease had survival outcomes superior to outcomes previously reported (Ann Surg Onc. 2017 Dec;24[13]:3991-4000). The second trial, the recent Checkmate 067 trial, emphasized the role of effective systemic checkpoint blockade in advanced stage III and IV melanoma. It reported that patients treated with combined nivolumab/ipilimumab therapy had not reached median overall survival at minimum 36 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1345-56).

“We know that checkpoint inhibitor therapy has revolutionized the landscape of unresectable stage III and IV melanoma,” Dr. Bello said. However, despite encouraging trial readouts of overall survival, progression-free survival is a different story. “We know that the median progression-free survival even in our best combination therapy is 11.5 months, meaning that 50% of patients will go on to progress in a year and many will go on to surgical resection of their disease and do quite well,” she said.

Dr. Bello and her coauthors set out to describe outcomes of a “highly selective group” of patients who had surgical resection after checkpoint inhibitor therapy. “The majority of patients in our study had a cutaneous primary melanoma,” she said. Median age was 63 years, and 88% had stage IV disease. Regarding checkpoint blockade regimen, 62% received anti–CTLA-4, and 29% received combination anti–PD-1 and anti–CLTA-4 either sequentially or concomitantly prior to resection.

The median time from the start of immunotherapy to the first operation was 7 months. Forty-six percent had no further postoperative treatment after resection. In those, who did require further treatment, the majority received anti–PD-1 followed by targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, she said.

The analysis stratified patients into the following three categories based on radiological response to immunotherapy:

• Overall response to checkpoint blockade and the index lesion was either smaller since initiation of therapy or stabilized (12; 5.1%). Half of this group had a pathological complete response.
• Isolated site of progressive disease with residual stable disease elsewhere or as the only site of progressive disease (106; 44.7%).
• Multiple sites of progressive and palliative operations (119; 50.2%).

Median overall survival was 21 months in the entire study cohort with a median follow-up of 23 months, Dr. Bello said. “Those resected to no evidence of disease (NED) – 87 patients – had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 75%.” The NED group did not reach median OS.

The analysis also stratified overall survival by response to immunotherapy. “Patients with responding or stable disease had an estimated 90% 5-year overall survival,” Dr. Bellow said. “Those with one isolated progressive lesion that was resected had a 60% 5-year overall survival.” A more detailed analysis of the latter group found that those who had a resection to NED had an improved overall survival of 75% at 5 years. Resected patients who had residual remaining disease had a 30% 5-year overall survival.

“Further follow-up is needed to assess the durability and contributions of surgery, and further studies are underway to identify biomarkers associated with improved survival after immunotherapy and surgery,” Dr. Bello said.

SOURCE: Bello DM et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 5.

CHICAGO – Surgical resection is an effective treatment in selected patients with advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint blockade immunotherapy, according to a study of an institutional database at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“In the era of improved systemic therapy, checkpoint blockade for metastatic melanoma and the ability to surgically resect all disease after treatment is associated with an estimated survival of 75%, better than what’s been previously reported,” said Danielle M. Bello, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering.

The study analyzed a cohort of 237 patients who had unresectable stage III and IV melanoma and were treated with checkpoint blockade, including CTLA-4, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, and then had surgical resection during 2003-2017.

Dr. Bello noted two previous studies that had reported encouraging outcomes in advanced melanoma. The first highlighted the role for surgery in stage IV melanoma. In that phase 3 clinical trial, patients had resection of up to five sites of metastatic disease and were then randomized to one of two treatment arms: bacillus Calmette-Guérin and allogeneic whole-cell vaccine (Canvaxin) or bacillus Calmette-Guérin and placebo. While this trial found no difference in overall survival between groups, it did report a 5-year overall survival exceeding 40% in both treatment arms, which highlighted that Stage IV patients who underwent resection of all their disease had survival outcomes superior to outcomes previously reported (Ann Surg Onc. 2017 Dec;24[13]:3991-4000). The second trial, the recent Checkmate 067 trial, emphasized the role of effective systemic checkpoint blockade in advanced stage III and IV melanoma. It reported that patients treated with combined nivolumab/ipilimumab therapy had not reached median overall survival at minimum 36 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1345-56).

“We know that checkpoint inhibitor therapy has revolutionized the landscape of unresectable stage III and IV melanoma,” Dr. Bello said. However, despite encouraging trial readouts of overall survival, progression-free survival is a different story. “We know that the median progression-free survival even in our best combination therapy is 11.5 months, meaning that 50% of patients will go on to progress in a year and many will go on to surgical resection of their disease and do quite well,” she said.

Dr. Bello and her coauthors set out to describe outcomes of a “highly selective group” of patients who had surgical resection after checkpoint inhibitor therapy. “The majority of patients in our study had a cutaneous primary melanoma,” she said. Median age was 63 years, and 88% had stage IV disease. Regarding checkpoint blockade regimen, 62% received anti–CTLA-4, and 29% received combination anti–PD-1 and anti–CLTA-4 either sequentially or concomitantly prior to resection.

The median time from the start of immunotherapy to the first operation was 7 months. Forty-six percent had no further postoperative treatment after resection. In those, who did require further treatment, the majority received anti–PD-1 followed by targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, she said.

The analysis stratified patients into the following three categories based on radiological response to immunotherapy:

• Overall response to checkpoint blockade and the index lesion was either smaller since initiation of therapy or stabilized (12; 5.1%). Half of this group had a pathological complete response.
• Isolated site of progressive disease with residual stable disease elsewhere or as the only site of progressive disease (106; 44.7%).
• Multiple sites of progressive and palliative operations (119; 50.2%).

Median overall survival was 21 months in the entire study cohort with a median follow-up of 23 months, Dr. Bello said. “Those resected to no evidence of disease (NED) – 87 patients – had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 75%.” The NED group did not reach median OS.

The analysis also stratified overall survival by response to immunotherapy. “Patients with responding or stable disease had an estimated 90% 5-year overall survival,” Dr. Bellow said. “Those with one isolated progressive lesion that was resected had a 60% 5-year overall survival.” A more detailed analysis of the latter group found that those who had a resection to NED had an improved overall survival of 75% at 5 years. Resected patients who had residual remaining disease had a 30% 5-year overall survival.

“Further follow-up is needed to assess the durability and contributions of surgery, and further studies are underway to identify biomarkers associated with improved survival after immunotherapy and surgery,” Dr. Bello said.

SOURCE: Bello DM et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 5.

I was driving to work the other day, perched up in my pickup truck (somehow you knew that) and noticed a fancy race car in front of me with a vanity tag. It read HRTATTK 4. Well, I thought after four heart attacks maybe I would splurge on a special car too (more likely a newer truck). Then I noticed smoke coming out of the driver’s window, and I could see this guy in his side view mirror, presumably Mr. “Heart Attack 4,” puffing away on a cigarette. Wow.

Then I got to work and saw my secretary, who works with her oxygen on, out back puffing a cigarette. Wow.

It turns out that cigarette smoke contains substances that act as a monoamine oxidase (MAO) A inhibitor, prolonging the dopamine high in the brain (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Nov 26;93[24]:14065-9). Makes sense and may explain the above smoking behavior. I truly believe cigarettes are as or more addictive than any other dopamine enhancing drug.

More than 50 years ago, a national campaign against smoking was launched after the 1964 Surgeon General’s report concluded that smoking was a major health hazard. (Looking back, one of the few losses of not having to pull journal articles from the stacks in the library, is that medical students and residents can’t shake their heads in wonder at the cigarette ads in old medical journals.) The impact of the national antismoking campaign has been dramatic, but smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States and globally, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

karenfoleyphotography/Thinkstock

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I was driving to work the other day, perched up in my pickup truck (somehow you knew that) and noticed a fancy race car in front of me with a vanity tag. It read HRTATTK 4. Well, I thought after four heart attacks maybe I would splurge on a special car too (more likely a newer truck). Then I noticed smoke coming out of the driver’s window, and I could see this guy in his side view mirror, presumably Mr. “Heart Attack 4,” puffing away on a cigarette. Wow.

Then I got to work and saw my secretary, who works with her oxygen on, out back puffing a cigarette. Wow.

It turns out that cigarette smoke contains substances that act as a monoamine oxidase (MAO) A inhibitor, prolonging the dopamine high in the brain (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Nov 26;93[24]:14065-9). Makes sense and may explain the above smoking behavior. I truly believe cigarettes are as or more addictive than any other dopamine enhancing drug.

More than 50 years ago, a national campaign against smoking was launched after the 1964 Surgeon General’s report concluded that smoking was a major health hazard. (Looking back, one of the few losses of not having to pull journal articles from the stacks in the library, is that medical students and residents can’t shake their heads in wonder at the cigarette ads in old medical journals.) The impact of the national antismoking campaign has been dramatic, but smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States and globally, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

karenfoleyphotography/Thinkstock

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I was driving to work the other day, perched up in my pickup truck (somehow you knew that) and noticed a fancy race car in front of me with a vanity tag. It read HRTATTK 4. Well, I thought after four heart attacks maybe I would splurge on a special car too (more likely a newer truck). Then I noticed smoke coming out of the driver’s window, and I could see this guy in his side view mirror, presumably Mr. “Heart Attack 4,” puffing away on a cigarette. Wow.

Then I got to work and saw my secretary, who works with her oxygen on, out back puffing a cigarette. Wow.

It turns out that cigarette smoke contains substances that act as a monoamine oxidase (MAO) A inhibitor, prolonging the dopamine high in the brain (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Nov 26;93[24]:14065-9). Makes sense and may explain the above smoking behavior. I truly believe cigarettes are as or more addictive than any other dopamine enhancing drug.

More than 50 years ago, a national campaign against smoking was launched after the 1964 Surgeon General’s report concluded that smoking was a major health hazard. (Looking back, one of the few losses of not having to pull journal articles from the stacks in the library, is that medical students and residents can’t shake their heads in wonder at the cigarette ads in old medical journals.) The impact of the national antismoking campaign has been dramatic, but smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States and globally, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

karenfoleyphotography/Thinkstock

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

CHICAGO – Cancer patients don’t necessarily have to come off immune checkpoint inhibitors if they develop diabetes, according to Priyanka Iyer, MD, an endocrinology fellow at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“As long as we get glycemic control, they can continue,” she said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Diabetes is a known side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) but it’s rare, occurring in maybe 0.17% of patients, and its natural history and risk factors are unknown.

Median time to diabetes presentation after the start of ICI treatment was 12.3 weeks but ranged from 1 to 67.2 weeks. Half of the cases presented in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Patients had upward trending hyperglycemia and most had diabetes symptoms for a while before diagnosis. They presented with a blood glucose above 250 mg/dL, and more than half above 500 mg/dL. Median hemoglobin A_1c at presentation was 8%, but ranged up to 12.5%.

Every patient required insulin, including the six that discontinued ICIs after developing diabetes. Diabetes resolved in just one patient at 10.2 months; she presented with DKA.

There were no obvious predisposing factors. None of the patients had histories of type 1 diabetes or other autoimmune disease. Five patients had well-controlled type 2 diabetes prior to ICI initiation; four had prediabetes. Some had family members with type 2 diabetes, but not type 1. Four had prior ICI exposure. Just three patients were on concomitant steroids.

A few patients also developed thyroid or pituitary dysfunction, which are more common side effects of ICIs.

The median age at diabetes presentation was 61 years and ranged from 32 to 82 years. The majority of patients were men, which reflects MD Anderson demographics, not a predisposing risk factor, Dr. Iyer said.

Melanoma was the most common cancer, followed by renal cell and prostate; patients had stage 2-4 disease. About half the subjects were on single agent anti-PD-1 treatment, about a third on anti-PD-1 combination treatment, and the rest on anti-PD-L1 combination therapy. C-peptide levels were below 0.9 ng/mL at diabetes diagnosis in most of the patients. Eleven of the 20 tested (55%) were positive for the pancreatic islet cell antibody GAD65.

The investigators had no disclosures. A funding source was not reported.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Iyer PC et al. Abstract OR05-5.

CHICAGO – Cancer patients don’t necessarily have to come off immune checkpoint inhibitors if they develop diabetes, according to Priyanka Iyer, MD, an endocrinology fellow at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“As long as we get glycemic control, they can continue,” she said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Diabetes is a known side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) but it’s rare, occurring in maybe 0.17% of patients, and its natural history and risk factors are unknown.

Median time to diabetes presentation after the start of ICI treatment was 12.3 weeks but ranged from 1 to 67.2 weeks. Half of the cases presented in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Patients had upward trending hyperglycemia and most had diabetes symptoms for a while before diagnosis. They presented with a blood glucose above 250 mg/dL, and more than half above 500 mg/dL. Median hemoglobin A_1c at presentation was 8%, but ranged up to 12.5%.

Every patient required insulin, including the six that discontinued ICIs after developing diabetes. Diabetes resolved in just one patient at 10.2 months; she presented with DKA.

There were no obvious predisposing factors. None of the patients had histories of type 1 diabetes or other autoimmune disease. Five patients had well-controlled type 2 diabetes prior to ICI initiation; four had prediabetes. Some had family members with type 2 diabetes, but not type 1. Four had prior ICI exposure. Just three patients were on concomitant steroids.

A few patients also developed thyroid or pituitary dysfunction, which are more common side effects of ICIs.

The median age at diabetes presentation was 61 years and ranged from 32 to 82 years. The majority of patients were men, which reflects MD Anderson demographics, not a predisposing risk factor, Dr. Iyer said.

Melanoma was the most common cancer, followed by renal cell and prostate; patients had stage 2-4 disease. About half the subjects were on single agent anti-PD-1 treatment, about a third on anti-PD-1 combination treatment, and the rest on anti-PD-L1 combination therapy. C-peptide levels were below 0.9 ng/mL at diabetes diagnosis in most of the patients. Eleven of the 20 tested (55%) were positive for the pancreatic islet cell antibody GAD65.

The investigators had no disclosures. A funding source was not reported.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Iyer PC et al. Abstract OR05-5.

CHICAGO – Cancer patients don’t necessarily have to come off immune checkpoint inhibitors if they develop diabetes, according to Priyanka Iyer, MD, an endocrinology fellow at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“As long as we get glycemic control, they can continue,” she said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Diabetes is a known side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) but it’s rare, occurring in maybe 0.17% of patients, and its natural history and risk factors are unknown.

Median time to diabetes presentation after the start of ICI treatment was 12.3 weeks but ranged from 1 to 67.2 weeks. Half of the cases presented in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Patients had upward trending hyperglycemia and most had diabetes symptoms for a while before diagnosis. They presented with a blood glucose above 250 mg/dL, and more than half above 500 mg/dL. Median hemoglobin A_1c at presentation was 8%, but ranged up to 12.5%.

Every patient required insulin, including the six that discontinued ICIs after developing diabetes. Diabetes resolved in just one patient at 10.2 months; she presented with DKA.

There were no obvious predisposing factors. None of the patients had histories of type 1 diabetes or other autoimmune disease. Five patients had well-controlled type 2 diabetes prior to ICI initiation; four had prediabetes. Some had family members with type 2 diabetes, but not type 1. Four had prior ICI exposure. Just three patients were on concomitant steroids.

A few patients also developed thyroid or pituitary dysfunction, which are more common side effects of ICIs.

The median age at diabetes presentation was 61 years and ranged from 32 to 82 years. The majority of patients were men, which reflects MD Anderson demographics, not a predisposing risk factor, Dr. Iyer said.

Melanoma was the most common cancer, followed by renal cell and prostate; patients had stage 2-4 disease. About half the subjects were on single agent anti-PD-1 treatment, about a third on anti-PD-1 combination treatment, and the rest on anti-PD-L1 combination therapy. C-peptide levels were below 0.9 ng/mL at diabetes diagnosis in most of the patients. Eleven of the 20 tested (55%) were positive for the pancreatic islet cell antibody GAD65.

The investigators had no disclosures. A funding source was not reported.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Iyer PC et al. Abstract OR05-5.

Stage IV melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) origin, in which a primary tumor has either resolved or remains undiscovered, shares similar outcomes and prognostic factors to melanoma of known primary (MKP) origin, according to a new analysis of the nationwide Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-18 registries spanning from 1973 to 2014.

Previous studies of MUP have been single institutional or multi-institutional studies. The current work is the first population-level study.

MUP is uncommon, representing 2.5-5% of melanoma cases. As with MKP, worse survival of MUP patients was tied to age greater than 50 years and not undergoing a surgical procedure. The researchers did find a slight advantage in one-year survival for MUP patients compared to MKP, which could be because many of the MUP patients had experienced an immune response that eliminated the primary tumor.

“You could imagine that if the body attacks the primary tumor and it goes away, you’re set up to fight off the metastatic melanoma better,” said lead study author Jeffrey Scott, MD, a micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology fellow at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University.

The study appeared online March 23 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The researchers analyzed 322 stage IV MUP cases and 12,796 stage IV MKP cases. The incidence of stage IV MUP increased over time, from 1.52 per 100,000 between 1973 and 1984, to 5.83 per 100,000 from 2005 to 2014. MUP patients were more likely to be recommended for surgery than MKP patients (surgery not recommended for 47.7% of MKP cases, compared to 37.7% of MUP cases), and they had better 1-year survival rates compared to the general U.S. population than did MKP patients (0.54, 95% CI, 0.48-0.60 versus 0.41, 95% CI 0.39-0.42). The improved survival of MUP over MKP remained steady at each measured time point out to 5 years.

However, there was no difference in 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) in MUP versus MKP (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.79-1.04; P =.16), or in the 5-year DSS Kaplan-Meier curve after adjustment for year of diagnosis, age, sex, race, and surgical treatment (log-rank P = .93).

A multivariate analysis showed increased 5-year DSS among patients who received surgery (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.30-0.56; P less than .001) and decreased 5-year DSS among patients over 50 (HR 3.27, 95% CI, 1.17-9.17; P = .02 for age 50-59).

“The prognostic factors are very similar, so you should treat these patients (with MUP) similarly to patients with melanoma of known primary, the same treatments, the same clinical trials,” Dr. Scott and associates said.

The results also raise the possibility of gaining a better understanding of how immune response affects the course of metastatic melanoma.

“If MUP is due to the fact that your immune system is attacking the primary tumor, then what characteristics of the person would cause that to happen? Are younger patients (exhibiting) a more robust immune response? Could that explain why their prognosis is better? More molecular studies of the actual tumors and the immune characteristics of these patients would help us answer that,” they added.

A resolved primary tumor isn’t the only explanation for MUP, however. It’s also possible that melanocytes are found in unexpected sites, perhaps because they did not complete their migration during development. “They could give rise to melanoma that would present (as MUP). Maybe there never was a skin tumor,” the authors wrote.

The investigators recommend a thorough search for a primary tumor, employing ophthalmologists, gynecologists, and other specialists if necessary. “You could argue that once you have metastatic disease, what’s the point of finding the primary tumor? But it’s important to correctly classify these patients, in terms of what clinical trials and treatments they may be eligible for,” Dr. Scott and associates said.

SOURCE: Scott JF et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Mar 23. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.03.021.

Stage IV melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) origin, in which a primary tumor has either resolved or remains undiscovered, shares similar outcomes and prognostic factors to melanoma of known primary (MKP) origin, according to a new analysis of the nationwide Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-18 registries spanning from 1973 to 2014.

Previous studies of MUP have been single institutional or multi-institutional studies. The current work is the first population-level study.

MUP is uncommon, representing 2.5-5% of melanoma cases. As with MKP, worse survival of MUP patients was tied to age greater than 50 years and not undergoing a surgical procedure. The researchers did find a slight advantage in one-year survival for MUP patients compared to MKP, which could be because many of the MUP patients had experienced an immune response that eliminated the primary tumor.

“You could imagine that if the body attacks the primary tumor and it goes away, you’re set up to fight off the metastatic melanoma better,” said lead study author Jeffrey Scott, MD, a micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology fellow at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University.

The study appeared online March 23 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The researchers analyzed 322 stage IV MUP cases and 12,796 stage IV MKP cases. The incidence of stage IV MUP increased over time, from 1.52 per 100,000 between 1973 and 1984, to 5.83 per 100,000 from 2005 to 2014. MUP patients were more likely to be recommended for surgery than MKP patients (surgery not recommended for 47.7% of MKP cases, compared to 37.7% of MUP cases), and they had better 1-year survival rates compared to the general U.S. population than did MKP patients (0.54, 95% CI, 0.48-0.60 versus 0.41, 95% CI 0.39-0.42). The improved survival of MUP over MKP remained steady at each measured time point out to 5 years.

However, there was no difference in 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) in MUP versus MKP (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.79-1.04; P =.16), or in the 5-year DSS Kaplan-Meier curve after adjustment for year of diagnosis, age, sex, race, and surgical treatment (log-rank P = .93).

A multivariate analysis showed increased 5-year DSS among patients who received surgery (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.30-0.56; P less than .001) and decreased 5-year DSS among patients over 50 (HR 3.27, 95% CI, 1.17-9.17; P = .02 for age 50-59).

“The prognostic factors are very similar, so you should treat these patients (with MUP) similarly to patients with melanoma of known primary, the same treatments, the same clinical trials,” Dr. Scott and associates said.

The results also raise the possibility of gaining a better understanding of how immune response affects the course of metastatic melanoma.

“If MUP is due to the fact that your immune system is attacking the primary tumor, then what characteristics of the person would cause that to happen? Are younger patients (exhibiting) a more robust immune response? Could that explain why their prognosis is better? More molecular studies of the actual tumors and the immune characteristics of these patients would help us answer that,” they added.

A resolved primary tumor isn’t the only explanation for MUP, however. It’s also possible that melanocytes are found in unexpected sites, perhaps because they did not complete their migration during development. “They could give rise to melanoma that would present (as MUP). Maybe there never was a skin tumor,” the authors wrote.

The investigators recommend a thorough search for a primary tumor, employing ophthalmologists, gynecologists, and other specialists if necessary. “You could argue that once you have metastatic disease, what’s the point of finding the primary tumor? But it’s important to correctly classify these patients, in terms of what clinical trials and treatments they may be eligible for,” Dr. Scott and associates said.

SOURCE: Scott JF et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Mar 23. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.03.021.

Stage IV melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) origin, in which a primary tumor has either resolved or remains undiscovered, shares similar outcomes and prognostic factors to melanoma of known primary (MKP) origin, according to a new analysis of the nationwide Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-18 registries spanning from 1973 to 2014.

Previous studies of MUP have been single institutional or multi-institutional studies. The current work is the first population-level study.

MUP is uncommon, representing 2.5-5% of melanoma cases. As with MKP, worse survival of MUP patients was tied to age greater than 50 years and not undergoing a surgical procedure. The researchers did find a slight advantage in one-year survival for MUP patients compared to MKP, which could be because many of the MUP patients had experienced an immune response that eliminated the primary tumor.

“You could imagine that if the body attacks the primary tumor and it goes away, you’re set up to fight off the metastatic melanoma better,” said lead study author Jeffrey Scott, MD, a micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology fellow at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University.

The study appeared online March 23 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The researchers analyzed 322 stage IV MUP cases and 12,796 stage IV MKP cases. The incidence of stage IV MUP increased over time, from 1.52 per 100,000 between 1973 and 1984, to 5.83 per 100,000 from 2005 to 2014. MUP patients were more likely to be recommended for surgery than MKP patients (surgery not recommended for 47.7% of MKP cases, compared to 37.7% of MUP cases), and they had better 1-year survival rates compared to the general U.S. population than did MKP patients (0.54, 95% CI, 0.48-0.60 versus 0.41, 95% CI 0.39-0.42). The improved survival of MUP over MKP remained steady at each measured time point out to 5 years.

However, there was no difference in 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) in MUP versus MKP (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.79-1.04; P =.16), or in the 5-year DSS Kaplan-Meier curve after adjustment for year of diagnosis, age, sex, race, and surgical treatment (log-rank P = .93).

A multivariate analysis showed increased 5-year DSS among patients who received surgery (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.30-0.56; P less than .001) and decreased 5-year DSS among patients over 50 (HR 3.27, 95% CI, 1.17-9.17; P = .02 for age 50-59).

“The prognostic factors are very similar, so you should treat these patients (with MUP) similarly to patients with melanoma of known primary, the same treatments, the same clinical trials,” Dr. Scott and associates said.

The results also raise the possibility of gaining a better understanding of how immune response affects the course of metastatic melanoma.

“If MUP is due to the fact that your immune system is attacking the primary tumor, then what characteristics of the person would cause that to happen? Are younger patients (exhibiting) a more robust immune response? Could that explain why their prognosis is better? More molecular studies of the actual tumors and the immune characteristics of these patients would help us answer that,” they added.

A resolved primary tumor isn’t the only explanation for MUP, however. It’s also possible that melanocytes are found in unexpected sites, perhaps because they did not complete their migration during development. “They could give rise to melanoma that would present (as MUP). Maybe there never was a skin tumor,” the authors wrote.

The investigators recommend a thorough search for a primary tumor, employing ophthalmologists, gynecologists, and other specialists if necessary. “You could argue that once you have metastatic disease, what’s the point of finding the primary tumor? But it’s important to correctly classify these patients, in terms of what clinical trials and treatments they may be eligible for,” Dr. Scott and associates said.

SOURCE: Scott JF et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Mar 23. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.03.021.

Pediatric melanomas appear to be more progressive in adolescents than in young children, based on data from a retrospective study of 32 cases.

Few young children with melanoma die, despite a greater likelihood of thicker tumors, lymph node metastasis, and later diagnosis, which suggests that melanoma in young children may be biologically distinct from melanoma in adolescents, wrote Diana W. Bartenstein, of Harvard University Medical School, Boston, and her colleagues.

Dlumen/Thinkstock

No conflicts of interest were reported. The study was supported by the Alpha Omega Alpha Carolyn L. Kuckein Student Research Fellowship and the Society for Pediatric Dermatology and Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance.

SOURCE: Bartenstein DW et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018 Mar 23. doi: 10.1111/pde.13454.

Pediatric melanomas appear to be more progressive in adolescents than in young children, based on data from a retrospective study of 32 cases.

Few young children with melanoma die, despite a greater likelihood of thicker tumors, lymph node metastasis, and later diagnosis, which suggests that melanoma in young children may be biologically distinct from melanoma in adolescents, wrote Diana W. Bartenstein, of Harvard University Medical School, Boston, and her colleagues.

Dlumen/Thinkstock

No conflicts of interest were reported. The study was supported by the Alpha Omega Alpha Carolyn L. Kuckein Student Research Fellowship and the Society for Pediatric Dermatology and Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance.

SOURCE: Bartenstein DW et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018 Mar 23. doi: 10.1111/pde.13454.

Pediatric melanomas appear to be more progressive in adolescents than in young children, based on data from a retrospective study of 32 cases.

Few young children with melanoma die, despite a greater likelihood of thicker tumors, lymph node metastasis, and later diagnosis, which suggests that melanoma in young children may be biologically distinct from melanoma in adolescents, wrote Diana W. Bartenstein, of Harvard University Medical School, Boston, and her colleagues.

Dlumen/Thinkstock

No conflicts of interest were reported. The study was supported by the Alpha Omega Alpha Carolyn L. Kuckein Student Research Fellowship and the Society for Pediatric Dermatology and Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance.

SOURCE: Bartenstein DW et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018 Mar 23. doi: 10.1111/pde.13454.

Cutaneous melanoma is a considerable public health concern. In the United States, an estimated 87,110 cases were diagnosed in 2017, and more than 9000 deaths are expected as result of this disease in 2018.¹ Early diagnosis of melanoma is associated with favorable survival rates (5-year overall survival rates for melanoma in situ and stage IA melanoma, 99% and 97%, respectively).² In contrast, the prognosis for advanced-stage melanoma is poor, with a 5-year survival rate of 16% for patients with stage IV disease. Therefore, early detection is critical to reducing mortality in melanoma patients.³

The term Hispanic refers to a panethnic category primarily encompassing Mexican-Americans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans, as well as individuals from the Caribbean and Central and South America. These populations are diverse in birth origin, primary language, acculturation, distinct ethnic traditions, education level, and occupation. Hispanics in the United States are heterogeneous in many dimensions related to health risks, health care use, and health outcomes.⁴ Genetic predisposition, lifestyle risks, and access to and use of health care services can shape melanoma diagnosis, treatment, and progression across Hispanic populations differently than in other populations.

In this review, the epidemiology and clinical presentation of melanoma in US Hispanics is summarized, and recommendations for a research agenda to advance understanding of this disease in the most rapidly growing segment of the US population is provided.

Melanoma Incidence, Presentation, and Outcomes in US Hispanics

In the period from 2008 to 2012, the age-adjusted incidence of melanoma in US Hispanics (4.6 per 100,00 men and 4.2 per 100,00 women) was lower than in NHWs.⁵ Garnett et al⁵ reported a decline in melanoma incidence in US Hispanics between 2003 and 2012—an observation that stands in contrast to state-level studies in California and Florida, in which small but substantial increases in melanoma incidence among Hispanics were reported.^6,7 The rising incidence of melanomas thicker than 1.5 mm at presentation among Hispanic men living in California is particularly worrisome.⁶ Discrepancies in incidence trends might reflect changes in incidence over time or differences in state-level registry reporting of melanoma.⁵

Despite a lower overall incidence of melanoma in US Hispanics, those who do develop the disease are 2.4 times more likely (age-adjusted odds ratio) to present with stage III disease (confidence interval, 1.89-3.05)⁸ and are 3.64 times more likely to develop distant metastases (confidence interval, 2.65-5.0) than NHWs.^3,7,9-13 Disparities also exist in the diagnosis of childhood melanoma: Hispanic children and adolescents who have a diagnosis of melanoma are 3 times more likely to present with advanced disease than NHW counterparts.¹⁴ Survival analyses by age and stage show considerably lower survival among Hispanic patients compared to NHW patients with stage I and II disease. In part, worse survival outcomes among Hispanics are the result of the pattern of more advanced disease at presentation.^8,14,15

Late presentation for evaluation of melanomas in Hispanics has been attributed to a number of variables, including a lack of skin cancer awareness and knowledge,^9,16 a lower rate of self- and physician-performed skin examinations,¹⁰ differences in tumor biology,⁹ and socioeconomic forces.^7,17

In a previous study investigating the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and tumor stage at melanoma diagnosis in Hispanic men in California, Texas, and Florida, several key findings emerged.¹⁷ First, residency in a census tract with a high density of immigrants (California, Texas) and a high composition of Hispanics (California, Florida) was an important predictor of a late-stage melanoma diagnosis in fully adjusted models. Additionally, the strength of association between measures of socioeconomic status (ie, poverty and education) and tumor stage at melanoma diagnosis was attenuated in multivariate models when enclaves and availability of primary care resources were taken into account. Hispanic melanoma cases in areas with a low density of primary care physicians had an increased likelihood of late-stage diagnosis in California and Texas. The probability of late-stage diagnosis was concentrated in specific regions along the United States–Mexico border, in south central California, and along the southeastern coast of Florida. Lastly, in Texas, Hispanic men aged 18 to 34 years and 35 to 49 years were at an increased risk of late-stage melanoma diagnosis compared to men 65 years and older.¹⁷

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Melanoma in Hispanic Patients

Among Hispanics, white Hispanics comprise the majority of melanoma cases.⁵ Median age at diagnosis is younger in Hispanics compared to whites.^5,6 Hispanic men typically are older (median age, 61 years) than Hispanic women (median age, 52 years) at diagnosis.⁵ Similar to what is seen in NHWs, young Hispanic women experience a higher melanoma incidence than young Hispanic men.⁵ Among older Hispanics, melanoma is more common in men.^5,8

Melanomas located on the lower extremities and hips are more prevalent in Hispanics than in NHWs.^5,8,18 Among Hispanics, there are age- and sex-based variations in the anatomic location of primary tumors: in Hispanic men, truncal tumors predominate, and in Hispanic women, tumors of the lower extremities are most common across all age groups.⁵ The incidence of melanomas located in the head and neck region increases with age for both Hispanic men and women.

For melanomas in which the histologic type is known, superficial spreading melanoma is the most common subtype among Hispanics.^5,17,19 Acral lentiginous melanomas and nodular melanomas are more common among Hispanics than among NHWs.^5,17,19

The observation that Hispanics with melanoma are more prone to lower-extremity tumors and nodular and acral lentiginous melanoma subtypes than NHWs suggests that UV exposure history may be of less importance in this population. Although numerous studies have explored melanoma risk factors in NHWs, there is a striking paucity of such studies in Hispanics. For example, there are conflicting data regarding the role of UV exposure in melanoma risk among Hispanics. Hu et al²⁰ found that UV index and latitude correlated with melanoma risk in this population, whereas Eide et al²¹ found no association between UV exposure and melanoma incidence in Hispanics. A prospective study involving a multiethnic cohort (of whom 40 of the 107 participants were Hispanic) found no clear association between a history of sunburn and melanoma risk in Hispanics.¹⁸

Strategies for Reducing Disparities in Outcomes

Our knowledge of melanoma epidemiology in Hispanics derives mainly from secondary analyses of state-level and national cancer registry data sets.^{5-8,13-15,17,19,20} These administrative data sources often are limited by missing data (eg, tumor thickness, histologic subtype) or lack important patient-level information (eg, self-identified race and ethnicity, health insurance status). Additionally, the manner in which data are collected and integrated into research varies; for example, socioeconomic measures often are reported as either area-based or composite measures. Thus, there is a need to improve the consistency of reporting on demographic and socioeconomic measures across studies. Polite et al²² recommended standardization of reporting criteria and that a standard set of demographic and socioeconomic status measures be included in clinical registries and research protocols.²² Researchers should strive to collect self-reported information on race and ethnicity, as well as the most granular level of detail on health insurance status, ancestry, and immigration status.

The host phenotypic characteristics of melanoma in NHWs are well understood, but the biological and environmental determinants of melanoma risk in Hispanics and other minorities are unknown. For example, fair complexion, red hair, blue eyes, increased freckling density, and the presence of numerous dysplastic and common melanocytic nevi indicate a propensity toward cutaneous melanoma.^23,24 However, the relevance of such risk factors in Hispanics is unknown and has not been widely investigated in this patient population. Park et al¹⁸ found that a person’s sunburn susceptibility phenotype (defined as hair and eye color, ability to tan, and skin reaction to sunlight) was associated with an increased risk of melanoma among nonwhite, multiracial individuals. However, this study was limited by a small number of minority cases, which included only 40 Hispanic participants with melanoma.¹⁸ There is a need for rigorous observational studies to clearly define the phenotypic characteristics, sun-exposure behavior patterns, and genetic contributors to melanoma genesis in Hispanics.

The biologic determinants of postdiagnosis survival in Hispanics with melanoma are not well understood. It is unknown if genetic predisposition modifies melanoma risk in Hispanics. For example, the frequency of BRAF gene mutation or other driver mutations in US Hispanics has been understudied. It is important to know if mutation frequency patterns differ in Hispanics patients compared to NHWs because this knowledge could have considerable implications for treatment. Several recommendations should be considered to address these knowledge gaps. First, there is a need for development or enhancement of melanoma biorepositories, which should include tumor and nontumor specimens from a diverse sample of melanoma patients. Additionally, multi-institutional and multidisciplinary consortiums need to be created in order to amass a number of Hispanic melanoma patients to identify genetic, biologic, and behavioral risk factors specific to this subgroup of patients. The AMBER Consortium, which focuses on breast cancer epidemiology and risk in black women, is a model for the type of consortium needed for the study of melanoma in Hispanics.²⁵ Lastly, community engagement will be central to developing sustainable recruitment and data-collection efforts.²⁶ Involvement of key stakeholders will provide an in-depth assessment of community needs as well as real-time feedback on the process and practicality of research questions. Buy-in from affected communities also may facilitate dissemination of research findings to affected communities.

Conclusion

Hispanics are more likely to present with an advanced stages of disease and have higher melanoma-specific mortality rates than NHWs. Regrettably, a huge knowledge gap exists regarding contributors and solutions to melanoma disparities among this fast-growing, understudied segment of the US population. Accordingly, critical research is needed to address the most pressing questions regarding melanoma risk and poor outcomes among Hispanics to foster implementation of interventional efforts in prevention, early detection, and treatment. A multi-institutional and multidisciplinary approach across multiple levels is needed to eliminate disparate outcomes. Although melanoma is relatively uncommon among Hispanics, studies of melanoma in Hispanics (given their diverse genetic ancestry and migration) provide a unique backdrop against which researchers can explicate melanoma etiology—thus benefiting Hispanics and non-Hispanics alike.

Cutaneous melanoma is a considerable public health concern. In the United States, an estimated 87,110 cases were diagnosed in 2017, and more than 9000 deaths are expected as result of this disease in 2018.¹ Early diagnosis of melanoma is associated with favorable survival rates (5-year overall survival rates for melanoma in situ and stage IA melanoma, 99% and 97%, respectively).² In contrast, the prognosis for advanced-stage melanoma is poor, with a 5-year survival rate of 16% for patients with stage IV disease. Therefore, early detection is critical to reducing mortality in melanoma patients.³

The term Hispanic refers to a panethnic category primarily encompassing Mexican-Americans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans, as well as individuals from the Caribbean and Central and South America. These populations are diverse in birth origin, primary language, acculturation, distinct ethnic traditions, education level, and occupation. Hispanics in the United States are heterogeneous in many dimensions related to health risks, health care use, and health outcomes.⁴ Genetic predisposition, lifestyle risks, and access to and use of health care services can shape melanoma diagnosis, treatment, and progression across Hispanic populations differently than in other populations.

In this review, the epidemiology and clinical presentation of melanoma in US Hispanics is summarized, and recommendations for a research agenda to advance understanding of this disease in the most rapidly growing segment of the US population is provided.

Melanoma Incidence, Presentation, and Outcomes in US Hispanics

In the period from 2008 to 2012, the age-adjusted incidence of melanoma in US Hispanics (4.6 per 100,00 men and 4.2 per 100,00 women) was lower than in NHWs.⁵ Garnett et al⁵ reported a decline in melanoma incidence in US Hispanics between 2003 and 2012—an observation that stands in contrast to state-level studies in California and Florida, in which small but substantial increases in melanoma incidence among Hispanics were reported.^6,7 The rising incidence of melanomas thicker than 1.5 mm at presentation among Hispanic men living in California is particularly worrisome.⁶ Discrepancies in incidence trends might reflect changes in incidence over time or differences in state-level registry reporting of melanoma.⁵

Despite a lower overall incidence of melanoma in US Hispanics, those who do develop the disease are 2.4 times more likely (age-adjusted odds ratio) to present with stage III disease (confidence interval, 1.89-3.05)⁸ and are 3.64 times more likely to develop distant metastases (confidence interval, 2.65-5.0) than NHWs.^3,7,9-13 Disparities also exist in the diagnosis of childhood melanoma: Hispanic children and adolescents who have a diagnosis of melanoma are 3 times more likely to present with advanced disease than NHW counterparts.¹⁴ Survival analyses by age and stage show considerably lower survival among Hispanic patients compared to NHW patients with stage I and II disease. In part, worse survival outcomes among Hispanics are the result of the pattern of more advanced disease at presentation.^8,14,15

Late presentation for evaluation of melanomas in Hispanics has been attributed to a number of variables, including a lack of skin cancer awareness and knowledge,^9,16 a lower rate of self- and physician-performed skin examinations,¹⁰ differences in tumor biology,⁹ and socioeconomic forces.^7,17

In a previous study investigating the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and tumor stage at melanoma diagnosis in Hispanic men in California, Texas, and Florida, several key findings emerged.¹⁷ First, residency in a census tract with a high density of immigrants (California, Texas) and a high composition of Hispanics (California, Florida) was an important predictor of a late-stage melanoma diagnosis in fully adjusted models. Additionally, the strength of association between measures of socioeconomic status (ie, poverty and education) and tumor stage at melanoma diagnosis was attenuated in multivariate models when enclaves and availability of primary care resources were taken into account. Hispanic melanoma cases in areas with a low density of primary care physicians had an increased likelihood of late-stage diagnosis in California and Texas. The probability of late-stage diagnosis was concentrated in specific regions along the United States–Mexico border, in south central California, and along the southeastern coast of Florida. Lastly, in Texas, Hispanic men aged 18 to 34 years and 35 to 49 years were at an increased risk of late-stage melanoma diagnosis compared to men 65 years and older.¹⁷

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Melanoma in Hispanic Patients

Among Hispanics, white Hispanics comprise the majority of melanoma cases.⁵ Median age at diagnosis is younger in Hispanics compared to whites.^5,6 Hispanic men typically are older (median age, 61 years) than Hispanic women (median age, 52 years) at diagnosis.⁵ Similar to what is seen in NHWs, young Hispanic women experience a higher melanoma incidence than young Hispanic men.⁵ Among older Hispanics, melanoma is more common in men.^5,8

Melanomas located on the lower extremities and hips are more prevalent in Hispanics than in NHWs.^5,8,18 Among Hispanics, there are age- and sex-based variations in the anatomic location of primary tumors: in Hispanic men, truncal tumors predominate, and in Hispanic women, tumors of the lower extremities are most common across all age groups.⁵ The incidence of melanomas located in the head and neck region increases with age for both Hispanic men and women.

For melanomas in which the histologic type is known, superficial spreading melanoma is the most common subtype among Hispanics.^5,17,19 Acral lentiginous melanomas and nodular melanomas are more common among Hispanics than among NHWs.^5,17,19

The observation that Hispanics with melanoma are more prone to lower-extremity tumors and nodular and acral lentiginous melanoma subtypes than NHWs suggests that UV exposure history may be of less importance in this population. Although numerous studies have explored melanoma risk factors in NHWs, there is a striking paucity of such studies in Hispanics. For example, there are conflicting data regarding the role of UV exposure in melanoma risk among Hispanics. Hu et al²⁰ found that UV index and latitude correlated with melanoma risk in this population, whereas Eide et al²¹ found no association between UV exposure and melanoma incidence in Hispanics. A prospective study involving a multiethnic cohort (of whom 40 of the 107 participants were Hispanic) found no clear association between a history of sunburn and melanoma risk in Hispanics.¹⁸

Strategies for Reducing Disparities in Outcomes

Our knowledge of melanoma epidemiology in Hispanics derives mainly from secondary analyses of state-level and national cancer registry data sets.^{5-8,13-15,17,19,20} These administrative data sources often are limited by missing data (eg, tumor thickness, histologic subtype) or lack important patient-level information (eg, self-identified race and ethnicity, health insurance status). Additionally, the manner in which data are collected and integrated into research varies; for example, socioeconomic measures often are reported as either area-based or composite measures. Thus, there is a need to improve the consistency of reporting on demographic and socioeconomic measures across studies. Polite et al²² recommended standardization of reporting criteria and that a standard set of demographic and socioeconomic status measures be included in clinical registries and research protocols.²² Researchers should strive to collect self-reported information on race and ethnicity, as well as the most granular level of detail on health insurance status, ancestry, and immigration status.

The host phenotypic characteristics of melanoma in NHWs are well understood, but the biological and environmental determinants of melanoma risk in Hispanics and other minorities are unknown. For example, fair complexion, red hair, blue eyes, increased freckling density, and the presence of numerous dysplastic and common melanocytic nevi indicate a propensity toward cutaneous melanoma.^23,24 However, the relevance of such risk factors in Hispanics is unknown and has not been widely investigated in this patient population. Park et al¹⁸ found that a person’s sunburn susceptibility phenotype (defined as hair and eye color, ability to tan, and skin reaction to sunlight) was associated with an increased risk of melanoma among nonwhite, multiracial individuals. However, this study was limited by a small number of minority cases, which included only 40 Hispanic participants with melanoma.¹⁸ There is a need for rigorous observational studies to clearly define the phenotypic characteristics, sun-exposure behavior patterns, and genetic contributors to melanoma genesis in Hispanics.

The biologic determinants of postdiagnosis survival in Hispanics with melanoma are not well understood. It is unknown if genetic predisposition modifies melanoma risk in Hispanics. For example, the frequency of BRAF gene mutation or other driver mutations in US Hispanics has been understudied. It is important to know if mutation frequency patterns differ in Hispanics patients compared to NHWs because this knowledge could have considerable implications for treatment. Several recommendations should be considered to address these knowledge gaps. First, there is a need for development or enhancement of melanoma biorepositories, which should include tumor and nontumor specimens from a diverse sample of melanoma patients. Additionally, multi-institutional and multidisciplinary consortiums need to be created in order to amass a number of Hispanic melanoma patients to identify genetic, biologic, and behavioral risk factors specific to this subgroup of patients. The AMBER Consortium, which focuses on breast cancer epidemiology and risk in black women, is a model for the type of consortium needed for the study of melanoma in Hispanics.²⁵ Lastly, community engagement will be central to developing sustainable recruitment and data-collection efforts.²⁶ Involvement of key stakeholders will provide an in-depth assessment of community needs as well as real-time feedback on the process and practicality of research questions. Buy-in from affected communities also may facilitate dissemination of research findings to affected communities.

Conclusion

Hispanics are more likely to present with an advanced stages of disease and have higher melanoma-specific mortality rates than NHWs. Regrettably, a huge knowledge gap exists regarding contributors and solutions to melanoma disparities among this fast-growing, understudied segment of the US population. Accordingly, critical research is needed to address the most pressing questions regarding melanoma risk and poor outcomes among Hispanics to foster implementation of interventional efforts in prevention, early detection, and treatment. A multi-institutional and multidisciplinary approach across multiple levels is needed to eliminate disparate outcomes. Although melanoma is relatively uncommon among Hispanics, studies of melanoma in Hispanics (given their diverse genetic ancestry and migration) provide a unique backdrop against which researchers can explicate melanoma etiology—thus benefiting Hispanics and non-Hispanics alike.

Cutaneous melanoma is a considerable public health concern. In the United States, an estimated 87,110 cases were diagnosed in 2017, and more than 9000 deaths are expected as result of this disease in 2018.¹ Early diagnosis of melanoma is associated with favorable survival rates (5-year overall survival rates for melanoma in situ and stage IA melanoma, 99% and 97%, respectively).² In contrast, the prognosis for advanced-stage melanoma is poor, with a 5-year survival rate of 16% for patients with stage IV disease. Therefore, early detection is critical to reducing mortality in melanoma patients.³

The term Hispanic refers to a panethnic category primarily encompassing Mexican-Americans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans, as well as individuals from the Caribbean and Central and South America. These populations are diverse in birth origin, primary language, acculturation, distinct ethnic traditions, education level, and occupation. Hispanics in the United States are heterogeneous in many dimensions related to health risks, health care use, and health outcomes.⁴ Genetic predisposition, lifestyle risks, and access to and use of health care services can shape melanoma diagnosis, treatment, and progression across Hispanic populations differently than in other populations.

In this review, the epidemiology and clinical presentation of melanoma in US Hispanics is summarized, and recommendations for a research agenda to advance understanding of this disease in the most rapidly growing segment of the US population is provided.

Melanoma Incidence, Presentation, and Outcomes in US Hispanics

In the period from 2008 to 2012, the age-adjusted incidence of melanoma in US Hispanics (4.6 per 100,00 men and 4.2 per 100,00 women) was lower than in NHWs.⁵ Garnett et al⁵ reported a decline in melanoma incidence in US Hispanics between 2003 and 2012—an observation that stands in contrast to state-level studies in California and Florida, in which small but substantial increases in melanoma incidence among Hispanics were reported.^6,7 The rising incidence of melanomas thicker than 1.5 mm at presentation among Hispanic men living in California is particularly worrisome.⁶ Discrepancies in incidence trends might reflect changes in incidence over time or differences in state-level registry reporting of melanoma.⁵

Despite a lower overall incidence of melanoma in US Hispanics, those who do develop the disease are 2.4 times more likely (age-adjusted odds ratio) to present with stage III disease (confidence interval, 1.89-3.05)⁸ and are 3.64 times more likely to develop distant metastases (confidence interval, 2.65-5.0) than NHWs.^3,7,9-13 Disparities also exist in the diagnosis of childhood melanoma: Hispanic children and adolescents who have a diagnosis of melanoma are 3 times more likely to present with advanced disease than NHW counterparts.¹⁴ Survival analyses by age and stage show considerably lower survival among Hispanic patients compared to NHW patients with stage I and II disease. In part, worse survival outcomes among Hispanics are the result of the pattern of more advanced disease at presentation.^8,14,15

Late presentation for evaluation of melanomas in Hispanics has been attributed to a number of variables, including a lack of skin cancer awareness and knowledge,^9,16 a lower rate of self- and physician-performed skin examinations,¹⁰ differences in tumor biology,⁹ and socioeconomic forces.^7,17

In a previous study investigating the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and tumor stage at melanoma diagnosis in Hispanic men in California, Texas, and Florida, several key findings emerged.¹⁷ First, residency in a census tract with a high density of immigrants (California, Texas) and a high composition of Hispanics (California, Florida) was an important predictor of a late-stage melanoma diagnosis in fully adjusted models. Additionally, the strength of association between measures of socioeconomic status (ie, poverty and education) and tumor stage at melanoma diagnosis was attenuated in multivariate models when enclaves and availability of primary care resources were taken into account. Hispanic melanoma cases in areas with a low density of primary care physicians had an increased likelihood of late-stage diagnosis in California and Texas. The probability of late-stage diagnosis was concentrated in specific regions along the United States–Mexico border, in south central California, and along the southeastern coast of Florida. Lastly, in Texas, Hispanic men aged 18 to 34 years and 35 to 49 years were at an increased risk of late-stage melanoma diagnosis compared to men 65 years and older.¹⁷

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Melanoma in Hispanic Patients

Among Hispanics, white Hispanics comprise the majority of melanoma cases.⁵ Median age at diagnosis is younger in Hispanics compared to whites.^5,6 Hispanic men typically are older (median age, 61 years) than Hispanic women (median age, 52 years) at diagnosis.⁵ Similar to what is seen in NHWs, young Hispanic women experience a higher melanoma incidence than young Hispanic men.⁵ Among older Hispanics, melanoma is more common in men.^5,8

Melanomas located on the lower extremities and hips are more prevalent in Hispanics than in NHWs.^5,8,18 Among Hispanics, there are age- and sex-based variations in the anatomic location of primary tumors: in Hispanic men, truncal tumors predominate, and in Hispanic women, tumors of the lower extremities are most common across all age groups.⁵ The incidence of melanomas located in the head and neck region increases with age for both Hispanic men and women.

For melanomas in which the histologic type is known, superficial spreading melanoma is the most common subtype among Hispanics.^5,17,19 Acral lentiginous melanomas and nodular melanomas are more common among Hispanics than among NHWs.^5,17,19

The observation that Hispanics with melanoma are more prone to lower-extremity tumors and nodular and acral lentiginous melanoma subtypes than NHWs suggests that UV exposure history may be of less importance in this population. Although numerous studies have explored melanoma risk factors in NHWs, there is a striking paucity of such studies in Hispanics. For example, there are conflicting data regarding the role of UV exposure in melanoma risk among Hispanics. Hu et al²⁰ found that UV index and latitude correlated with melanoma risk in this population, whereas Eide et al²¹ found no association between UV exposure and melanoma incidence in Hispanics. A prospective study involving a multiethnic cohort (of whom 40 of the 107 participants were Hispanic) found no clear association between a history of sunburn and melanoma risk in Hispanics.¹⁸

Strategies for Reducing Disparities in Outcomes

Our knowledge of melanoma epidemiology in Hispanics derives mainly from secondary analyses of state-level and national cancer registry data sets.^{5-8,13-15,17,19,20} These administrative data sources often are limited by missing data (eg, tumor thickness, histologic subtype) or lack important patient-level information (eg, self-identified race and ethnicity, health insurance status). Additionally, the manner in which data are collected and integrated into research varies; for example, socioeconomic measures often are reported as either area-based or composite measures. Thus, there is a need to improve the consistency of reporting on demographic and socioeconomic measures across studies. Polite et al²² recommended standardization of reporting criteria and that a standard set of demographic and socioeconomic status measures be included in clinical registries and research protocols.²² Researchers should strive to collect self-reported information on race and ethnicity, as well as the most granular level of detail on health insurance status, ancestry, and immigration status.

The host phenotypic characteristics of melanoma in NHWs are well understood, but the biological and environmental determinants of melanoma risk in Hispanics and other minorities are unknown. For example, fair complexion, red hair, blue eyes, increased freckling density, and the presence of numerous dysplastic and common melanocytic nevi indicate a propensity toward cutaneous melanoma.^23,24 However, the relevance of such risk factors in Hispanics is unknown and has not been widely investigated in this patient population. Park et al¹⁸ found that a person’s sunburn susceptibility phenotype (defined as hair and eye color, ability to tan, and skin reaction to sunlight) was associated with an increased risk of melanoma among nonwhite, multiracial individuals. However, this study was limited by a small number of minority cases, which included only 40 Hispanic participants with melanoma.¹⁸ There is a need for rigorous observational studies to clearly define the phenotypic characteristics, sun-exposure behavior patterns, and genetic contributors to melanoma genesis in Hispanics.

The biologic determinants of postdiagnosis survival in Hispanics with melanoma are not well understood. It is unknown if genetic predisposition modifies melanoma risk in Hispanics. For example, the frequency of BRAF gene mutation or other driver mutations in US Hispanics has been understudied. It is important to know if mutation frequency patterns differ in Hispanics patients compared to NHWs because this knowledge could have considerable implications for treatment. Several recommendations should be considered to address these knowledge gaps. First, there is a need for development or enhancement of melanoma biorepositories, which should include tumor and nontumor specimens from a diverse sample of melanoma patients. Additionally, multi-institutional and multidisciplinary consortiums need to be created in order to amass a number of Hispanic melanoma patients to identify genetic, biologic, and behavioral risk factors specific to this subgroup of patients. The AMBER Consortium, which focuses on breast cancer epidemiology and risk in black women, is a model for the type of consortium needed for the study of melanoma in Hispanics.²⁵ Lastly, community engagement will be central to developing sustainable recruitment and data-collection efforts.²⁶ Involvement of key stakeholders will provide an in-depth assessment of community needs as well as real-time feedback on the process and practicality of research questions. Buy-in from affected communities also may facilitate dissemination of research findings to affected communities.

Conclusion

Hispanics are more likely to present with an advanced stages of disease and have higher melanoma-specific mortality rates than NHWs. Regrettably, a huge knowledge gap exists regarding contributors and solutions to melanoma disparities among this fast-growing, understudied segment of the US population. Accordingly, critical research is needed to address the most pressing questions regarding melanoma risk and poor outcomes among Hispanics to foster implementation of interventional efforts in prevention, early detection, and treatment. A multi-institutional and multidisciplinary approach across multiple levels is needed to eliminate disparate outcomes. Although melanoma is relatively uncommon among Hispanics, studies of melanoma in Hispanics (given their diverse genetic ancestry and migration) provide a unique backdrop against which researchers can explicate melanoma etiology—thus benefiting Hispanics and non-Hispanics alike.