Early Detection and Prognostic Assessment of Cutaneous Melanoma

Author:

Kashani-Sabet Mohammed1,Leachman Sancy A.2,Stein Jennifer A.3,Arbiser Jack L.4,Berry Elizabeth G.2,Celebi Julide T.3,Curiel-Lewandrowski Clara5,Ferris Laura K.6,Grant-Kels Jane M.78,Grossman Douglas9,Kulkarni Rajan P.2,Marchetti Michael A.10,Nelson Kelly C.11,Polsky David3,Seiverling Elizabeth V.12,Swetter Susan M.1314,Tsao Hensin1516,Verdieck-Devlaeminck Alexandra2,Wei Maria L.1718,Bar Anna2,Bartlett Edmund K.10,Bolognia Jean L.19,Bowles Tawnya L.20,Cha Kelly B.21,Chu Emily Y.22,Hartman Rebecca I.1516,Hawryluk Elena B.1516,Jampel Risa M.23,Karapetyan Lilit24,Kheterpal Meenal25,Lawson David H.4,Leming Philip D.26,Liebman Tracey N.3,Ming Michael E.22,Sahni Debjani27,Savory Stephanie A.28,Shaikh Saba S.29,Sober Arthur J.1516,Sondak Vernon K.24,Spaccarelli Natalie30,Usatine Richard P.31,Venna Suraj32,Kirkwood John M.6

Affiliation:

1. Center for Melanoma Research and Treatment, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco

2. Departments of Dermatology and Family Medicine, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland

3. Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York

4. Department of Dermatology, Emory University School of Medicine, Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta Veterans Administration Health Center, Atlanta, Georgia

5. UA Cancer Center Skin Cancer Institute, Division of Dermatology, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson

6. Departments of Dermatology and Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

7. Department of Dermatology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington

8. Department of Dermatology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville

9. Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City

10. Dermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York

11. Department of Dermatology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

12. Department of Dermatology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts

13. Department of Dermatology/Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program, Stanford University Medical Center and Cancer Institute, Palo Alto, California

14. Dermatology Service, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California

15. Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

16. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

17. Dermatology Department, University of California, San Francisco

18. Dermatology Service, San Francisco VA Health Care System, San Francisco, California

19. Department of Dermatology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut

20. Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah

21. Department of Dermatology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor

22. Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

23. Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland

24. Department of Cutaneous Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, Florida

25. Department of Dermatology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

26. Cincinnati Cancer Advisors, Cincinnati, Ohio

27. Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts

28. Department of Dermatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas

29. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

30. Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus

31. University of Texas Health, San Antonio

32. Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Inova Fairfax Hospital, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville

Abstract

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

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Subject

Dermatology

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3