Search

Objective: Melanoma incidence and mortality rates continue to rise globally, making it essential for researchers to identify effective approaches to disseminating information to the public that improve key outcomes. This study compared two skin self-examination (SSE) educational strategies: the ABCDE (asymmetry, border irregularity, multiple colours, diameter greater than 6mm and evolution over time) approach and the ugly duckling sign (UDS). Design: A randomised experiment testing different presentations of SSE techniques and visual image dose. Setting: The experiment took place at a shopping centre in the Midwest USA. Method: Participants (N = 301) participated in the study in which they viewed brochures featuring one of two SSE training methods, ABCDE or UDS, along with a low, moderate or high dosage (frequency) of visual images. Results: The brochures improved willingness to perform SSE and skin cancer knowledge across all groups, with brochures featuring the UDS increasing willingness to perform SSE as visual image dose increased. Sensitivity and specificity outcomes were similar across all groups, with a slight advantage found for displaying a moderate visual image dose visualising the ABCDE condition (sensitivity=0.63, specificity = 0.79). Conclusions: Overall, both the ABCDE and UDS approaches demonstrated utility in improving early skin cancer detection and education. A balanced presentation of typical and atypical nevi images seems to be an important consideration when presenting visual and written information about melanoma to laypersons.

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.

Five years ago, the Melanoma Research Foundation (MRF) conducted an assessment of the challenges and opportunities facing the melanoma research community and patients with melanoma. Since then, remarkable progress has been made on both the basic and clinical research fronts. However, the incidence, recurrence, and death rates for melanoma remain unacceptably high and significant challenges remain. Hence, the MRF Scientific Advisory Council and Breakthrough Consortium, a group that includes clinicians and scientists, reconvened to facilitate intensive discussions on thematic areas essential to melanoma researchers and patients alike, prevention, detection, diagnosis, metastatic dormancy and progression, response and resistance to targeted and immune-based therapy, and the clinical consequences of COVID-19 for patients with melanoma and providers. These extensive discussions helped to crystalize our understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the broader melanoma community today. In this report, we discuss the progress made since the last MRF assessment, comment on what remains to be overcome, and offer recommendations for the best path forward.

ImportanceUse of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) testing in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is rising despite a lack of endorsement as standard of care.ObjectiveTo develop guidelines within the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) on integration of GEP testing into the management of patients with CM, including (1) review of published data using GEP tests, (2) definition of acceptable performance criteria, (3) current recommendations for use of GEP testing in clinical practice, and (4) considerations for future studies.Evidence reviewThe MPWG members and other international melanoma specialists participated in 2 online surveys and then convened a summit meeting. Published data and meeting abstracts from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed.FindingsThe MPWG members are optimistic about the future use of prognostic GEP testing to improve risk stratification and enhance clinical decision-making but acknowledge that current utility is limited by test performance in patients with stage I disease. Published studies of GEP testing have not evaluated results in the context of all relevant clinicopathologic factors or as predictors of regional nodal metastasis to replace sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The performance of GEP tests has generally been reported for small groups of patients representing particular tumor stages or in aggregate form, such that stage-specific performance cannot be ascertained, and without survival outcomes compared with data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition melanoma staging system international database. There are significant challenges to performing clinical trials incorporating GEP testing with SLNB and adjuvant therapy. The MPWG members favor conducting retrospective studies that evaluate multiple GEP testing platforms on fully annotated archived samples before embarking on costly prospective studies and recommend avoiding routine use of GEP testing to direct patient management until prospective studies support their clinical utility.Conclusions and relevanceMore evidence is needed to support using GEP testing to inform recommendations regarding SLNB, intensity of follow-up or imaging surveillance, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. The MPWG recommends further research to assess the validity and clinical applicability of existing and emerging GEP tests. Decisions on performing GEP testing and patient management based on these results should only be made in the context of discussion of testing limitations with the patient or within a multidisciplinary group.

Recent progress in the treatment of advanced melanoma has led to unprecedented improvements in overall survival and, as these new melanoma treatments have been developed and deployed in the clinic, much has been learned about the natural history of the disease. Now is the time to apply that knowledge toward the design and clinical evaluation of new chemoprevention agents. Melanoma chemoprevention has the potential to reduce dramatically both the morbidity and the high costs associated with treating patients who have metastatic disease. In this work, scientific and clinical melanoma experts from the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group, composed of National Cancer Trials Network investigators, discuss research aimed at discovering and developing (or repurposing) drugs and natural products for the prevention of melanoma and propose an updated pipeline for translating the most promising agents into the clinic. The mechanism of action, preclinical data, epidemiological evidence, and results from available clinical trials are discussed for each class of compounds. Selected keratinocyte carcinoma chemoprevention studies also are considered, and a rationale for their inclusion is presented. These data are summarized in a table that lists the type and level of evidence available for each class of agents. Also included in the discussion is an assessment of additional research necessary and the likelihood that a given compound may be a suitable candidate for a phase 3 clinical trial within the next 5 years.

Purpose: The COVID‐19 pandemic has disrupted many facets of life. We evaluated pandemic‐related health care experiences, COVID‐19 prevention behaviors and measures, health behaviors, and psychosocial outcomes among rural and urban cancer patients. Methods: Among 1,472 adult cancer patients, who visited Huntsman Cancer Institute in the past 4 years and completed a COVID‐19 survey (August‐September 2020), we assessed the impact of the pandemic on medical appointments, prevention/health behaviors, and psychosocial factors, stratified by urbanicity. Findings: Mean age was 61 years, with 52% female, 97% non‐Hispanic White, and 27% were residing in rural areas. Rural versus urban patients were more likely to be older, not employed, uninsured, former/current smokers, consume alcohol, and have pandemic‐related changes/cancellations in surgery appointments (all P<.05). Changes/cancellations in other health care access (eg, doctor's visits) were also common, particularly among urban patients. Urban versus rural patients were more likely to socially distance, use masks and hand sanitizer, and experience changes in exercise habits and in their daily lives (all P<.05). Less social interaction and financial stress were common among cancer patients but did not differ by urbanicity. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the COVID‐19 pandemic had a substantial impact on cancer patients, with several challenges specific to rural patients. This comprehensive study provides unique insights into the first 6 months of COVID‐19 pandemic‐related experiences and continuity of care among rural and urban cancer patients predominantly from Utah. Further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic's short‐ and long‐term effects on rural and urban cancer patients and appropriate interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Melanoma preventive interventions for children with familial risk are critically needed because ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure and sunburn occurrence early in life are the primary modifiable risk factors for melanoma. The current study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a new, family-focused telehealth intervention for children with familial risk for melanoma and their parents. The study also explored changes in child sun protection and risk behaviors, sunburn occurrence, and objectively measured UVR exposure.Methods: This was a prospective study with a single-group design (n = 21 parent-child dyads, children ages 8-17). Dyads were asked to participate in three in-person assessments and three live video teleconference intervention sessions.Results: The intervention was feasibly delivered, and the intervention content was acceptable to parents and children. The intervention was associated with improvements in child use of certain sun protection strategies over time and declines in child UVR exposure.Conclusions: A telehealth-delivered,family-focused melanoma preventive intervention was feasibly delivered and was acceptable to parent-child dyads. Future melanoma preventive interventions for this at-risk population could incorporate eHealth technologies to facilitate improvements in use of sun protection and monitoring of UVR exposure. This trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT02846714. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Statistically significant linkage of melanoma to chromosome 9q21 was previously reported in a Danish pedigree resource and independently confirmed in Utah high-risk pedigrees, indicating strong evidence that this region contains a melanoma predisposition gene.Methods: Whole-exome sequencing of pairs of related melanoma case subjects from two pedigrees with evidence of 9q21 linkage was performed to identify the responsible predisposition gene. Candidate variants were tested for association with melanoma in an independent set of 454 unrelated familial melanoma case subjects and 396 unrelated cancer-free control subjects from Utah, and 1534 melanoma case subjects and 1146 noncancer control subjects from Texas (MD Anderson) via a two-sided Fisher exact test.Results: A rare nonsynonymous variant in Golgi Membrane Protein 1 (GOLM1), rs149739829, shared in two hypothesized predisposition carriers in one linked pedigree was observed. Segregation of this variant in additional affected relatives of the index carriers was confirmed. A statistically significant excess of carriers of the variant was observed among Utah case subjects and control subjects (odds ratio [OR] = 9.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.35 to 11.26, P < .001) and statistically significantly confirmed in Texas case subjects and control subjects (OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 1.65 to 3.25, P = .02).Conclusion: These findings support GOLM1 as a candidate melanoma predisposition gene. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Several inhibitor of apoptosis proteins (IAPs) are cleaved during apoptosis. Studies of the melanoma-associated IAP (ML-IAP) Livin, using recombinant molecules, have implicated both caspases 3/7 and the serine protease Omi/HtrA2 in its proteolytic cleavage. Objective: To characterize the apoptotic cleavage of Livin in melanocytic cells, and evaluate the role of known proteases. Methods: We assessed the capacity of a variety of stimuli to induce Livin cleavage in human melanoma cell lines and normal human melanocytes. The role of caspases and Omi was examined using caspase inhibitors and RNAi, respectively. A potential caspase substrate was further examined by site-directed mutagenesis. Deletion mapping was used to identify the cleavage site. Results: Livin cleavage was observed in multiple human melanoma cell lines in response to a variety of apoptotic stimuli (UVB, 4-TBP, cisplatin, TNF, Bax), and not affected by the addition of various protease inhibitors or RNAi-mediated silencing of Omi/HtrA2. Livin cleavage induced by 4-TBP, but not UVB or cisplatin, was blocked by the pan-caspase inhibitor zVAD-fmk. Mutation of Asp52 to Glu in Livin did not affect cleavage, while either mutation of Asp52 to Ala, deletion of Asp52, or deletion of the adjacent region (residues 53–61) abrogated cleavage. Conclusion: Livin cleavage, induced by multiple apoptotic stimuli in melanoma cells, likely occurs in an Omi-independent fashion at residue 52 within its potential caspase substrate (DHVD52). However, relative insensitivity of the apoptotic cleavage to zVAD-fmk, or Asp52 to Glu mutation, suggests the involvement of a non-canonical caspase. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]