Search

Background: Melanoma disease patterns vary with patient age., Aim: To evaluate sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in managing melanoma at differing patient ages., Methods: Online prediction tools were applied to compare SLNB positivity (SLNB + ) and survival risk at patient ages 20-80. Tübingen melanoma data were used to determine variations in the hazard ratio of SLNB + for mortality at different patient ages., Results: Regardless of tumour thickness, predicted SLNB + rates were markedly higher than mortality rates for 20-year-old patients. For 80-year-old patients, it is the opposite., Discussion: If 1000 20-year-olds with a 0.4 mm thickness non-ulcerated melanoma underwent SLNB, 100 would likely be positive. If all 100 were to be offered adjuvant drug therapy (ADT), fewer than three more melanoma deaths in those 1000 patients would be avoided. In total, 97 patients would have received medication they may never have needed. If 1000 80-year-olds with a 3 mm thickness non-ulcerated melanoma underwent SLNB, only 40 would likely be positive. In total, 274 patients would be predicted to die of melanoma, 245 being SLNB negative and 29 SLNB + . ADT linked to SLNB + could deny treatment to 89% of these high-risk patients., Limitations: The authors relied on published risk data., Conclusion: SLNB has poor specificity at predicting mortality in young melanoma patients and poor sensitivity in older patients. SLNB is not indicated in managing cutaneous melanoma for patients under 40 or over 60 years of age. Many such patients could be managed with wide local excision alone in their clinician's office-based practice. For all cutaneous melanoma patients at all ages, linking ADT to BAUSSS biomarker, (an algorithm of Breslow thickness, age, ulceration, subtype, sex and Site) rather than SLNB + is likely more appropriate. BAUSSS provides a more accurate melanoma-specific mortality risk assessment for patients without burdening them with added surgery, hospitalization, costs or morbidity risk., (© 2024 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Genomic characterisation has led to an improved understanding of adult melanoma. However, the aetiology of melanoma in children is still unclear and identifying the correct diagnosis and therapeutic strategies remains challenging., Methods: Exome sequencing of matched tumour-normal pairs from 26 paediatric patients was performed to study the mutational spectrum of melanomas. The cohort was grouped into different categories: spitzoid melanoma (SM), conventional melanoma (CM), and other melanomas (OT)., Findings: In all patients with CM (n = 10) germline variants associated with melanoma were found in low to moderate melanoma risk genes: in 8 patients MC1R variants, in 2 patients variants in MITF, PTEN and BRCA2. Somatic BRAF mutations were detected in 60% of CMs, homozygous deletions of CDKN2A in 20%, TERTp mutations in 30%. In the SM group (n = 12), 5 patients carried at least one MC1R variant; somatic BRAF mutations were detected in 8.3%, fusions in 25% of the cases. No SM showed a homozygous CDKN2A deletion nor a TERTp mutation. In 81.8% of the CM/SM cases the UV damage signatures SBS7 and/or DBS1 were detected. The patient with melanoma arising in giant congenital nevus (CNM) demonstrated the characteristic NRAS Q61K mutation., Interpretation: UV-radiation and MC1R germline variants are risk factors in the development of conventional and spitzoid paediatric melanomas. Paediatric CMs share genomic similarities with adult CMs while the SMs differ genetically from the CM group. Consistent genetic characterization of all paediatric melanomas will potentially lead to better subtype differentiation, treatment, and prevention in the future., Funding: Found in Acknowledgement., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests Outside of submitted work: IBB: Institutional grant from Biontech. O.R. and C.Sc.: grants: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Deutsche Krebshilfe (DKH), European Union (EU), grants to the institution from Illumina and BMS Stiftung Immunonkologie. U.L.S: grants: MSD; support for attending meeting and/or travel: Sun Pharma, Pierre Fabre; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: MSD, Novartis, Sun Pharma, Almirall, Roche, Sanofi; ADO board member. T.E.: Consulting fees: Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Almirall, Hermal, CureVac, Immunocore, Sanofi. S.O.: grants: DFG, Deutsche Luft und Raumfahrt Gesellschaft (DLR), European Union (EU), Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Deutsche Krebshilfe, Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (BMSA); presentation: Illumina; support for attending meeting and/or travel: Oxford Nanopore Technologies. S.F.: grants: NeraCare, Skyline Dx, Biontech,; speakers honoraria: Kyowa Kirin, Recordati, Takeda Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)