Extirpative Considerations of Melanoma of the Head and Neck

Local treatment of liver metastasis in a patient with advanced malignant melanoma: A case report

Melanoma is a fatal malignant tumor with a high rate of metastasis. Liver metastasis of melanoma is always associated with insensitivity to immunotherapy and a poor prognosis. However, the combination of cryoablation, which is believed to stimulate the antitumor immune response in the body, with immunotherapy can improve the therapeutic response to this condition. Herein, we present the case of a 79-year-old woman with BRAF (B-Raf proto-oncogene) wild-type melanoma who later developed liver metastasis. The patient received intravenous antiprogrammed cell death 1 antibody, which showed poor efficacy, and subsequent treatment with immunotherapy combined with cryoablation yielded a partial response. However, after the second cryoablation, the patient refused further treatment due to a fear of bleeding. Therefore, only immunotherapy was provided, which resulted in disease progression. This report demonstrates the need to consider immunotherapy plus cryoablation for the treatment of liver metastases in patients with BRAF wild-type melanoma.

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Malignant Melanoma of the Head and Neck: A Single Center Experience

Purpose: This study evaluated the characteristics of patients with head and neck (H&N) melanoma who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNLB) and assessed the clinical course of patients categorizing subjects according to SLNB status and melanoma location (scalp area vs. non-scalp areas). Methods: Patients undergoing SLNB for melanoma of H&N from 2015 to 2021 were prospectively characterized according to sentinel lymph node (SLN) status. SPECT/CT had been previously performed. Patients were followed until the first adverse event to evaluate progression-free survival. Results: 93 patients were enrolled. SLNB was negative in 75 patients. The median Breslow index was higher for patients with positive SLNB compared with patients with negative SLNB. In addition, the Breslow index was higher for melanoma of the scalp compared with non-scalp melanoma. The median follow-up was 24.8 months. Progression occurred at the systemic level in the 62.5% of cases. There was a significant association between positive SLNB and progression (p-value < 0.01) of disease, with lower progression-free survival for patients with melanoma of the scalp compared with those with melanoma at other anatomic sites (p-value: 0.15). Conclusions: Scalp melanomas are more aggressive than other types of H&N melanomas. Sentinel lymph node status is the strongest prognostic criterion for recurrence.

Survival analysis in head and neck melanoma after negative sentinel lymph node biopsy: A seer-based population study

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) is one of the most aggressive skin tumors. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is an important test before thorough treatment of melanoma. The aim of this study was to investigate cancer-specific survival (CSS) in patients with head and neck CMM after negative SLNB and to analyze predictors of decreased survival.

METHODS

Based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, a study was conducted using data from patients with head and neck CMM after negative SLNB. The demographic, clinical, and pathological characteristics of the case population were analyzed. Cox univariate, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and multivariate Cox regression models were used to explore predictors of decreased survival; propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to reduce confounding bias, and outcomes were compared between the wide margin excision and narrow margin excision groups.

RESULTS

A total of 1597 confirmed head and neck CMM patients with SLNB-negative were found. A Breslow>4.0 mm was the highest independent risk predictor for patients (HR 3.82, 95% CI 2.04-7.16, P < .001), and significant risk independent predictors also included a high mitotic rate >4 (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.06-2.25, P = .023). Age< 60 years old was a significant survival predictor (HR 0.56, 95% CI .37-.85, P = .007), and not scalp and neck CMM were also important factors for longer survival (auricle skin: HR .51, 95% CI .29-.90, P = .02; unspecified parts of face: HR .59, 95% CI .40-.87, P = .007). After harmonizing baseline data by PSM, it was found that the extent of surgical resection did not affect patient survival.

CONCLUSION

This study analyzed the risk factors affecting CSS in patients with CMM of the head and neck region with SLNB-negative and observed a statistically significant difference in the prognosis of patients with CMM in different aesthetic subunits of the head and neck region. Close clinical follow-up for this population is necessary, and periodic medical examinations should be carried out.