The Sydney Melanoma Unit--a multidisciplinary melanoma treatment center

Minimum Safe Pathologic Excision Margins for Primary Cutaneous Melanomas (1-2 mm in Thickness): Analysis of 2131 Patients Treated at a Single Center

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to determine the minimum safe pathologic excision margin for primary cutaneous melanomas 1.01-2.00-mm thick (T2) and to identify prognostic factors that influence survival in these patients.

BACKGROUND

Several studies have shown previously that "narrow" clinical excision margins (1-2 cm in vivo) are as safe as "wide" excision margins (4-5 cm) for management of primary T2 melanomas. However, pathologic margins are likely to be a better predictor of recurrence than clinical margins.

METHODS

Clinicopathologic and follow-up data for 2131 T2 melanoma patients treated at Melanoma Institute Australia between January 1992 and May 2012 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 2131 patients, those who had a pathologic excision margin of <8 mm (equivalent to 1 cm in vivo) had poorer prognosis in terms of disease-free survival compared with the 8-16-mm group (equivalent to 1-2 cm in vivo; P = 0.044). When comparing 8-mm with 16-mm pathologic margins, no differences were observed in any of the survival outcomes. Only the deep margin proved to be an independent predictor of local and in-transit recurrence-free survival (P = 0.003) in all excision margin categories. Pathologic excision margins <8 mm were associated with worse regional node recurrence-free survival and distant recurrence-free survival compared with margins ≥8 mm (P = 0.049 and P = 0.045; respectively). However, these results failed to translate into a statistically significant difference in melanoma-specific survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that if a peripheral/radial pathologic excision margin for a T2 primary cutaneous melanoma is <8 mm consideration should be given to performing a wider excision.

Improving outcomes in patients with melanoma: strategies to ensure an early diagnosis

Patients with thin, low-risk melanomas have an excellent long-term prognosis and higher quality of life than those who are diagnosed at later stages. From an economic standpoint, treatment of early stage melanoma consumes a fraction of the health care resources needed to treat advanced disease. Consequently, early diagnosis of melanoma is in the best interest of patients, payers, and health care systems. This review describes strategies to ensure that patients receive an early diagnosis through interventions ranging from better utilization of primary care clinics, to in vivo diagnostic technologies, to new "apps" available in the market. Strategies for screening those at high risk due to age, male sex, skin type, nevi, genetic mutations, or family history are discussed. Despite progress in identifying those at high risk for melanoma, there remains a lack of general consensus worldwide for best screening practices. Strategies to ensure early diagnosis of recurrent disease in those with a prior melanoma diagnosis are also reviewed. Variations in recurrence surveillance practices by type of provider and country are featured, with evidence demonstrating that various imaging studies, including ultrasound, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, provide only minimal gains in life expectancy, even for those with more advanced (stage III) disease. Because the majority of melanomas are attributable to ultraviolet radiation in the form of sunlight, primary prevention strategies, including sunscreen use and behavioral interventions, are reviewed. Recent international government regulation of tanning beds is described, as well as issues surrounding the continued use artificial ultraviolet sources among youth. Health care stakeholder strategies to minimize UV exposure are summarized. The recommendations encompass both specific behaviors and broad intervention targets (eg, individuals, social spheres, organizations, celebrities, governments).

Long-term follow-up for melanoma patients: is there any evidence of a benefit?

As the incidence of melanoma and the number of melanoma survivors continues to rise, optimal surveillance strategies are needed that balance the risks and benefits of screening in the context of contemporary resource use. Detection of recurrences has important implications for clinical management. Most current surveillance recommendations for melanoma survivors are based on low-level evidence with wide variations in practice patterns and an unknown clinical impact for the melanoma survivor.

Current status of diagnostic and prognostic markers in melanoma

Melanoma is the most life-threatening common form of skin cancer. While most cutaneous melanomas are cured by surgical resection, a minority will relapse locally, regionally, or distantly. Biomarkers have represented a focal point for research aimed at improving diagnostic accuracy as well as providing prognostic information that may help to guide therapeutic decisions. While systemic melanoma therapies were of extremely limited utility for patients with advanced disease in the past, two drugs have been approved the FDA within the past several years, and it is possible that they may provide even greater impact if employed earlier in the disease process. To optimally employ these therapies, prognostic biomarkers may offer significant value. This article reviews methodologies for both discovery and routine testing of melanoma biomarkers. It also focuses on specific commonly used markers, as well as approaches to studying their applications to specific clinical settings. As the armamentarium of melanoma drugs grows, it is hoped that specific biomarkers will aid in guiding the use of these agents for patients in the clinic.

Variability in melanoma post-treatment surveillance practices by country and physician specialty: a systematic review

There are no evidence-based guidelines for the surveillance of patients with melanoma following surgical treatment. We carried out a systematic review to identify by country and physician specialty the current stage-specific surveillance practices for patients with melanoma. Three major medical indices, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library database, and Scopus, were reviewed to identify articles published from January 1970 to October 2011 that included detailed information about the surveillance of patients with melanoma after the initial surgical treatment. Data on surveillance intervals and recommended evaluation were extracted and categorized by country and, when reported, physician specialty. One hundred and four articles from 10 countries and four physician specialties (dermatology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, and general practice) fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 43 providing specific patient-level data. The articles showed a wide variation with respect to the surveillance intervals and recommended evaluations. The variation was greatest for patients with stage I disease, for whom the follow-up frequency ranged from one to six visits per year during years 1 and 2 after treatment. All four physician specialties agreed that for years 1-3, the follow-up frequency should be four times per year for all patients. For years 4 and 5, surgical oncologists recommended two follow-up visits per year, whereas general practitioners, dermatologists, and medical oncologists recommended four visits per year. Recommended imaging and laboratory evaluations were most intense in the UK and most minimalist in the Netherlands. Although general practitioners did not recommend routine laboratory or imaging tests for surveillance, all other specialties utilized both in their surveillance practice. Self skin-examination was recommended for surveillance in all countries and by all practitioner specialties. There are significant intercountry and interspecialty variations in the surveillance of patients with melanoma. As the number of melanoma survivors increases, it will be critical to examine the benefits and costs of various follow-up strategies to establish consensus guidelines for melanoma post-treatment surveillance.

Frontiers of cancer care in Asia-Pacific region: cancer care in Australia

Cancer has a significant impact on the Australian community. One in three men and one in four women will develop cancer by the age of 75. The estimated annual health expenditure due to cancer in 2000-1 in Australia was $2.7 billion, representing 5.5% of the country’s total healthcare expenditure. An historical overview of the national cancer control strategies in Australia is provided. In males, the five most common cancers in order of decreasing incidence are: prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, melanoma and lymphoma, while for Australian women, breast cancer is the most common cancer. Key epidemiologic information about these common cancers, current management issues and comprehensive national clinical practice guidelines (where available) are highlighted. Aspects of skin cancer, a particularly common cancer in the Australian environment – with a focus on melanoma – are also included.

Cancer outcomes in Australia, measured by selected outcomes, are among the best in the world. However, there is still evidence of health inequalities, especially among patients residing in regional and remote areas, the indigenous population and people from lower socio-economic classes. Limitations of current cancer care practices in Australia, including provision of oncology services, resources and other access issues, as well as suggested improvements for future cancer care, are summarised. Ongoing implementation of national and state cancer control plans and evaluation of their effectiveness will be needed to pursue the goal of optimal cancer care in Australia.

Influence of provider and practice characteristics on melanoma care

BACKGROUND

Melanoma care is becoming increasingly multidisciplinary, requiring coordination of many types of providers. The purpose of this study is to describe the structure of melanoma care in North Carolina by examining services provided by different providers and the overall coordination of care.

METHODS

Self-administered surveys were developed to collect demographic and practice information, assess patient volume and services provided, and explore referral patterns. Surveys were administered to all dermatologists and a subset of surgeons practicing in North Carolina.

RESULTS

The response rate was 60% (263/438). Melanoma patient volume, referral patterns, use of nodal staging, and access to clinical trials were each related to provider characteristics, specialty, affiliations with cancer care organizations, and practice setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Many types of providers contribute significantly to the care of melanoma patients. Coordination between providers is variable. This study provides indirect evidence that multidisciplinary melanoma programs increase patient access to comprehensive melanoma care.

Cooperation between surgical oncologists and pathologists: a key element of multidisciplinary care for patients with cancer

For patients with cancer it is essential to reach a definite diagnosis, obtain accurate staging and provide appropriate initial treatment if a successful outcome is to be achieved. These fundamental first steps in multidisciplinary care require close cooperation between surgical oncologists and pathologists. The most important aspect of this cooperation is clear and free exchange of information between them. The surgeon should provide the pathologist not only with an adequate tissue sample for examination, but also with clinical details that will assist in establishing a diagnosis. The location and orientation of specimens, and areas of particular concern, should always be indicated. Operative digital photographs may assist this process. The pathologist, in return, should provide the surgeon with a report containing sufficient information to allow an evidence-based management plan to be made for the patient, and to permit an accurate indication of prognosis to be determined. Use of a disease-specific synoptic report format will ensure that potentially important information is not overlooked. When there is diagnostic uncertainty, the pathologist should make this clear, but provide a preferred diagnosis. Further opinions may be helpful. If doubt exists, medico-legal considerations should not encourage a pathologist to issue a report with a diagnosis of malignancy. The pathologist should refrain from making management recommendations, because there may be valid reasons for the surgeon not providing this management. By cooperating fully and communicating freely with each other, surgical oncologists and pathologists can ensure high standards of initial and subsequent care for cancer patients.