Quality of Life in the First Year of Follow-Up in a Randomized Multicenter Trial Assessing the Role of Imaging after Radical Surgery of Stage IIB-C and III Cutaneous Melanoma (TRIM Study)

Identification of high-risk patients with a seven-biomarker prognostic signature for adjuvant treatment trial recruitment in American Joint Committee on Cancer v8 stage I-IIA cutaneous melanoma

PURPOSE

Many patients with resected American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) early-stage cutaneous melanoma nonetheless die of melanoma; additional risk stratification approaches are needed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using prospectively-collected whole-tissue sections, we assessed in consecutive stage I-IIA patients (N = 439), a previously-validated, immunohistochemistry-based, 7-biomarker signature to prognosticate disease-free survival (DFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS; primary end-point) and overall survival (OS), independent of AJCC classification.

RESULTS

Seven-marker signature testing designated 25.1% of patients (110/439) as high-risk (stage IA, 13.3% [43/323], IB, 53.2% [42/79], and IIA, 67.6% [25/37]). A Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated high-risk patients to have significantly worse DFS, MSS and OS versus low-risk counterparts (P < 0.001). In multivariable Cox regression modelling also including key clinicopathological/demographic factors, 7-marker signature data independently prognosticated the studied end-points. Models with the 7-marker signature risk category plus clinicopathological/demographic covariates substantially outperformed models with clinicopathological/demographic variables alone in predicting all studied outcomes (areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve 74.1% versus 68.4% for DFS, 81.5% versus 71.2% for MSS, 80.9% versus 73.0% for OS; absolute differences 5.7%, 10.3% and 7.9%, respectively, favouring 7-marker signature risk category-containing models).

CONCLUSION

In patients with AJCC early-stage disease, the 7-marker signature reliably prognosticates melanoma-related outcomes, independent of AJCC classification, and provides a valuable complement to clinicopathological/demographic factors.

Oncological surgery follow-up and quality of life: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous trials found that more intensive postoperative surveillance schedules did not improve survival. Oncological follow-up also provides an opportunity to address psychological issues (for example anxiety, depression, and fear of recurrence). This systematic review assessed the impact of a less intensive surveillance strategy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), emotional well-being, and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane database, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar to identify studies comparing different follow-up strategies after oncological surgery and their effect on HRQoL and patient satisfaction, published before 4 May 2022. A meta-analysis was conducted on the most relevant European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscales.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were identified, focusing on melanoma (4), colorectal (10), breast (7), prostate (4), upper gastrointestinal (4), gynaecological (3), lung (2), and head and neck (1) cancers. Twenty-two studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, of which 14 showed no significant difference in HRQoL between follow-up approaches. Five studies with a low risk of bias showed improved HRQoL or emotional well-being with a less intensive follow-up approach and three with an intensive approach. Meta-analysis of HRQoL outcomes revealed no negative effects for patients receiving less intensive follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Low-intensity follow-up does not diminish HRQoL, emotional well-being, or patient satisfaction.