Malignant Melanoma of the Vulva and Vagina: A US Population-Based Study of 1863 Patients.
Journal
American journal of clinical dermatology
ISSN: 1179-1888
Titre abrégé: Am J Clin Dermatol
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 100895290
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
1
12
2019
medline:
5
1
2021
entrez:
1
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Vulvar melanoma (VuM) and vaginal melanoma (VaM) represent a unique subgroup of malignant melanomas with important differences in biology and treatment. The objective of this study was to describe the epidemiology and prognosis of VuM and VaM in a large representative cohort. Women with invasive VuM or VaM were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-18 population representing 27.8% of the US population. Data on age, ethnicity, stage, location, histopathology, primary surgery, and lymphadenectomy were collected. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze disease-specific and overall survival. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to identify factors with a significant association with disease-specific survival. A total of 1400 VuM and 463 VaM were included for further analysis; 78.6% and 49.7% of women with VuM and VaM underwent surgery, but only 52.9% of women with non-metastatic VuM and 42.9% of women with non-metastatic VaM undergoing surgery had lymph node assessment; one third of these had positive nodes. Superficial spreading was the most common subtype in VuM, and nodular melanoma in VaM (p < 0.001). The median disease-specific survival was 99 months (95% confidence interval 60-138) and 19 months (95% confidence interval 16-22), respectively. Survival was significantly associated with age at diagnosis, ethnicity, stage, surgery, lymph node metastases, histologic subtype, ulceration, mitotic count, and tumor thickness in VuM, and stage, surgery, and lymph node involvement in VaM. In the Cox model, lymph node status and number of mitoses remained independent predictors of outcome in VuM; in VaM, only lymph node status remained significant. The overall prognosis of VuM and VaM remains poor. The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system is applicable and should be used for VuM; however, lymph node status and mitotic rate are the most important predictors of survival. Lymph node status should be assessed and patients with positive nodes may be candidates for adjuvant treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Vulvar melanoma (VuM) and vaginal melanoma (VaM) represent a unique subgroup of malignant melanomas with important differences in biology and treatment.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to describe the epidemiology and prognosis of VuM and VaM in a large representative cohort.
METHODS
METHODS
Women with invasive VuM or VaM were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-18 population representing 27.8% of the US population. Data on age, ethnicity, stage, location, histopathology, primary surgery, and lymphadenectomy were collected. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze disease-specific and overall survival. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to identify factors with a significant association with disease-specific survival.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 1400 VuM and 463 VaM were included for further analysis; 78.6% and 49.7% of women with VuM and VaM underwent surgery, but only 52.9% of women with non-metastatic VuM and 42.9% of women with non-metastatic VaM undergoing surgery had lymph node assessment; one third of these had positive nodes. Superficial spreading was the most common subtype in VuM, and nodular melanoma in VaM (p < 0.001). The median disease-specific survival was 99 months (95% confidence interval 60-138) and 19 months (95% confidence interval 16-22), respectively. Survival was significantly associated with age at diagnosis, ethnicity, stage, surgery, lymph node metastases, histologic subtype, ulceration, mitotic count, and tumor thickness in VuM, and stage, surgery, and lymph node involvement in VaM. In the Cox model, lymph node status and number of mitoses remained independent predictors of outcome in VuM; in VaM, only lymph node status remained significant.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The overall prognosis of VuM and VaM remains poor. The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system is applicable and should be used for VuM; however, lymph node status and mitotic rate are the most important predictors of survival. Lymph node status should be assessed and patients with positive nodes may be candidates for adjuvant treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31784896
doi: 10.1007/s40257-019-00487-x
pii: 10.1007/s40257-019-00487-x
pmc: PMC7125071
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
285-295Références
Koh W-J, Greer BE, Abu-Rustum NR, Campos SM, Cho KR, Chon HS, et al. Vulvar cancer, version 1.2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2017;15:92–120.
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0008
Coit DG, Thompson JA, Algazi A, Andtbacka R, Bichakjian CK, Carson WE, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: melanoma, version 3.2016. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2016;14:945–58.
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0101
Wong SL, Faries MB, Kennedy EB, Agarwala SS, Akhurst TJ, Ariyan C, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and management of regional lymph nodes in melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:399–413.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.7724
Dummer R, Hauschild A, Lindenblatt N, Pentheroudakis G, Keilholz U. Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:v126–32.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv297
AWMF. S3-Leitlinie zur Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Melanoms, V 3.1. AWMF; 2018. . https://www.awmf.org . Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Hou JY, Baptiste C, Hombalegowda RB, Tergas AI, Feldman R, Jones NL, et al. Vulvar and vaginal melanoma: a unique subclass of mucosal melanoma based on a comprehensive molecular analysis of 51 cases compared with 2253 cases of nongynecologic melanoma. Cancer. 2017;123:1333–44.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.30473
Saglam O, Messina J, Naqvi SMH, Teer JK, Lee J, Zhang Y, et al. Female genitourinary tract melanoma: mutation analysis with clinicopathologic correlation; a single-institution experience. Melanoma Res. 2018;28:586–91.
doi: 10.1097/CMR.0000000000000480
Rouzbahman M, Kamel-Reid S, Al Habeeb A, Butler M, Dodge J, Laframboise S, et al. Malignant melanoma of vulva and vagina. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2015;19:350–3.
doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000142
Phillips GL, Bundy BN, Okagaki T, Kucera PR, Stehman FB. Malignant melanoma of the vulva treated by radical hemivulvectomy: a prospective study of the gynecologic oncology group. Cancer. 1994;73:2626–32.
doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19940515)73:10<2626::AID-CNCR2820731026>3.0.CO;2-U
Trimble EL, Lewis JL, Williams LL, Curtin JP, Chapman D, Woodruff JM, et al. Management of vulvar melanoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;45:254–8.
doi: 10.1016/0090-8258(92)90300-8
Verschraegen CF, Benjapibal M, Supakarapongkul W, Levy LB, Ross M, Atkinson EN, et al. Vulvar melanoma at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center: 25 years later. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2001;11:359–64.
doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1438.2001.01043.x
Räber G, Mempel V, Jackisch C, Hundeiker M, Heinecke A, Kürzl R, et al. Malignant melanoma of the vulva: report of 89 patients. Cancer. 1996;78:2353–8.
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19961201)78:11<2353::AID-CNCR13>3.0.CO;2-#
Pleunis N, Schuurman MS, Van Rossum MM, Bulten J, Massuger LF, De Hullu JA, et al. Rare vulvar malignancies; incidence, treatment and survival in the Netherlands. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;142:440–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.04.021
Sinasac SE, Petrella TM, Rouzbahman M, Sade S, Ghazarian D, Vicus D. Melanoma of the vulva and vagina: surgical management and outcomes based on a clinicopathologic review of 68 cases. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019;41:762–71.
doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.07.011
Gershenwald JE, Hess KR, Thompson JF, Long GV, Ross MI, Lazar AJ, et al. Melanoma of the skin. In: AJCC cancer staging manual, 8th ed. American Joint Committee on Cancer; 2017. p. 563–88.
Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, Weber RW, Sosman JA, Haanen JB, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:711–23.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1003466
Wolchok JD, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, Rutkowski P, Grob J-J, Cowey CL, et al. Overall survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1345–56.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709684
Robert C, Grange F, Mortier L, Karaszewska B, Rutkowski P, Mackiewicz A, et al. Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:30–9.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1412690
Long GV, Stroyakovskiy D, Gogas H, Levchenko E, De Braud F, Larkin J, et al. Dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib and placebo for Val600 BRAF-mutant melanoma: a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:444–51.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60898-4
Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV, Arance A, Grob JJ, Mortier L, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2521–32.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1503093
D’Angelo SP, Larkin J, Sosman JA, Lebbé C, Brady B, Neyns B, et al. Efficacy and safety of nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab in patients with mucosal melanoma: a pooled analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:226–35.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.9258
Hamid O, Robert C, Ribas A, Hodi FS, Walpole E, Daud A, et al. Antitumour activity of pembrolizumab in advanced mucosal melanoma: a post-hoc analysis of KEYNOTE-001, 002, 006. Br J Cancer. 2018;119:670–4.
doi: 10.1038/s41416-018-0207-6
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program SEER*Stat Database: incidence—SEER 18 Regs research data + Hurricane Katrina impacted Louisiana cases, Nov 2018 sub (1975–2016 varying)—linked to county attributes—total. https://seer.cancer.gov . Accessed 28 Jul 2019.
Nagarajan P, Curry JL, Ning J, Piao J, Torres-Cabala CA, Aung PP, et al. Tumor thickness and mitotic rate robustly predict melanoma-specific survival in patients with primary vulvar melanoma: a retrospective review of 100 cases. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:2093–104.
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2126
Lattanzi M, Lee Y, Simpson D, Moran U, Darvishian F, Kim RH, et al. Primary melanoma histologic subtype: impact on survival and response to therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111:186–8.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djy086
de Vries E, Houterman S, Janssen-Heijnen MLG, Nijsten T, van de Schans SAM, Eggermont AMM, et al. Up-to-date survival estimates and historical trends of cutaneous malignant melanoma in the south-east of The Netherlands. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1110–6.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdm087
Eggermont AMM, Chiarion-Sileni V, Grob J-J, Dummer R, Wolchok JD, Schmidt H, et al. Prolonged survival in stage III melanoma with ipilimumab adjuvant therapy. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1845–55.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611299
Weber J, Mandala M, Del Vecchio M, Gogas HJ, Arance AM, Cowey CL, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III or IV melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1824–35.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709030
Eggermont AMM, Blank CU, Mandala M, Long GV, Atkinson V, Dalle S, et al. Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1789–801.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1802357
Faries MB, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, Andtbacka RH, Mozzillo N, Zager JS, et al. Completion dissection or observation for sentinel-node metastasis in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2211–22.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613210