Prognosis of naevoid melanomas.

There appear to be several variants of naevoid melanoma suspected as having different outcomes, but follow-up studies have been few. We aimed to assess the prognosis of naevoid melanomas in a multi-centre study. From histopathology records we ascertained patients in the UK, Australia and Italy diagnosed with maturing naevoid melanoma (n = 65; 14; 7 respectively) and nodular/papillomatous naevoid melanoma (12; 6; 0), and patients with superficial spreading melanoma (SSM) from UK (73) and Australia (26). Melanoma deaths in UK patients were obtained from NHS Digital; in Australia, via the National Death Index and cancer registry; and in Italy, through clinical records. For maturing naevoid vs. SSM, we used Cox-proportional hazard regression models to compare survival adjusted for age, sex, tumour thickness, and ulceration, and additionally Fine-Gray regression analysis, to calculate sub-hazard ratios (SHR) in the UK cohort, accounting for competing causes of death. Among UK patients, there was a non-significantly lower risk of melanoma death in maturing naevoid vs SSM, including after accounting for competing causes of death (SHR 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-1.31), while among nodular/papillomatous naevoid melanoma patients, there were no melanoma deaths on follow-up. Two melanoma deaths occurred in Australian SSM patients, and none in maturing or nodular/papillomatous naevoid melanoma patients, after 5 years' minimum follow-up. None of the 7 Italian patients with maturing naevoid melanoma died of melanoma after nearly 12 years' average follow-up. There was no significant difference in risk of death from melanomas with naevoid features, and SSM. Nodular/ papillomatous naevoid melanoma patients did not carry higher risk of death than SSM patients though the very few cases of the papillomatous naevoid variant limited our assessment.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.