Huang, Kai

Background. Acral melanoma (AM) is a rare subtype of melanoma, which is one of the least common in Caucasian patients but is a common subtype of melanoma in Chinese patients. It is unclear if prognosis differs between Chinese and Caucasian patients diagnosed with AM. The aim of our study is to investigate patient characteristics and survival differences between Chinese and Caucasian AM patients. Methods. Two large institutional melanoma databases from Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC) and Mayo Clinic enterprise were retrospectively reviewed from 2009 to 2015. Clinicopathologic and survival data were collected and analyzed between the two groups. The primary outcome was disease-specific survival (DSS) and was calculated using the Kaplan Meier (KM) method. Results. The Chinese group presented with more advanced disease compared with Caucasians: thicker Breslow depth (median 3.0 mm vs. 1.2 mm, p = 0.003 ), more ulcerated disease (66.1% vs. 29%; p < 0.001 ), and advanced stages (stage II/III 84.3% vs. 37.1%; p < 0.001 ). No significant difference was identified in terms of age at diagnosis, location, histologic subtypes, or node positive rate. The 5-year DSS rate was 68.4% and 73% ( p = 0.56 ) in Chinese and Caucasians AM patients, respectively. Male gender, Breslow thickness, ulceration, and positive sentinel lymph nodes were independent poor prognostic factors on multivariate analysis. Conclusions. There appears to be no difference in stage-stratified survival between Chinese and Caucasians, supporting the implementation of clinical trials for AM that could include both Chinese and Caucasian patients.

AbstractBackgroundRelatively few cutaneous head and neck melanoma (CHNM) patients with were included in the multicenter selective lymphadenectomy trial II (MSLT‐II). Our objective was to investigate whether immediate completion lymph node dissection completion of lymph node dissection (CLND) was associated with survival benefit for sentinel lymph node (SLN) positive CHNM using the National Cancer Database.MethodsSLN positive patients with CHNM from 2012 to 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent SLN biopsy (SLNB) only versus those who underwent SLNB followed by CLND (SLNB + CLND). The primary outcome was 5‐year overall survival (OS).ResultsAmong 530 SLNB + patients, 342 patients underwent SLNB followed by CLND (SLNB + CLND). The SLNB only group had fewer positive SLN, less advanced pathologic stage, and a lower rate of adjuvant immunotherapy. There was no significant difference in 5‐year OS between the two groups (51.0% vs 67%; P = .56). After adjusting for pathologic stage, there remained no difference in 5‐year OS among patients with stage IIIA (63.0% vs. 73.6%, P = 0.22) or IIIB/IIIC disease (39.1% vs 57.8%; P = .52).ConclusionsUsing a large nationwide database, CLND was not shown to be associated with improved OS for patients with SLNB positive CHNM, validating the results of MSLT‐II.