Sun, James

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine overall trends and center-level variation in utilization of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and adjuvant systemic therapy for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma. Summary Background Data: Based on recent clinical trials, management options for SLN-positive melanoma now include effective adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal observation instead of CLND. It is unknown how these findings have shaped practice or how these contemporaneous developments have influenced their respective utilization. Methods: We performed an international cohort study at 21 melanoma referral centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States that treated adults with SLN-positive melanoma and negative distant staging from July 2017 to June 2019. We used generalized linear and multinomial logistic regression models with random intercepts for each center to assess center-level variation in CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, adjusting for patient and disease-specific characteristics. Results: Among 1109 patients, performance of CLND decreased from 28% to 8% and adjuvant systemic therapy use increased from 29 to 60%. For both CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, the most influential factors were nodal tumor size, stage, and location of treating center. There was notable variation among treating centers in management of stage IIIA patients and use of CLND with adjuvant systemic therapy versus nodal observation alone for similar risk patients. Conclusions: There has been an overall decline in CLND and simultaneous adoption of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with SLN-positive melanoma though wide variation in practice remains. Accounting for differences in patient mix, location of care contributed significantly to the observed variation.

Purpose Molecular diagnostic testing has become an integral part of the evaluation of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Expanded mutational testing, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), often identifies mutations with unclear clinical or prognostic implications. One such example is BRAF mutations that occur outside of codon 600 (non-V600 BRAF mutations). Methods We conducted this multicenter, retrospective cohort study to characterize the clinical, pathologic, and survival implications of non-V600 BRAF mutations in metastatic CRC. We pooled patients in whom non-V600 BRAF mutations were identified from NGS databases at three large molecular genetics reference laboratories. Results A total of 9,643 patients with metastatic CRC underwent NGS testing. We identified 208 patients with non-V600 BRAF mutations, which occurred in 2.2% of all patients tested and accounted for 22% of all BRAF mutations identified. Cancers with non-V600 BRAF mutations, compared with cancers with V600E BRAF (V600E BRAF) mutations, were found in patients who were significantly younger (58 v 68 years, respectively), fewer female patients (46% v 65%, respectively), and patients who had fewer high-grade tumors (13% v 64%, respectively) or right-sided primary tumors (36% v 81%, respectively). Median overall survival was significantly longer in patients with non-V600 BRAF-mutant metastatic CRC compared with those with both V600E BRAF-mutant and wild-type BRAF metastatic CRC (60.7 v 11.4 v 43.0 months, respectively; P < .001). In multivariable analysis, non-V600 BRAF mutation was independently associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.18; P < .001). Conclusion Non-V600 BRAF mutations occur in approximately 2.2% of patients with metastatic CRC and define a clinically distinct subtype of CRC with an excellent prognosis.