A subpopulation that may correspond to granulocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells reflects the clinical stage and progression of cutaneous melanoma

Seventy-eight melanoma patients and 10 healthy individuals were examined. Follow-up examinations of all melanoma patients were performed regularly every three months. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) were defined as lineage negative (CD3(-), CD19(-), CD56(-)), HLA-DR-/low, CD11b(+) and CD33(+). Classification of granulocytic (GrMDSC) and monocytic (MoMDSC) subsets was based on the CD15 and CD14 expression, respectively. Unlike the MoMDSC, that were present in 60% of healthy controls and 15% of melanoma patients, the GrMDSC were present in all examined participants, and the melanoma patients were found to have statistically higher frequencies compared with healthy controls. Accordingly, we kept focused on GrMDSC frequencies in relation to the melanoma stages and course of the disease. The GrMDSC values are highest in stage IV melanoma patients, with statistical significance compared with stages IA, IB, IIA and IIB. Patients with progression had statistically higher GrMDSC counts comparing with those with stable disease (P = 0.0079). Patients who had progression-free interval (PFI) lt 12 months showed significantly higher GrMDSC values compared with those with PFI > 12 months (P = 0.0333). GrMDSC showed significant negative correlation with PFI intervals (P = 0.0095). The GrMDSC subset was predominant in all our patients. We confirmed that GrMDSC do accumulate early in the peripheral blood of melanoma patients and their frequencies correlate narrowly with the clinical stage and the spread of the disease. The increase in GrMDSC frequencies correlates well with a progressive disease and could be considered a potential predictive biomarker of high-risk melanoma cases that are more likely to have a shorter PFI

MC1R variants in childhood and adolescent melanoma: a retrospective pooled analysis of a multicentre cohort.

BACKGROUND: Germline variants in the melanocortin 1 receptor gene (MC1R) might increase the risk of childhood and adolescent melanoma, but a clear conclusion is challenging because of the low number of studies and cases. We assessed the association of MC1R variants with childhood and adolescent melanoma in a large study comparing the prevalence of MC1R variants in child or adolescent patients with melanoma to that in adult patients with melanoma and in healthy adult controls. METHODS: In this retrospective pooled analysis, we used the M-SKIP Project, the Italian Melanoma Intergroup, and other European groups (with participants from Australia, Canada, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the USA) to assemble an international multicentre cohort. We gathered phenotypic and genetic data from children or adolescents diagnosed with sporadic single-primary cutaneous melanoma at age 20 years or younger, adult patients with sporadic single-primary cutaneous melanoma diagnosed at age 35 years or older, and healthy adult individuals as controls. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for childhood and adolescent melanoma associated with MC1R variants by multivariable logistic regression. Subgroup analysis was done for children aged 18 or younger and 14 years or younger. FINDINGS: We analysed data from 233 young patients, 932 adult patients, and 932 healthy adult controls. Children and adolescents had higher odds of carrying MC1R r variants than did adult patients (OR 1·54, 95% CI 1·02-2·33), including when analysis was restricted to patients aged 18 years or younger (1·80, 1·06-3·07). All investigated variants, except Arg160Trp, tended, to varying degrees, to have higher frequencies in young patients than in adult patients, with significantly higher frequencies found for Val60Leu (OR 1·60, 95% CI 1·05-2·44; p=0·04) and Asp294His (2·15, 1·05-4·40; p=0·04). Compared with those of healthy controls, young patients with melanoma had significantly higher frequencies of any MC1R variants. INTERPRETATION: Our pooled analysis of MC1R genetic data of young patients with melanoma showed that MC1R r variants were more prevalent in childhood and adolescent melanoma than in adult melanoma, especially in patients aged 18 years or younger. Our findings support the role of MC1R in childhood and adolescent melanoma susceptibility, with a potential clinical relevance for developing early melanoma detection and preventive strategies. FUNDING: SPD-Pilot/Project-Award-2015; AIRC-MFAG-11831

Diagnosis and treatment of Kaposi's sarcoma: European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline (EDF/EADO/EORTC)

Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is a multifocal neoplasm of lymphatic endothelium-derived cells infected with human herpesvirus 8. Four clinical subtypes are distinguished: the classic, the endemic, the epidemic subtype in HIV positive patients and the iatrogenic subtype. The diagnosis is primarily based on clinical features and confirmation by histology with immunohistochemistry. Cutaneous distribution and severity, mucosal, nodal and visceral involvement depend on the type of KS with in general indolent behaviour and chronic evolution in the classic subtype and the more severe forms in iatrogenic or epidemic subtypes. Management should aim at achieving disease control. For localised lesions, several local therapies have been developed without randomised trial comparisons. Radiotherapy, intralesional chemotherapies and electrochemotherapy have high response rates. Topical treatments-imiquimod or topical 9-cis-retinoid acid-can also be used. Systemic treatments are reserved for locally aggressive extensive and disseminated KS: the recommended first-line agents are pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) and paclitaxel. In CKS, PLD or low-dose interferon-alfa are the recommended first-line agents in younger patients. In AIDS-related KS, combination antiretroviral therapy is the first treatment option; specific systemic treatment is needed only in case of extensive disease and in the prevention and treatment of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome. In post-transplant KS, tapering down immunosuppressive therapy and switching to mammalian target of rapamycin (m-TOR) inhibitors are used. Follow-up schedules for patients with KS disease depend on aggressiveness of the disease

Prognosis of Patients With Primary Melanoma Stage I and II According to American Joint Committee on Cancer Version 8 Validated in Two Independent Cohorts:Implications for Adjuvant Treatment

The first randomized trial of adjuvant treatment with checkpoint inhibitor in stage II melanoma reported a significant reduction in risk of tumor recurrence. This study evaluates two independent data sets to further document survival probabilities for patients with primary stage I and II melanoma. The Central Malignant Melanoma Registry (CMMR) in Germany evaluated 17,544 patients with a primary diagnosis of stage I and II melanoma from 2000 to 2015. The exploratory cohort consisted of 6,725 patients from the Center for Dermato-Oncology at the University of Tübingen, and the confirmatory cohort consisted of 10,819 patients from 11 other German centers. Survival outcomes were compared with published American Joint Committee on Cancer version 8 (AJCCv8) stage I and II survival data. For the two CMMR cohorts in stage IA compared with the AJCCv8 cohort, melanoma-specific survival rates at 10 years were 95.1%-95.6% versus 98%; 89.7%-90.9% versus 94% in stage IB; 80.7%-83.1% versus 88% in stage IIA; 72.0%-79.9% versus 82% in stage IIB; and 57.6%-64.7% versus 75% in stage IIC, respectively. Recurrence rates were approximately twice as high as melanoma-specific mortality rates in stages IA-IIA. The melanoma-specific survival rates in the two CMMR cohorts across stages I and II are less favorable than published in AJCCv8. This has important implications for the consideration of adjuvant treatment in this population

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Part 1:Diagnostics and prevention-Update 2023

Invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is one of the most common cancers in white populations, accounting for 20% of all cutaneous malignancies. Overall, cSCC mostly has very good prognosis after treatment, with 5-year cure rates greater than 90%. Despite the overall favourable prognosis and the proportionally rare deaths, cSCC is associated with a high total number of deaths due to its high incidence. A collaboration of multidisciplinary experts from the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) and the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was formed to update recommendations on cSCC, based on current literature and expert consensus. Part 1 of the guidelines addresses the updates on classification, epidemiology, diagnosis, risk stratification, staging and prevention in immunocompetent as well as immunosuppressed patients

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma:Part 2. Treatment–Update 2023

In order to update recommendations on treatment, supportive care, education, and follow-up of patients with invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), a multidisciplinary panel of experts from the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), and the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed. Recommendations were? based on an evidence-based literature review, guidelines, and expert consensus. Treatment recommendations are presented for common primary cSCC (low risk, high risk), locally advanced cSCC, regional metastatic cSCC (operable or inoperable), and distant metastatic cSCC. For common primary cSCC, the first-line treatment is surgical excision with postoperative margin assessment or micrographically controlled surgery. Achieving clear surgical margins is the most important treatment consideration for patients with cSCCs amenable to surgery. Regarding adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with high-risk localised cSCC with clear surgical margins, current evidence has not shown significant benefit for those with at least one high-risk factor. Radiotherapy should be considered as the primary treatment for non-surgical candidates/tumours. For cSCC with cytologically or histologically confirmed regional nodal metastasis, lymph node dissection is recommended. For patients with metastatic or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiotherapy, anti-PD-1 agents are the first-line systemic treatment, with cemiplimab being the first approved systemic agent for advanced cSCC by the Food and Drugs Administration/European Medicines Agency. Second-line systemic treatments for advanced cSCC, include epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab) combined with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Multidisciplinary board decisions are mandatory for all patients with advanced cSCC, considering the risks of toxicity, the age and frailty of patients, and co-morbidities, including immunosuppression. Patients should be engaged in informed, shared decision-making on management and be provided with the best supportive care to improve symptom management and quality of life. The frequency of follow-up visits and investigations for subsequent new cSCC depends on underlying risk characteristics

The evolving field of Dermato-oncology and the role of dermatologists: Position Paper of the EADO, EADV and Task Forces, EDF, IDS, EBDV–UEMS and EORTC Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force

International audienceBackground: The incidence of skin cancers has been increasing steadily over the last decades. Although there have been significant breakthroughs in the management of skin cancers with the introduction of novel diagnostic tools and innovative therapies, skin cancer mortality, morbidity and costs heavily burden the society. Objective: Members of the European Association of Dermato-Oncology, European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, International Dermoscopy Society, European Dermatology Forum, European Board of Dermatovenereology of the European Union of Medical Specialists and EORTC Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force have joined this effort to emphasize the fundamental role that the specialist in Dermatology–Venereology has in the diagnosis and management of different types of skin cancer. We review the role of dermatologists in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with melanoma, non-melanoma skin cancers and cutaneous lymphomas, and discuss approaches to optimize their involvement in effectively addressing the current needs and priorities of dermato-oncology. Discussion: Dermatologists play a crucial role in virtually all aspects of skin cancer management including the implementation of primary and secondary prevention, the formation of standardized pathways of care for patients, the establishment of specialized skin cancer treatment centres, the coordination of an efficient multidisciplinary team and the setting up of specific follow-up plans for patients. Conclusion: Skin cancers represent an important health issue for modern societies. The role of dermatologists is central to improving patient care and outcomes. In view of the emerging diagnostic methods and treatments for early and advanced skin cancer, and considering the increasingly diverse skills, knowledge and expertise needed for managing this heterogeneous group of diseases, dermato-oncology should be considered as a specific subspecialty of Dermatology–Venereology