Patient Follow-Up After Participating in a Beach-Based Skin Cancer Screening Program

Many skin cancer screenings occur in non-traditional community settings, with the beach being an important setting due to beachgoers being at high risk for skin cancer. This study is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of a skin cancer intervention in which participants (n = 312) had a full-body skin examination by a clinician and received a presumptive diagnosis (abnormal finding, no abnormal finding). Participants’ pursuit of follow-up was assessed post-intervention (n = 283). Analyses examined: (1) participant’s recall of screening results; and (2) whether cognitive and behavioral variables were associated with follow-up being as advised. Just 12% of participants (36/312) did not correctly recall the results of their skin examination. One-third (33%, 93/283) of participants’ follow-up was classified as being not as advised (recommend follow-up not pursued, unadvised follow-up pursued). Among participants whose follow-up was not as advised, 71% (66/93) did not seek recommended care. None of the measured behavioral and cognitive variables were significantly associated with recall of screening examination results or whether follow-up was as advised. Research is needed to determine what factors are associated with follow-up being as advised and to develop messages that increase receipt of advised follow-up care

Targeted next-generation sequencing reveals high frequency of mutations in epigenetic regulators across treatment-naïve patient melanomas

Background: Recent developments in genomic sequencing have advanced our understanding of the mutations underlying human malignancy. Melanoma is a prototype of an aggressive, genetically heterogeneous cancer notorious for its biologic plasticity and predilection towards developing resistance to targeted therapies. Evidence is rapidly accumulating that dysregulated epigenetic mechanisms (DNA methylation/demethylation, histone modification, non-coding RNAs) may play a central role in the pathogenesis of melanoma. Therefore, we sought to characterize the frequency and nature of mutations in epigenetic regulators in clinical, treatment-naïve, patient melanoma specimens obtained from one academic institution. Results: Targeted next-generation sequencing for 275 known and investigative cancer genes (of which 41 genes, or 14.9 %, encoded an epigenetic regulator) of 38 treatment-naïve patient melanoma samples revealed that 22.3 % (165 of 740) of all non-silent mutations affected an epigenetic regulator. The most frequently mutated genes were BRAF, MECOM, NRAS, TP53, MLL2, and CDKN2A. Of the 40 most commonly mutated genes, 12 (30.0 %) encoded epigenetic regulators, including genes encoding enzymes involved in histone modification (MECOM, MLL2, SETD2), chromatin remodeling (ARID1B, ARID2), and DNA methylation and demethylation (TET2, IDH1). Among the 38 patient melanoma samples, 35 (92.1 %) harbored at least one mutation in an epigenetic regulator. The genes with the highest number of total UVB-signature mutations encoded epigenetic regulators, including MLL2 (100 %, 16 of 16) and MECOM (82.6 %, 19 of 23). Moreover, on average, epigenetic genes harbored a significantly greater number of UVB-signature mutations per gene than non-epigenetic genes (3.7 versus 2.4, respectively; p = 0.01). Bioinformatics analysis of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) melanoma mutation dataset also revealed a frequency of mutations in the 41 epigenetic genes comparable to that found within our cohort of patient melanoma samples. Conclusions: Our study identified a high prevalence of somatic mutations in genes encoding epigenetic regulators, including those involved in DNA demethylation, histone modification, chromatin remodeling, and microRNA processing. Moreover, UVB-signature mutations were found more commonly among epigenetic genes than in non-epigenetic genes. Taken together, these findings further implicate epigenetic mechanisms, particularly those involving the chromatin-remodeling enzyme MECOM/EVI1 and histone-modifying enzyme MLL2, in the pathobiology of melanoma. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13148-015-0091-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Clinical and histologic features associated with lentigo maligna clearance after imiquimod treatment

Background Imiquimod cream may be used as a non-surgical treatment for lentigo maligna or as adjuvant therapy following excision to decrease the risk of recurrence. Objectives To evaluate histologic and clinical factors associated with clinical clearance of lentigo maligna treated with imiquimod. Methods We performed a retrospective review of all patients diagnosed with lentigo maligna and treated with imiquimod between 1997 and 2019 at our academic institution. Results We observed clinical clearance in 93% (66/71) of participants who received adjuvant imiquimod following surgery and 79% (19/24) in the primary non-surgical treatment group over a median of 38 months of follow-up. In the adjuvant therapy group, positive surgical margins were associated with a decreased rate of clinical clearance when compared to cases with close (<1 mm) margins or background melanocytic dysplasia (83.3 vs. 100%, p = .01). The presence of an inflammatory response during treatment was associated with increased clearance (94.1 vs. 66.7%, p = .02). Conclusions Adjuvant imiquimod treatment may decrease LM recurrence rates in cases with background melanocytic dysplasia or close margins. LM cases with positive surgical margins need close clinical follow-up given higher recurrence rates