Evaluation and Surgical Management of Pediatric Cutaneous Melanoma and Atypical Spitz and Non-Spitz Melanocytic Tumors (Melanocytomas): A Report From Children's Oncology Group

Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2024 · 19 citations

• Medicine
• Dermatology
• Oncology

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop recommendations for the diagnostic evaluation and surgical management of cutaneous melanoma (CM) and atypical Spitz tumors (AST) and non-Spitz melanocytic tumors (melanocytomas) in pediatric (age 0-10 years) and adolescent (age 11-18 years) patients. METHODS: A Children's Oncology Group-led panel with external, multidisciplinary CM specialists convened to develop recommendations on the basis of available data and expertise. RESULTS: Thirty-three experts from multiple specialties (cutaneous/medical/surgical oncology, dermatology, and dermatopathology) established recommendations with supporting data from 87 peer-reviewed publications. RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Excisional biopsies with 1-3 mm margins should be performed when feasible for clinically suspicious melanocytic neoplasms. (2) Definitive surgical treatment for CM, including wide local excision and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), should follow National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines in the absence of data from pediatric-specific surgery trials and/or cohort studies. (3) Accurate classification of ASTs as benign or malignant is more likely with immunohistochemistry and next-generation sequencing. (4) It may not be possible to classify some ASTs as likely/definitively benign or malignant after clinicopathologic and/or molecular correlation, and these Spitz tumors of uncertain malignant potential should be excised with 5 mm margins. (5) ASTs favored to be benign should be excised with 1- to 3-mm margins if transected on biopsy. (6) Re-excision is not necessary if the AST does not extend to the biopsy margin(s) when complete/excisional biopsy was performed. (7) SLNB should not be performed for Spitz tumors unless a diagnosis of CM is favored on clinicopathologic evaluation. (8) Non-Spitz melanocytomas have a presumed increased risk for progression to CM and should be excised with 1- to 3-mm margins if transected on biopsy. (9) Re-excision of non-Spitz melanocytomas is not necessary if the lesion is completely excised on biopsy.

Lichen‐planus‐pemphigoides‐like reaction to PD‐1 checkpoint blockade

Journal of Cutaneous Pathology · 2022 · 12 citations

• Medicine
• Pathology
• Dermatology

BACKGROUND: Programmed cell death protein (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibition checkpoint blockade leads to various cutaneous adverse reactions, including bullous pemphigoid and lichen-planus-like reactions. However, lichen planus pemphigoides (LPP), manifesting histopathologic features of both lichen planus and bullous pemphigoid, has more rarely been associated with immunotherapy. METHODS: The clinical and histopathologic findings of three patients were examined, and a review of cases of LPP and bullous lichen planus secondary to PD-1 inhibitor therapy was performed. RESULTS: Three patients (two with advanced non-small-cell lung adenocarcinoma and the third with metastatic breast cancer) presented with both lichenoid eruptions and bullae. Biopsy of the lesions revealed lichenoid tissue reactions in all three patients. Together with the histopathologic findings, direct immunofluorescence (DIF) showing linear C3 and IgG deposition and positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) showing BP180 positivity supported a diagnosis of LPP in two patients. The third patient in our series also showed confirmatory ELISA testing supporting LPP. CONCLUSIONS: Lichen planus pemphigoides is a distinct cutaneous toxicity to checkpoint inhibitor therapy illustrates a possible pathogenic mechanism and the importance of dermatopathology recognition to render an accurate diagnosis.

Delays in melanoma presentation during the COVID-19 pandemic: A nationwide multi-institutional cohort study

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2022 · 21 citations

• Medicine
• Virology
• Internal medicine

An Intrapatient Concordance Study of Mismatch Repair Protein Immunohistochemical Staining Patterns in Patients With Muir-Torre Syndrome

JAMA Dermatology · 2020 · 11 citations

• Medicine
• Pathology
• Internal medicine

Importance: Appropriate use criteria for Muir-Torre syndrome (MTS) screening suggest that mismatch repair protein (MMRP) immunohistochemical (IHC) testing is usually appropriate in patients with 2 or more sebaceous neoplasms (SNs). While MTS is known to be caused by a germline mutation in mismatch repair genes, data are limited as to whether individual sebaceous tumors in these patients with multiple lesions show identical MMRP IHC staining patterns. Objective: To determine concordance of MMRP IHC staining patterns in lesions of patients with MTS who have multiple SNs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective single-center case series evaluated 38 SNs in 11 patients with MTS confirmed by genetic testing for MMRP IHC staining patterns. Tumor sites were classified as either facial or extrafacial. Data were collected between January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: In each patient, MMRP IHC staining patterns for SNs were compared with one another to evaluate intrapatient concordance between lesions, and to the patient's known germline mutation. Results: A total of 11 patients (7 women and 4 men) with MTS, with a mean (SD) age of 59.3 (10.6) years at time of SN biopsy, were identified. There was high concordance between MMRP IHC staining results (2-4 lesions per patient) and the patient's mutation status, with 36 of 38 total lesions (95%) matching (sensitivity, 94.7%; 95% CI, 82.3%-99.4%). Extrafacial site tumors represented 16 of 38 total lesions (42%) and demonstrated 100% concordance of IHC results to germline mutation. Only 1 of 11 patients (9%) demonstrated discordant results, with both lesions in this patient occurring on a facial site. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with known MTS, SNs present with highly concordant MMRP IHC staining profiles across multiple lesions. There is also a strong association with underlying germline mutations. A diagnosis of MTS might be supported by MMRP IHC when the pretest probability is high.

Prognostic Gene Expression Profiling in Cutaneous Melanoma

JAMA Dermatology · 2020 · 93 citations

• Medicine
• Oncology
• Internal medicine

Importance: Use of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) testing in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is rising despite a lack of endorsement as standard of care. Objective: To develop guidelines within the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) on integration of GEP testing into the management of patients with CM, including (1) review of published data using GEP tests, (2) definition of acceptable performance criteria, (3) current recommendations for use of GEP testing in clinical practice, and (4) considerations for future studies. Evidence Review: The MPWG members and other international melanoma specialists participated in 2 online surveys and then convened a summit meeting. Published data and meeting abstracts from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. Findings: The MPWG members are optimistic about the future use of prognostic GEP testing to improve risk stratification and enhance clinical decision-making but acknowledge that current utility is limited by test performance in patients with stage I disease. Published studies of GEP testing have not evaluated results in the context of all relevant clinicopathologic factors or as predictors of regional nodal metastasis to replace sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The performance of GEP tests has generally been reported for small groups of patients representing particular tumor stages or in aggregate form, such that stage-specific performance cannot be ascertained, and without survival outcomes compared with data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition melanoma staging system international database. There are significant challenges to performing clinical trials incorporating GEP testing with SLNB and adjuvant therapy. The MPWG members favor conducting retrospective studies that evaluate multiple GEP testing platforms on fully annotated archived samples before embarking on costly prospective studies and recommend avoiding routine use of GEP testing to direct patient management until prospective studies support their clinical utility. Conclusions and Relevance: More evidence is needed to support using GEP testing to inform recommendations regarding SLNB, intensity of follow-up or imaging surveillance, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. The MPWG recommends further research to assess the validity and clinical applicability of existing and emerging GEP tests. Decisions on performing GEP testing and patient management based on these results should only be made in the context of discussion of testing limitations with the patient or within a multidisciplinary group.

Histologic features of melanoma associated with germline mutations of CDKN2A, CDK4, and POT1 in melanoma-prone families from the United States, Italy, and Spain

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2020 · 18 citations

• Medicine
• Pathology
• Dermatology

Mohs micrographic surgery with MART-1 immunostaining has durable low local recurrence rates for in situ and invasive melanomas

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2020 · 25 citations

• Medicine
• Dermatology
• Surgery