» Articles » PMID: 26308244

Revisiting Determinants of Prognosis in Cutaneous Melanoma

Overview
Journal Cancer
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Oncology
Date 2015 Aug 27
PMID 26308244
Citations 37
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma is based on primary tumor thickness and the presence of ulceration, mitoses, lymph node spread, and distant metastases as determinants of prognosis. Although this cutaneous melanoma staging system has evolved over time to more accurately reflect patient prognosis, improvements are still needed, because current understanding of the particular factors (genetic mutation, expression alteration, host response, etc) that are critical for predicting patient outcomes is incomplete. Given the clinical and biologic heterogeneity of primary melanomas, new prognostic tools are needed to more precisely identify patients who are most likely to develop advanced disease. Such tools would affect clinical surveillance strategies and aid in patient selection for adjuvant therapy. The authors reviewed the literature on prognostic molecular and immunologic markers in primary cutaneous melanoma, their associations with clinicopathologic and survival outcomes, and their potential for incorporation into current staging models. Overall, the studies considered in this review did not define prognostic markers that could be readily incorporated into the current staging system. Therefore, efforts should be continued in these and other directions to maximize the likelihood of identifying clinically useful prognostic biomarkers for cutaneous melanoma.

Citing Articles

Integrative analysis of DNA methylation and gene expression in skin cutaneous melanoma by bioinformatic approaches.

Zhang L, Peng Y, Huang S, Zhong L Arch Dermatol Res. 2025; 317(1):545.

PMID: 40067504 PMC: 11897118. DOI: 10.1007/s00403-025-03863-2.


Novel Prognostic Markers for Skin Cutaneous Melanoma.

Zhang Y, Xie A, Wang D, Deng W Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2024; 17:2615-2625.

PMID: 39588228 PMC: 11586483. DOI: 10.2147/CCID.S486679.


Artificial intelligence-assisted metastasis and prognosis model for patients with nodular melanoma.

Xu C, Yu X, Ding Z, Fang C, Gao M, Liu W PLoS One. 2024; 19(8):e0305468.

PMID: 39110691 PMC: 11305581. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305468.


Identification of a CpG-based signature coupled with gene expression as prognostic indicators for melanoma: a preliminary study.

Lin Z, Yang L Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):5302.

PMID: 38438381 PMC: 10912562. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-50614-2.


Dicing with data: the risks, benefits, tensions and tech of health data in the iToBoS project.

Aspell N, Goldsteen A, Renwick R Front Digit Health. 2024; 6:1272709.

PMID: 38357640 PMC: 10864635. DOI: 10.3389/fdgth.2024.1272709.


References
1.
Populo H, Boaventura P, Vinagre J, Batista R, Mendes A, Caldas R . TERT promoter mutations in skin cancer: the effects of sun exposure and X-irradiation. J Invest Dermatol. 2014; 134(8):2251-2257. DOI: 10.1038/jid.2014.163. View

2.
Akslen L, Angelini S, Straume O, Bachmann I, Molven A, Hemminki K . BRAF and NRAS mutations are frequent in nodular melanoma but are not associated with tumor cell proliferation or patient survival. J Invest Dermatol. 2005; 125(2):312-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.0022-202X.2005.23788.x. View

3.
Bradford P, Goldstein A, McMaster M, Tucker M . Acral lentiginous melanoma: incidence and survival patterns in the United States, 1986-2005. Arch Dermatol. 2009; 145(4):427-34. PMC: 2735055. DOI: 10.1001/archdermatol.2008.609. View

4.
Huang F, Hodis E, Xu M, Kryukov G, Chin L, Garraway L . Highly recurrent TERT promoter mutations in human melanoma. Science. 2013; 339(6122):957-9. PMC: 4423787. DOI: 10.1126/science.1229259. View

5.
Beadling C, Jacobson-Dunlop E, Hodi F, Le C, Warrick A, Patterson J . KIT gene mutations and copy number in melanoma subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14(21):6821-8. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0575. View