4.1 Article

Scalp melanoma: Distinctive high risk clinical and histological features

Journal

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
Volume 58, Issue 3, Pages 181-188

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajd.12437

Keywords

clinical presentation; epidemiology; head and neck; histopathology; melanoma; scalp

Categories

Funding

  1. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/ObjectivesScalp melanoma has a worse prognosis than melanoma elsewhere, though the reasons for this are poorly understood. Current literature describing the clinicopathological associations of scalp melanoma is sparse. This study aims to compare clinical and histological features of scalp melanoma with other cutaneous head and neck melanomas (CHNM). MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed of all primary CHNM cases seen by the Victorian Melanoma Service between 1994 and 2014, using prospectively recorded clinical data. Invasive and insitu melanomas were compared separately. ResultsInvasive scalp melanoma was associated with male sex (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.9-3.9), increasing age (OR, 1.02 per year increase in age; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03), being first noticed by a person other than self, spouse/relative or doctor (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5-5.7), amelanosis (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3), and increased growth rate (OR, 1.14 per 1mm/month growth rate increase; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). Compared with other CHNM, scalp melanoma had greater median Breslow thickness (2.8 vs 1.2mm) and was independently associated with satellite metastases (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.9-11.5) and nodular subtype (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.1). In situ scalp melanoma was associated with male sex, increasing age and solar keratoses. ConclusionScalp melanoma tends to occur in older men, is often rapidly growing and amelanotic, and is associated with high risk histological features. As it is likely to be overlooked, increased recognition of the atypical presentations of scalp melanoma is required.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available