4.6 Article

Prognostic factors and survival in acral lentiginous melanoma

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
Volume 177, Issue 2, Pages 428-435

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.15600

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Team Science Award from the Melanoma Research Alliance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM) is a rare melanoma subtype that disproportionately afflicts people of colour. ALMs have a worse prognosis than other melanoma subtypes; this has been attributed to aggressive biological behaviour, more advanced stage at presentation and possible disparities in access to health care. Objectives To examine, using comprehensive patient data and long-term follow-up information in a well-characterized cohort, how patient, tumour and clinical management variables impact overall and melanoma-specific survival. Methods We characterized a consecutive cohort of 123 ALMs diagnosed from 1987 to 2013 and analysed predictors of overall and melanoma-specific survival for their association with survival. Results Univariate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals using Cox regression models showed that increased Breslow depth, presence of ulceration, receipt of radiation, chemo-and vaccine therapy were associated with worse melanoma-specific survival. Notably, nonwhite race/ethnicity was not associated with worse overall or melanoma-specific survival. Multivariate modelling adjusting for patient, tumour and management variables revealed Breslow depth >2 mm and disease extent as significantly associated with poor melanoma-specific survival. Conclusions Melanoma-specific mortality among patients with ALM is associated with increased tumour thickness and more advanced stage at presentation, but not with race/ethnicity. Advanced tumour features at presentation and access to care may account for less favourable survival outcomes reported among nonwhite patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available