Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2014
Primary dermal melanoma: a unique subtype of melanoma to be distinguished from cutaneous metastatic melanoma: a clinical, histologic, and gene expression-profiling study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sidiropoulos Michael, Obregon Roxana, Cooper Chelsea, Sholl Lauren Meldi, Guitart Joan, Gerami Pedram
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Primary dermal melanoma (PDM) is a subtype of melanoma confined to the dermis that may be morphologically impossible to distinguish from cutaneous metastatic melanoma (CMM).
OBJECTIVE: We sought to better characterize PDM by describing the clinical, histologic, and molecular features of 49 cases of PDM and determine whether a gene expression-profiling test could help distinguish PDM from CMM.
METHODS: We describe 49 cases of PDM and determined whether any clinical or histopathologic features had a statistically significant relationship with outcome. Secondly, we performed a melanoma gene expression-profiling test on a subset of the PDM and CMM cases.
RESULTS: Overall recurrence was infrequent and seen in 9 of 49 cases. Six patients had locoregional recurrences and 3 patients had distant metastasis. None of the clinical or histologic parameters showed a statistically significant relationship with recurrence. There was a statistically significant association of a class I signature by DecisionDx-Melanoma assay (Castle Biosciences Inc, Friendswood, TX) for PDM whereas CMM were more frequently class II (P value = .023).
LIMITATIONS: The mean follow-up time was 26 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Most conventional staging parameters used for prognosis in cutaneous melanoma have limited applicability to PDM. The melanoma prognostic assay may be a useful tool for distinguishing PDM from CMM.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to better characterize PDM by describing the clinical, histologic, and molecular features of 49 cases of PDM and determine whether a gene expression-profiling test could help distinguish PDM from CMM.
METHODS: We describe 49 cases of PDM and determined whether any clinical or histopathologic features had a statistically significant relationship with outcome. Secondly, we performed a melanoma gene expression-profiling test on a subset of the PDM and CMM cases.
RESULTS: Overall recurrence was infrequent and seen in 9 of 49 cases. Six patients had locoregional recurrences and 3 patients had distant metastasis. None of the clinical or histologic parameters showed a statistically significant relationship with recurrence. There was a statistically significant association of a class I signature by DecisionDx-Melanoma assay (Castle Biosciences Inc, Friendswood, TX) for PDM whereas CMM were more frequently class II (P value = .023).
LIMITATIONS: The mean follow-up time was 26 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Most conventional staging parameters used for prognosis in cutaneous melanoma have limited applicability to PDM. The melanoma prognostic assay may be a useful tool for distinguishing PDM from CMM.