The National Cancer Database: Survival Between Head and Neck Melanoma and Melanoma of Other Regions

Objective Primary site is considered an important prognostic factor for cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM); however, opinions vary regarding its influence on survival. This study compares overall survival between head and neck melanoma (HNM) and melanoma of other regions (MOR), as well as between melanoma of the scalp and neck (MSN) and melanoma of other head regions (MOHR). Study Design Level III retrospective cohort study. Setting Patients from Commission on Cancer–accredited cancer programs affiliated to the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods Patients with HNM (MSN and MOHR included) and MOR, stages I to IV (n = 39,754), and their linked survival data using the NCDB were identified. Survival was analyzed using propensity score matching methods. Results After matching using propensity scores, allowing this observational study to mimic a randomized controlled trial, subjects with HNM showed a 22% increased mortality when compared to MOR ( P < .01). Among those with HNM, hazard was not proportional over time. Overall, subjects with MSN in the first 3.5 years of follow-up (75% of subjects) showed a 15% increased mortality when compared to MOHR ( P < .01); however, after 3.5 years, no difference in survival was noted ( P = .5). Conclusion Patients with HNM showed a higher mortality when compared to MOR. The risk of death of primary sites within the head and neck varies over time, showing a higher risk of mortality for scalp and neck during the first 3.5 years of follow-up. This increased risk was not evident after the 3.5-year threshold. Further research is needed to evaluate additional patient factors or differences in treatment approaches.

Head and neck melanoma: outcome and predictors in a population-based cohort study

Background To evaluate predictive clinico-pathological characteristics on outcome in head and neck melanoma (HNM) in a population-based study with particular emphasis on the prognostic effect of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and distinct tumor localisations. Methods Here we primarily describe a retrospective multicenter population-based cohort study with 402 patients having undergone resection with curative intent of HNM between 2010 and 2017. SLNB was used in the diagnosis of 79 HNM patients. Outcome was analyzed, focusing on SLNB, CCI as well as tumor localisation. Overall survival (OAS) und recurrence free survival (RFS) was examined by uni- and multivariate analysis. Results Histopathologically verified lymph node metastasis according to SLNB was associated with impaired RFS in HNM patients (p = 0.004). Especially in higher tumor stages, the sole implementation of SLNB improved survival significantly in the present cohort (p = 0.042). With most of the HNM being located in the face, melanoma of the scalp and neck could be linked to deteriorated patient’s outcome in uni- as well as multivariate analysis (p = 0.021, p = 0.004). Conclusions SLNB is a useful tool in predicting development of distant metastasis after HNM resection with curative intent. Especially in higher tumor stages, performing a SLNB ameliorated survival of HNM patients. Additionally, CCI as well as a distinct tumor localisations in HNM were identified as important risk factors in our population-based cohort study.

Comparing the Characteristics and Predicting the Survival of Head and Neck Melanoma versus Body Melanoma: A Population-based Study

Background: Previous studies have reported poorer survival in head and neck melanoma (HNM) than in body melanoma (BM). Individualized tools to predict the prognosis for patients with HNM or BM remain insufficient. We aim to compare the characteristics of HNM and BM, and establish and validate the nomograms for predicting the 3-, 5- and 10-year survival of patients with HNM or BM.Methods: We studied patients with HNM or BM from 2004 to 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The HNM group and BM group were randomly divided into training and validation cohorts. We performed the Kaplan-Meier method for survival analysis, and used multivariate Cox proportional hazards models to identify independent prognostic factors. Nomograms for HNM patients or BM patients were developed via the rms package, and were measured by the concordance index (C-index), the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) and calibration plots.Results: Of 70605 patients acquired, 21% (n=15071) had HNM and 79% (n=55534) had BM. The HNM group contained more older patients, male patients, and lentigo maligna melanoma, and more frequently had thicker tumors and metastases than the BM group. The 5-year CSS and OS rates were 88.1±0.3% and 74.4±0.4% in the HNM group and 92.5±0.1% and 85.8±0.2% in the BM group, respectively. Eight independent prognostic factors (age, sex, histology, thickness, ulceration, stage, metastases, and surgery) were identified to construct nomograms for HNM patients or BM patients. The performance of the nomograms were excellent: the C-index of the CSS prediction for HNM patients and BM patients in the training cohort were 0.839 and 0.895, respectively; in the validation cohort, they were 0.848 and 0.888, respectively; the AUCs for the 3-, 5- and 10-year CSS rates of HNM were 0.871, 0.865 and 0.854 (training), and 0.881, 0.879 and 0.861 (validation), respectively; of BM, the AUCs were 0.924, 0.918 and 0.901 (training) and 0.916, 0.908 and 0.893 (validation), respectively; and the calibration plots showed great consistency.Conclusions: The characteristics of HNM and BM are heterogeneous, and we constructed and validated specific nomograms as practical prognostic tools for patients with HNM or BM.