Skip to main content
Medicine and Pharmacy Reports logoLink to Medicine and Pharmacy Reports
. 2022 Jul 26;95(3):229–235. doi: 10.15386/mpr-2142

The prognostic significance of the clinical and histological parameters in primary cutaneous melanoma patients

Mihaela Antohe 1,2, Anastasia Coman 1,2,, Gabriela Turcu 1,2,3, Roxana Ioana Nedelcu 1,2, Alice Brinzea 1,2, Mihaela Balaban 2, Andreea Moroianu 2, Lorena Manea 1,4, Ionela Hulea 1, Elena Balasescu 1, Sabina Andrada Zurac 1,3, Mirela Cioplea 3, Cristiana Popp 3, Luciana Nichita 3, Daniela Adriana Ion 1
PMCID: PMC9387583  PMID: 36060503

Abstract

Cutaneous melanoma is the most aggressive form of skin cancer and its incidence is unfortunately increasing. In the last decades, a progressive increase of new cases of diagnosed thin melanoma has been noted. This may be due to earlier detection, better surveillance, improved diagnostic criteria or increased exposure to sunlight. Despite the fact that Breslow tumor thickness has the strongest proven prognostic significance, there are still thin melanomas that metastasize and thick melanomas with favorable evolution. Therefore, the identification of strong predictive factors for survival is mandatory, particularly for patients with thin melanoma.

Keywords: melanoma, thin melanoma, prognosis, survival rate, predictive factors

Introduction

Over time, there has been a significant decrease in median tumor thickness, such as from 1.8 mm in 1976 to 0.5 mm in 2000, as well as an increase of the incidence in cases of thin cutaneous melanoma (Breslow thickness ≤1 mm), from 39% in 1976 to 65.5% in 2000 [1]. Nowadays it represents approximately 70% of all diagnosed skin melanomas [2] and accounts for 25% of all melanoma deaths [3].

Fortunately, in most cases with thin cutaneous melanomas, surgical excision is curative and these patients have a favorable overall prognosis. Five percent of patients with this subtype of melanoma have a risk of metastasis and even death within 10 years [4]; the overall survival rate for this group at 10-year follow-up is approximately 4.5–8% [5]. Therefore, the identification of strong predictive factors for metastasis and survival is mandatory, particularly for patients with thin melanoma.

Numerous studies have shown that no parameter (serological, molecular, histological or immunohistochemical) alone has an accurate predictive value for the evolution of melanoma. Thus, a combination of new factors is needed to identify patients at high risk of metastasis, which would further benefit from a more aggressive treatment plan.

The histopathological reports bring plenty of information about the prognosis of melanoma patients thus contributing to a better management and follow-up of these patients. Over time, many studies have shown that the main parameters that are associated with poor prognosis are the older age, male gender, localization of the primary tumor at the axial or head or neck level, increased Breslow and Clark indices, vertical growth phase, ulceration, increased mitotic rate, tumor regression and the absence of inflammatory infiltrate [69].

Age

Most studies have shown that with age, the risk of unfavorable outcome of patients diagnosed with melanoma increases. The main reason for this is that as age increases, the thickness of the tumor grows and the risk of ulceration and regression of the tumor is higher [10]. This happens because elderly patients are less concerned about skin changes that occur over time and tend to practice self-examination less often than young people [11].

Several studies have shown that old age is an independent predictor of survival in melanoma patients [1,12].

Cutaneous melanoma in children is rare, especially before puberty. It represents 1.2% of all forms of cancer by the age of 15 years and 7% between 15 and 19 years [7]. In a study of 354 patients aged up to 18 years with cutaneous melanoma, 80% were diagnosed over the age of 14 years [13]. A large epidemiological study found that the mortality rate in cutaneous melanoma patients was 8 to 18 times higher in adolescent patients, with age between 15 to 19 years, compared to younger ones [14].

In addition to age, studies have shown that the main factors that associate a decrease in overall survival in children and adolescents with melanoma are the high number of melanocytic nevi, innate immunodeficiency, increased Breslow tumor thickness and increased Clark level [7]. It has been observed that patients with more than 100 nevi have a 34 times higher risk of developing melanoma than those with few nevi [15]. In addition, innate immunodeficiency confers a 3–6 times higher risk for melanoma [7].

Interestingly, besides all these prognostic factors, some studies have shown that the prognosis of children with melanoma who had positive SLNB (SLNB - sentinel lymph node biopsy) was better than in adults [16]. Some authors believe this is due to changes in the density of lymphatic flow related to age and in the immune system which is able to better fight malignant cells [7,17].

Gender

Numerous studies have shown that in patients with cutaneous melanoma, males have a worse prognosis compared to females. Multivariate analysis in a study of 5093 patients showed a favorable predictive role in females in terms of prognosis [18].

Several factors have been incriminated to influence the better outcome in women, namely the location of the primary tumor, hormonal and endocrine factors, the prevalence of smoking. Most studies have shown that survival rates in women at 5 and 10-year follow-up are 10–20% higher up to 65 years. After this age this advantage is lost [11,18].

Although the role of estrogens was initially invoked, this hypothesis was excluded since it has been found that melanoma does not have estrogen receptors and does not respond to anti-estrogen therapy [11,19].

The location of the primary tumor is an important factor in the protective role of female sex as it has been observed that the most common locations in women are the limbs. In a study conducted in Sweden on six national registries that included 12,533 patients, women presented with 53.5% extremity and 30.2% trunk melanomas, while men had 25.2% extremity and 56.7% trunk melanomas [20]. It has been observed that in men the locations of the tumor at the level of the head and neck and the axial locations are more frequent [21]. These are associated with a poorer prognosis.

In addition, the thickness of the tumor seems to be another important factor, as women tend to have thinner melanomas than men [22], perhaps they have a higher addressability to doctors.

However, the protective role of female sex remains controversial. For example, another study showed that in case of thin melanomas with tumor thickness less than 1 mm, sex was not an important predictive factor [23].

Location of the primary tumor

Many studies have shown a poorer prognosis for axial and head or neck lesions than for extremities. A retrospective cohort study of 51,704 patients using United States cancer registries compared the prognosis of patients with head or neck lesions to melanoma patients with other primary tumor sites. Among the conclusions of the study was that 5-year overall survival was 83.1% in patients with melanoma on the scalp or neck compared to 92.1% in those with other locations. Also the 10-year overall survival for scalp or neck melanoma was 76.2% compared to 88.7% in melanoma patients with other location. In addition, they observed that the risk of death in patients with melanoma on the head or neck was about twice higher than in patients with other locations of the primary tumor [24].

One reason why trunk melanoma has a worse prognosis than those of the extremities is perhaps the difference in lymphatic drainage; axial tumors can drain to the mediastinal or para-aortic lymph nodes but also to inguinal or axillary areas [25].

Breslow tumor thickness

The maximum thickness of the tumor is measured from the granular layer or from the base of the ulceration, if the tumor is ulcerated, to the deepest area of invasion. It was first defined as having prognostic significance by pathologist Alexander Breslow in 1970 [26].

Despite the fact that Breslow index has proven to have a high prognostic significance in numerous clinical trials, there are still cases of thin melanomas that metastasize and thick melanomas with good evolution and long-term survival. Therefore, for thin melanomas, identifying other factors that could provide information about the prognosis of the disease is essential.

A large German study conducted on 12,728 patients found that tumor thickness, age at the time of diagnosis, gender, subtype and location of the tumor are independent prognostic factors. Among these, tumor thickness has the strongest significance [1].

Moreover, a Swedish study with more than 15 years of follow-up data, conducted on 13,026 patients with stage T1 melanoma, showed that tumor thickness, Clark level of invasion and ulceration confer an independent prognostic value and that the prognostic role of the Breslow index decreases when the tumor is ulcerated [27].

Clark’s level

Since 1969 Clark and his collaborators had found a link between level of tumor invasion and prognosis of patients with cutaneous melanoma. Clark’s classification includes five stages according to the histological penetration depths of the tumor cell, as follows: level I – involves only epidermis and corresponds to melanoma in situ, level II – invasion of papillary dermis, level III – invasion up to the interface between the papillary and the reticular dermis, level IV – invasion of reticular dermis and level V – invasion of subcutaneous tissue. Clark and his collaborators showed a median survival time of 6.83 years for the patients with level II of invasion and 3.5 years for the level V [28].

Many studies have shown an inverse correlation between the depth of tumor invasion and patient survival [2931].

Some studies have shown that the prognostic significance of Clark index is not as strong compared to Breslow thickness [26,32] and others have shown that it is an independent prognostic factor only for thin melanomas (≤1 mm) [6,33,34].

The 6th (2001) American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) melanoma staging guidelines used Clark level of invasion and ulceration in addition to tumor Breslow thickness to subdivide thin melanoma as T1a or T1b [35].

In the 7th edition (2009) of the AJCC classification, Clark level has been replaced by mitotic rate for stratification of primary tumors in the T1 stage [36]. Thereafter, an increase in the number of T1a melanoma cases was observed [37,38]. This modification led to changes in the clinical approach with a different use of the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) [38]. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines recommend performing SLNB in patients with tumor thickness between 0.76 and 1 mm if they associate either ulceration or 1 or more mitoses per mm2 [5].

Radial and vertical growth phase

Gimotty et al. demonstrated by multivariate analysis that the vertical growth phase confers an important predictive significance for the risk of metastasis at 10-year follow-up and carries a 42 times higher risk of metastasis than the radial growth phase tumors [22].

Ulceration

Ulceration is defined as the epithelial disruption over its entire thickness and appears to be due to tumor ischemia that occurs with rapid tumor growth [39]. This suggests that ulceration is more likely to occur in more aggressive tumors [6].

Many studies have shown by multivariate analysis that the presence of tumor ulceration correlates with decreased overall survival [33,39] but also with the risk of relapse of melanoma patients [5,40].

It has been observed that the presence and prognostic role of ulceration is influenced by tumor thickness and that its incidence increases with a higher Breslow index. One study found a 12.5% incidence of ulceration in melanomas with tumor thickness less than 0.75 mm and 72.5% in melanomas thicker than 4 mm [41].

Mitotic tumor rate

Numerous investigators have shown the prognostic value of mitotic tumor rate in patients with cutaneous melanoma. Several studies have proven that the mitotic rate has an independent prognostic value and also it is the most important prognostic factor for survival after Breslow tumor thickness [3,36,42].

Barnhill and colleagues have shown that a mitotic index of 1–6 mitoses/mm2 increases the risk of mortality at 5 years by 8 times whereas a mitotic rate of more than 6 mitoses/mm2 increases the mortality at 5 years by 11 times [43].

In 2009 the AJCC included the mitotic rate in the melanoma TNM staging system for its independent predictive value of survival to subclassify T stage into T1a and T1b [37].

However, in the current (8th) edition of AJCC staging system, the mitotic rate was removed from the staging criteria because it was concluded that the use of 0.8 mm cut point for stratification of T1 tumors is more strongly associated with the prognosis of the disease. However, that should be further calculated and recorded in the histological reports (Table I) [44].

Table I.

The 8th Edition of the American Joint Committee of Cancer (AJCC) Melanoma Staging System.

T category Tumor thickness Ulceration

Tx -The thickness of the primary tumor cannot be assessed Not applicable Not applicable

T0 - No evidence of primary tumor Not applicable Not applicable

Tis - Melanoma in situ Not applicable Not applicable

 T1 ≤ 1.0 mm Unknown/unspecified

T1a < 0.8 mm No ulceration
T1b < 0.8 mm With ulceration
0.8–1 mm With/without ulceration

 T2 1–2 mm Unknown/unspecified

T2a 1–2 mm Without ulceration
T2b With ulceration

 T3 2–4 mm Unknown/unspecified

T3a 2–4 mm Without ulceration
T3b With ulceration

 T4 > 4 mm Unknown/unspecified

T4a > 4 mm Without ulceration
T4b With ulceration

N category The number of affected regional lymph nodes

Nx Lymph nodes cannot be evaluated

 N0 No regional metastases detected

 N1 Single lymph node metastases or transit/satellite metastases without lymph node metastasis

 N2 Metastases in two or three nodes or metastases in transit/satellites with metastasis in one node

 N3 Metastases in four or more lymph nodes or transit metastases/satellites with metastasis in two or more nodes or any number of lymph node metastases with/without transit/satellite metastases

M category Anatomical location

M0 No distant metastases detected

M1 Distant metastasis detected

Caldarella and colleagues showed that the most significant correlation with survival was at least 1 mitosis/mm2 [38].

In a recent retrospective study, investigators revealed that mitotic rate is the strongest predictor of survival after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy [2]. Another large study concluded that mitotic rate is an independent predictor for survival [45].

Regression

Histological regression can be found in 10 to 35% of melanomas [11] and is defined as the replacement of tumor cells with fibrous tissue, inflammatory cells, neoformation vessels and melanophages. It is considered to be the result of the interaction between the tumor cells and the host’s immune system via TILs (TILs - tumor infiltrating lymphocytes) [6,39,46,47].

Some authors believe that thin melanomas that showed regression and had a poor prognosis were initially thick melanomas and had a significant regression area in the past [48].

Clark and coworkers thought that regression gives a poor prognosis, especially in thin melanomas in which the primary lesion regresses by more than 75% [11,49]. It has long been considered a negative prognostic factor due to the assumption that it could affect the correct assessment of Breslow’s tumor thickness [36,50]. More recently, histological regression has been associated with a favorable prognosis. Two meta-analyses showed that tumor regression was associated with a low risk of lymph node metastases [51] and a favorable prognosis [52,53].

This may be due to the fact that histologic regression is correlated with an early activation of the immune system. Despite this, there are no data in the literature to demonstrate the predictive role of immunotherapy response. However, it has been shown that there are similarities between the immune infiltrate from tumor regression and vitiligo-like reaction produced by immunotherapy and target therapy [53].

In a recent study of thin melanomas, the authors showed low expression of CEACAM1 (CEACAM1- carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 1) in the tumor regression area. CEACAM1 is a key molecule that is associated with increased invasion and tumor progression in melanoma. This could strengthen the hypothesis that histological regression is rather a favorable prognostic factor in melanoma [54].

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs)

Nowadays, the role of the host immune response against the development of melanoma is much more debated and it is believed that TILs have a key role in this process [55]. Several studies have shown that the absence of TILs has an independent predictive role for the occurrence of lymph node or regional metastases.

For example, a study of 887 patients who underwent sentinel lymph node mapping showed that the absence of TILs was an independent predictive factor, in addition to tumor thickness, ulceration, and male sex. The absence of tumor infiltrate gives a 26.2% probability of developing lymph node metastases compared to a 3.9% probability of positive SLNB for melanomas with brisk infiltrate [56].

Other factors with prognostic significance for melanoma patients are microscopic satellites [11], tumor lymphangiogenesis [57], vascular invasion, angiotropism, neurotropism, cellular atypia or the association with melanocytic nevus. The presence of microscopic satellites seems to suggest the existence of lymphatic metastases. [11]. Some authors consider that tumor lymphangiogenesis is the strongest predictor for SLNB positivity. It might have even greater prognostic value than tumor thickness [57].

Conclusions

Biological behavior and prognostic factors for primary cutaneous melanomas are still debatable. We reviewed in this article some important clinical and histological parameters with prognostic value in melanoma patients. These factors are conventional and are found in histopathology reports. Breslow tumor thickness remains the strongest prognostic factor for melanoma in general. However, for thin melanomas, other morphological, biological or molecular parameters with a predictive role on survival are needed. Currently, only Clark invasion index and ulceration have proven their prognostic value in this type of melanoma.

More studies are needed to analyze the prognostic role for other parameters such as tumor regression, tumor mitotic rate or tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes activity. Representing most of the melanomas, optimization of diagnosis and staging of thin melanomas has become particularly challenging at present.

References

  • 1.Leiter U, Buettner PG, Eigentler TK, Garbe C. Prognostic factors of thin cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of the Central Malignant Melanoma Registry of the German Dermatological society. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3660–3667. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.03.074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Namikawa K, Aung PP, Gershenwald JE, Milton DR, Prieto VG. Clinical impact of ulceration width, lymphovascular invasion, microscopic satellitosis, perineural invasion, and mitotic rate in patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy for cutaneous melanoma: a retrospective observational study at a comprehensive cancer center. Cancer Med. 2018;7:583–593. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hieken TJ, Grotz TE, Comfere NI, Inselman JW, Habermann EB. The effect of the AJCC 7th edition change in T1 melanoma substaging on national utilization and outcomes of sentinel lymph node biopsy for thin melanoma. Melanoma Res. 2015;25:157–163. doi: 10.1097/CMR.0000000000000143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dye DE, Medic S, Ziman M, Coombe DR. Melanoma biomolecules: independently identified but functionally intertwined. Front Oncol. 2013;3:252. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2013.00252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Karakousis G, Gimotty PA, Bartlett EK, Sim MS, Neuwirth MG, Fraker D, et al. Thin Melanoma with Nodal Involvement: Analysis of Demographic, Pathologic, and Treatment Factors with Regard to Prognosis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:952–959. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5646-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Payette MJ, Katz M, 3rd, Grant-Kels JM. Melanoma prognostic factors found in the dermatopathology report. Clin Dermatol. 2009;27:53–74. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2008.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Paradela S, Fonseca E, Pita-Fernández S, Kantrow SM, Diwan AH, Herzog C, et al. Prognostic factors for melanoma in children and adolescents: a clinicopathologic, single-center study of 137 patients. Cancer. 2010;116:4334–4344. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Egger ME, Stepp LO, Callender GG, Quillo AR, Martin RC, 2nd, Scoggins CR, et al. Outcomes and prognostic factors in superficial spreading melanoma. Am J Surg. 2013;206:861–868. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.09.003. discussion 867–868. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Piñero-Madrona A, Ruiz-Merino G, Cerezuela Fuentes P, Martínez-Barba E, Rodríguez-López JN, Cabezas-Herrera J. Mitotic rate as an important prognostic factor in cutaneous malignant melanoma. Clin Transl Oncol. 2019;21:1348–1356. doi: 10.1007/s12094-019-02064-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chao C, Martin RC, 2nd, Ross MI, Reintgen DS, Edwards MJ, Noyes RD, et al. Correlation between prognostic factors and increasing age in melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11:259–264. doi: 10.1245/aso.2004.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tejera-Vaquerizo A, Solís-García E, Ríos-Martín JJ, Moreno-Ramírez D. Primary cutaneous melanoma: prognostic factors not included in the classification of the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2011;102:255–263. doi: 10.1016/j.ad.2011.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Clary BM, Brady MS, Lewis JJ, Coit DG. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in the management of patients with primary cutaneous melanoma: review of a large single-institutional experience with an emphasis on recurrence. Ann Surg. 2001;233:250–258. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200102000-00015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Busam KJ, Murali R, Pulitzer M, McCarthy SW, Thompson JF, Shaw HM, et al. Atypical spitzoid melanocytic tumors with positive sentinel lymph nodes in children and teenagers, and comparison with histologically unambiguous and lethal melanomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33:1386–1395. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181ac1927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lewis KG. Trends in pediatric melanoma mortality in the United States, 1968 through 2004. Dermatol Surg. 2008;34:152–159. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2007.34032.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Youl P, Aitken J, Hayward N, Hogg D, Liu L, Lassam N, et al. Melanoma in adolescents: a case-control study of risk factors in Queensland, Australia. Int J Cancer. 2002;98:92–98. doi: 10.1002/ijc.10117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kaddu S, Smolle J, Zenahlik P, Hofmann-Wellenhof R, Kerl H. Melanoma with benign melanocytic naevus components: reappraisal of clinicopathological features and prognosis. Melanoma Res. 2002;12:271–278. doi: 10.1097/00008390-200206000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ra JH, McMasters KM, Spitz FR. Should all melanoma patients undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy? Curr Opin Oncol. 2006;18:185–188. doi: 10.1097/01.cco.0000208793.30065.77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Garbe C, Büttner P, Bertz J, Burg G, d’Hoedt B, Drepper H, et al. Primary cutaneous melanoma. Identification of prognostic groups and estimation of individual prognosis for 5093 patients. Cancer. 1995;75:2484–2491. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19950515)75:10<2484::aid-cncr2820751014>3.0.co;2-u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Travers RL, Sober AJ, Berwick M, Mihm MC, Jr, Barnhill RL, Duncan LM. Increased thickness of pregnancy-associated melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 1995;132:876–883. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.1995.tb16942.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lindholm C, Andersson R, Dufmats M, Hansson J, Ingvar C, Möller T, et al. Invasive cutaneous malignant melanoma in Sweden, 1990–1999: A prospective, population-based study of survival and prognostic factors. Cancer. 2004;101:2067–2078. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Massi D, Franchi A, Borgognoni L, Reali UM, Santucci M. Thin cutaneous malignant melanomas (< or =1.5 mm): identification of risk factors indicative of progression. Cancer. 1999;85:1067–1076. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19990301)85:5<1067::aid-cncr9>3.0.co;2-t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gimotty PA, Guerry DP, Ming ME, Elenitsas R, Xu X, Czerniecki B, et al. Thin primary cutaneous malignant melanoma: a prognostic tree for 10-year metastasis is more accurate than American Joint Committee on Cancer staging. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3668–3676. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.12.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.McKinnon JG, Yu XQ, McCarthy WH, Thompson JF. Prognosis for patients with thin cutaneous melanoma: long-term survival data from the New South Wales Central Cancer Registry and the Sydney Melanoma Unit. Cancer. 2003;98:1223–1231. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lachiewicz AM, Berwick M, Wiggins CL, Thomas NE. Survival differences between patients with scalp or neck melanoma and those with melanoma of other sites in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Arch Dermatol. 2008;144:515–521. doi: 10.1001/archderm.144.4.515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Meier F, Will S, Ellwanger U, Schlagenhauff B, Schittek B, Rassner G, et al. Metastatic pathways and time courses in the orderly progression of cutaneous melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 2002;147:62–70. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2002.04867.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Breslow A. Thickness, cross-sectional areas and depth of invasion in the prognosis of cutaneous melanoma. Ann Surg. 1970;172:902–908. doi: 10.1097/00000658-197011000-00017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lyth J, Hansson J, Ingvar C, Månsson-Brahme E, Naredi P, Stierner U, et al. Prognostic subclassifications of T1 cutaneous melanomas based on ulceration, tumour thickness and Clark’s level of invasion: results of a population-based study from the Swedish Melanoma Register. Br J Dermatol. 2013;168:779–786. doi: 10.1111/bjd.12095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Clark WH, Jr, From L, Bernardino EA, Mihm MC. The histogenesis and biologic behavior of primary human malignant melanomas of the skin. Cancer Res. 1969;29:705–727. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Garbe C, Büttner P, Bertz J, Burg G, d’Hoedt B, Drepper H, et al. Primary cutaneous melanoma. Prognostic classification of anatomic location. Cancer. 1995;75:2492–2498. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19950515)75:10<2492::aid-cncr2820751015>3.0.co;2-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Morton DL, Davtyan DG, Wanek LA, Foshag LJ, Cochran AJ. Multivariate analysis of the relationship between survival and the microstage of primary melanoma by Clark level and Breslow thickness. Cancer. 1993;71:3737–3743. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19930601)71:11<3737::aid-cncr2820711143>3.0.co;2-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Måsbäck A, Olsson H, Westerdahl J, Ingvar C, Jonsson N. Prognostic factors in invasive cutaneous malignant melanoma: a population-based study and review. Melanoma Res. 2001;11:435–445. doi: 10.1097/00008390-200110000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Balch CM, Murad TM, Soong SJ, Ingalls AL, Halpern NB, Maddox WA. A multifactorial analysis of melanoma: prognostic histopathological features comparing Clark’s and Breslow’s staging methods. Ann Surg. 1978;188:732–742. doi: 10.1097/00000658-197812000-00004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Balch CM, Soong SJ, Gershenwald JE, Thompson JF, Reintgen DS, Cascinelli N, et al. Prognostic factors analysis of 17,600 melanoma patients: validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging system. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3622–3634. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.16.3622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Häffner AC, Garbe C, Burg G, Büttner P, Orfanos CE, Rassner G. The prognosis of primary and metastasising melanoma. An evaluation of the TNM classification in 2,495 patients. Br J Cancer. 1992;66:856–861. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1992.373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Schuchter LM. Review of the 2001 AJCC staging system for cutaneous malignant melanoma. Curr Oncol Rep. 2001;3:332–337. doi: 10.1007/s11912-001-0086-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, Thompson JF, Atkins MB, Byrd DR, et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:6199–6206. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.4799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chu VH, Tetzlaff MT, Torres-Cabala CA, Prieto VG, Bassett R, Jr, Gershenwald JE, et al. Impact of the 2009 (7th Edition) AJCC melanoma staging system in the classification of thin cutaneous melanomas. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:898719. doi: 10.1155/2013/898719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Caldarella A, Fancelli L, Manneschi G, Chiarugi A, Nardini P, Crocetti E. How staging of thin melanoma is changed after the introduction of TNM 7th edition: a population-based analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016;142:73–76. doi: 10.1007/s00432-015-2007-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Crowson AN, Magro CM, Mihm MC. Prognosticators of melanoma, the melanoma report, and the sentinel lymph node. Mod Pathol. 2006;19(Suppl 2):S71–S87. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.3800517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lassau N, Koscielny S, Avril MF, Margulis A, Duvillard P, De Baere T, et al. Prognostic value of angiogenesis evaluated with high-frequency and color Doppler sonography for preoperative assessment of melanomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:1547–1551. doi: 10.2214/ajr.178.6.1781547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Balch CM, Wilkerson JA, Murad TM, Soong SJ, Ingalls AL, Maddox WA. The prognostic significance of ulceration of cutaneous melanoma. Cancer. 1980;45:3012–3017. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19800615)45:12<3012::aid-cncr2820451223>3.0.co;2-o. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Azzola MF, Shaw HM, Thompson JF, Soong SJ, Scolyer RA, Watson GF, et al. Tumor mitotic rate is a more powerful prognostic indicator than ulceration in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of 3661 patients from a single center. Cancer. 2003;97:1488–1498. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Barnhill RL, Katzen J, Spatz A, Fine J, Berwick M. The importance of mitotic rate as a prognostic factor for localized cutaneous melanoma. J Cutan Pathol. 2005;32:268–273. doi: 10.1111/j.0303-6987.2005.00310.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gershenwald JE, Scolyer RA, Hess KR, Sondak VK, Long GV, Ross MI, et al. Melanoma staging: Evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:472–492. doi: 10.3322/caac.21409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Evans JL, Vidri RJ, MacGillivray DC, Fitzgerald TL. Tumor mitotic rate is an independent predictor of survival for nonmetastatic melanoma. Surgery. 2018;164:589–593. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2018.04.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Zettersten E, Shaikh L, Ramirez R, Kashani-Sabet M. Prognostic factors in primary cutaneous melanoma. Surg Clin North Am. 2003;83:61–75. doi: 10.1016/s0039-6109(02)00094-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Cartron AM, Aldana PC, Khachemoune A. Reporting regression in primary cutaneous melanoma. Part 1: history, histological criteria and pathogenesis. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2021;46:28–33. doi: 10.1111/ced.14328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Gromet MA, Epstein WL, Blois MS. The regressing thin malignant melanoma: a distinctive lesion with metastatic potential. Cancer. 1978;42:2282–2292. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197811)42:5<2282::aid-cncr2820420528>3.0.co;2-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Clark WH, Jr, Elder DE, Guerry D, 4th, Braitman LE, Trock BJ, Schultz D, et al. Model predicting survival in stage I melanoma based on tumor progression. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81:1893–1904. doi: 10.1093/jnci/81.24.1893. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Slingluff CL, Jr, Seigler HF. “Thin” malignant melanoma: risk factors and clinical management. Ann Plast Surg. 1992;28:89–94. doi: 10.1097/00000637-199201000-00023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ribero S, Gualano MR, Osella-Abate S, Scaioli G, Bert F, Sanlorenzo M, et al. Association of Histologic Regression in Primary Melanoma With Sentinel Lymph Node Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:1301–1307. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.2235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Gualano MR, Osella-Abate S, Scaioli G, Marra E, Bert F, Faure E, et al. Prognostic role of histological regression in primary cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol. 2018;178:357–362. doi: 10.1111/bjd.15552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ribero S. Histological regression in primary melanoma and drug-related immune reaction towards metastatic melanoma: Are they associated?? Med Hypotheses. 2020;143:110019. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Nichita L, Zurac S, Bastian A, Stinga P, Nedelcu R, Brinzea A, et al. Comparative analysis of CEACAM1 expression in thin melanomas with and without regression. Oncol Lett. 2019;17:4149–4154. doi: 10.3892/ol.2019.10067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Antohe M, Nedelcu RI, Nichita L, Popp CG, Cioplea M, Brinzea A, et al. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes: The regulator of melanoma evolution. Oncol Lett. 2019;17:4155–4161. doi: 10.3892/ol.2019.9940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Taylor RC, Patel A, Panageas KS, Busam KJ, Brady MS. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes predict sentinel lymph node positivity in patients with cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:869–875. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.9755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Dadras SS, Lange-Asschenfeldt B, Velasco P, Nguyen L, Vora A, Muzikansky A, et al. Tumor lymphangiogenesis predicts melanoma metastasis to sentinel lymph nodes. Mod Pathol. 2005;18:1232–1242. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.3800410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine and Pharmacy Reports are provided here courtesy of University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Cluj-Napoca, Romania

RESOURCES