Abstract
In spite of the good prognosis of patients with early-stage melanoma, there is a substantial proportion of them that develop local or distant relapses. With the introduction of targeted and immune therapies for advanced melanoma, including at the adjuvant setting, early detection of recurrent melanoma and/or second primary lesions is crucial to improve clinical outcomes. However, there is a lack of universal guidelines regarding both frequency of surveillance visits and diagnostic imaging and/or laboratory evaluations. In this article, a multidisciplinary expert panel recommends, after careful review of relevant data in the field, a consensus- and experience-based follow-up strategy for melanoma patients, taking into account prognostic factors and biomarkers and the high-risk periods and patterns of recurrence in each (sub) stage of the disease. Apart from the surveillance intensity, healthcare professionals should focus on patients’ education to perform regular self-examinations of the skin and palpation of lymph nodes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Melanoma is a skin cancer with high impact due to its growing incidence, high mortality rate, and elevated costs of care in advanced stages. Clinical, dermatological, and histopathological presentation is heterogeneous, and several risk factors have been identified (skin type, exposure to sun radiation, number of nevi, age, gender, immune status, family history or former melanomas) [1]. During the last years, research efforts have been focused on shifting melanoma diagnosis toward earlier stages, preventing its occurrence, and developing breakthrough treatments. The introduction of new systemic therapies (immune checkpoint inhibitors and small‐molecule-targeted drugs) has significantly improved patient prognosis and changed the landscape of advanced melanoma management [2]. These therapies are now indicated for unresectable stage III and stage IV melanoma [3, 4] and, in the adjuvant setting, for resectable stage III melanoma at high risk of recurrence [5,6,7,8,9].
Nearly 70% of primary melanomas are diagnosed before evidence of metastasis and are potentially curable by surgery only. In spite of the good prognosis, there is a substantial proportion of stage I–II melanoma patients that experience local and distant relapses within five years and even die [10,11,12]. Thus, early detection of recurrent melanoma, when it is amenable to be treated, is crucial to improve clinical outcomes. Due to the increased risk of second primary melanomas [13], detection of new lesions is another important issue in melanoma follow-up. However, there is a lack of universal guidelines regarding both frequency of surveillance visits and diagnostic imaging and/or laboratory evaluations [14]. In an effort to standardize the follow-up strategy for patients with different melanoma stages and understand which patient characteristics and disease-related factors could inform the optimal surveillance, a multidisciplinary expert panel performed an exhaustive literature review and provided consensus recommendations on the basis of the best available data and their own clinical experience.
Prognosis based on melanoma TNM staging: the need of additional prognostic factors
An accurate melanoma staging classification is crucial for initial patient assessment, treatment planning, and instructing surveillance strategies. The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC8) melanoma staging system introduced key changes regarding subcategorization of T and M, and pathologic stage grouping of stage I and III [15], resulting in stage shift from the previous edition (AJCC7) with better survival rates. Several studies applying the AJCC8 system to classify their patients have shown that outcomes in stage IIIA melanoma, in terms of recurrence-free survival (RFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS), are better than those in stages IIC and even IIB (Table 1) [16,17,18]. These findings highlight the limitations of the conventional TNM approach because nodal positivity itself is not necessarily associated with poorer outcomes, so additional prognostic factors should be considered.
The use of nomograms that include other pathological and demographic characteristics could facilitate a better stratification of recurrence or mortality risk in patients with early melanoma stages [19, 20]. For this purpose, it is necessary that the following elements of a primary lesion are included in the pathological report: Breslow thickness (mm), ulceration, dermal mitotic rate (per mm2), peripheral and deep margin status, and microsatellitosis, which are considered essential factors [21]. Additional prognostic features that may be informative are macroscopic appearance (diameter), lymphovascular invasion, histologic subtype, tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes, neurotropism/perineural invasion, tumor regression, and Clark level [22]. In patients with stage IIB or higher melanoma, BRAF and KIT mutation status should be examined, as it also has prognostic impact [23, 24], apart from aiding to select the future therapy, if needed. The use of gene expression profiling for prognosis of early-stage melanomas is becoming more and more prevalent. This testing provides binary risk assessment and may be considered as an adjunctive tool to formulate individualized follow-up [25,26,27,28].
Role of sentinel lymph node biopsy and complete lymph node dissection beyond staging
The value of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy as a key technique for accurate staging of the regional nodal basin is well established. It is indicated for patients with intermediate-thickness melanoma (1.1–4.0 mm; T2–T4) and patients with T1b melanoma (≥ 0.8–1.0 mm thickness or < 0.8 mm with other high-risk histologic features such us ulceration, high mitotic rate [> 2/mm2], and/or lymphovascular invasion) [29]. SLN biopsy should be considered for the latest in an individualized basis. Sentinel node positivity elevates melanomas from stages I–II to III, which obviously has prognostic and therapeutic implications [15, 30]. Apart from the staging utility, SLN biopsy is associated with lower regional node recurrence [31], possibly because the only important focus of metastatic melanoma is removed by the procedure [32]. However, the drawback of biopsy in terms of complications and sequelae and the possibility of using other less invasive strategies make this technique optional in some cases, such as in frail patients [33].
The findings of the phase III studies MSLT-2 and DeCOG-SLT [34, 35] regarding the therapeutic value of immediate completion lymph node dissection (CLND) after positive SLN biopsy were practice-changing, and immediate CLND is no longer routinely recommended for all patients with sentinel node positivity, given the lack of benefit in terms of MMS (86% for CLND vs 86% for observation) or distant metastasis-free survival (75% for CNLD vs 77% for observation). In addition, the node intervention is associated with significant morbidity, for example lymphedema (24% for CNLD vs 6% for observation) [34]. However, the reduction of the number of CLNSs will lead to a loss of valuable prognostic information for treatment decisions. All the risks, benefits and alternatives of the procedure should be discussed with the patients before deciding whether or not to undergo CLND, and they should be offered similar clinical and ultrasound (US) follow-up of the regional lymph basins that was done in the MSLT-2 and DeCOG-SLT trials [34, 35]. The development of nomograms to predict the risk of non-sentinel node positivity may help clinicians to discuss with patients the opportunity of CLND [36,37,38]. Those patients with sentinel node macrometastasis (> 2 mm) or extracapsular extension will probably benefit from CLND.
Follow-up strategy according to recurrence risk and patterns
There is considerable variability in the post-surgery melanoma surveillance and international guidelines are usually flexible to accommodate a range of clinical practices [21, 39, 40]. An important issue to consider is the relapse pattern of each stage (or substage) and the associated risk factors. It has been shown that the median time to relapse in stage I–II and stage III patients is around 22 months and 13 months, respectively, being higher mitotic rate the main risk factor for poor RFS in both groups [41]. Most of the melanomas in node-positive patients (57.9%) developed distant metastases (predominantly, in lung, bone, liver, and brain), while locoregional relapses were more frequent (56.6%) in the stage I–II group [41]. Information about the most prevalent locations of relapse is important for targeting radiologic surveillance at specific body regions and to allocate selected patient groups for an efficient follow-up program. For example, Haydu et al. found that the cumulative incidence of brain metastasis at 5 years in patients with stage III melanoma ranged from 6.5% in IIIA substage to 29.4% in IIID substage [42], which may be useful for determining the pertinence or frequency of surveillance scans for brain lesions. Among patients with stage II melanoma, there are also differences in the risk and pattern of relapse by substage, as evidence demonstrated that stage IIC patients relapsed more frequently, earlier, and were more likely to relapse systemically (again the lung was the predominant site of systemic recurrence) [43]. Of note, relapses were mainly detected by the patients in all substages, followed by physician detection of local/in-transit and nodal relapses in asymptomatic patients, whereas programmed imaging detected 31% of systemic relapses in stage IIC patients [43]. These findings highlight the role of the patient in his/her own surveillance and the relevance of patients’ education on self-examination [44].
Surveillance imaging during the follow-up
The role of imaging in the follow-up of patients with high-risk melanoma is increasingly relevant with the availability of effective targeted and immunotherapies, and it is particular important to detect the relapse as soon as possible to improve survival outcomes [45,46,47]. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal imaging modalities and schedules to best identify melanoma recurrences, but most of them, except the UK guidelines [48], recommend surveillance imaging from stage IIB (Table 2).
There is no doubt that cross-sectional imaging can aid in the early detection of systemic metastasis in melanoma patients [49,50,51], but an OS benefit was, until recently, not proven. A recent real-world investigation that included stage IIB–IIIC patients who underwent imaging surveillance compared the treatment and survival outcomes of patients with asymptomatic surveillance-detected recurrence (ASDR) versus symptomatic recurrence [52]. ASDR (45% of cases) relapse was associated with lower burden of disease at recurrence, better prognostic factors, higher rates and response to systemic treatment, and improved survival outcomes. Besides, scan interval also influenced the proportion of ASDRs: 57% for a 0–6-month interval; 34% for a 6–12-month interval; and 33% for intervals > 12 months [52]. Another retrospective study showed that whole-body imaging detected 50% of asymptomatic recurrences in stage IIC or higher resected melanoma patients [53]. Among stage II patients, routine imaging has demonstrated to be important in detecting recurrence in patients with distant metastasis and with substage IIC melanoma [54], whereas patients and physicians are more likely to diagnose locoregional disease and less likely to detect progressive systemic disease [43, 55].
Current follow-up imaging protocols are subject to a wide variation in relation to the timing of these studies and the clinical stages in which they should be performed (Table 2). Many published imaging protocols to detect recurrences in high-risk patients (stages IIB–IV) included at least three computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scans during the first 3 years of follow-up, normally two by year [56]. Even a more intensive CT surveillance schedule of every 3 months for the 1 year of follow-up has been suggested for patients with stage IIIB–IIIC melanoma [46].
Regarding detection of lesions in the brain, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) seems to be more sensitive that PET/CT [57] and it is usually recommended during the follow-up of stage IIC or higher [21, 58, 59]. As stated above, patients with SLN micrometastasis should receive frequent nodal US evaluation by an experienced radiologist when they are not treated with CLND, ideally every 3–4 months during the first 2 years, every 6 months during years 3 through 5, and then annually, based on MSLT-II and DeCOG-SLT trials [34, 35]; the elevated prevalence of regional nodal recurrences makes also nodal US a key element of the surveillance of stage II melanomas [60].
Despite the clinical advantage of intensive follow-up imaging surveillance, the cost of large numbers of imaging tests, and the relatively low diagnostic performance of certain imaging techniques should be taken into account. In this setting, Podlipnik, et al. evaluated the cost-effectiveness of different imaging protocols for follow-up of stage IIB, IIC and III malignant melanoma. These authors concluded that CT is cost-effective in the first 3 years in stage IIB melanoma and in the first 4 years of follow-up in stage IIC–III melanoma and that brain MRI is cost-effective in the 1 year in stage IIC–III melanoma [61].
Potential biomarkers to support melanoma surveillance
Several biomarkers have been examined for their clinical utility in melanoma, but few have been validated or approved for clinical use. Levels of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), a marker of tumor burden and progression, are traditionally determined among patients with advanced disease, as elevated LDH levels are an independent predictor of poor survival [62], and it is included in the TNM classification [15]. A valid approach for patients with stage II and III melanoma may be to test LDH every 3–6 months during the first 2 years, and every 6–12 months until 5 years. Serum S100B protein is also seen as a measure of tumor burden and it has been investigated for its potential to select stage III patients for CLND [36] and to detect disease relapse during follow‐up of stage IIB-III patients using the dynamic changes of S100B levels [63]. However, there are no prospective studies validating its implementation in clinical practice.
Imaging biomarkers represent an attractive non-invasive alternative to predict long-term outcomes in patients with melanoma. PET-based metabolic parameters, such as SUV max and total lesion glycolysis, were significantly higher in patients with recurrence versus without recurrence and non-survivors versus survivors [64,65,66]. Moreover, a negative PET 18 months after surgery seems to be highly predictive (80–84%) of subsequent non-recurrence in stage III melanoma, which may provide reassurance for patient and clinicians [67]. Finally, Reinert et al. evidenced an association of PET parameters with serologic tumor markers (LDH and S-100 protein) and inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein and alkaline phosphatase) in melanoma patients and demonstrated their role as independent imaging predictors for overall survival [68].
With the improvements in genomic and molecular methods, liquid biopsy, a blood-based analysis of tumor-specific biomarkers, has been proposed as a valuable tool to identify early cancer progression [69]. Particularly, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is emerging as a prognostic marker of relapse in stage II/III melanoma, as it can reveal occult metastatic disease that is not evident on radiological imaging [70]. There is also evidence that ctDNA concentration in advanced disease is significantly associated with solid tumor burden as determined by imaging, suggesting that it may provide a blood-based means to monitor tumor burden more frequently than imaging [71]. Moreover, increasing ctDNA levels could detect disease progression significantly earlier than do routine radiologic scans [72]. Once the methods to determine ctDNA are standardized, its implementation for the routine follow-up of melanoma patients as part of personalized medicine will broadly establish.
Outpatient follow-up and detection of second primary melanomas
Dermatologists and primary care physicians have an essential role in the multidisciplinary follow-up care for melanoma patients after primary lesion excision. Clinical recommendations after melanoma diagnosis and treatment should focus on patient education to increase compliance with sun protection and to perform self-examinations of the skin and lymph nodes for recurrence detection [73]. Moreover, it is well known that patients with melanoma have an increased risk of having other melanomas and non-melanoma skin cancers [74, 75], highlighting the importance of rigorous controls and adherence to regular full skin body examination. In this regard, digital dermoscopy is currently an effective tool for screening and diagnosing melanoma when employed by experienced users, decreasing the number of unnecessary excisions and enabling the detection of thinner melanomas compared to naked eye examination [76,77,78].
Risk factors for future primary melanomas include presence of atypical nevi, a family history of melanoma, a history of previous melanoma or non‐melanoma skin cancer, sun exposure, and fair skin and hair pigmentation [1]. Familial melanoma should be suspected in individuals with a younger than usual age of diagnosis (< 54 years at diagnosis), personal or family history of melanoma and/or pancreatic cancer, or multiple dysplastic nevi [79]. The criteria for offering a genetic testing in Spain (a geographical area with low incidence of melanoma) are the following: at least, two primary melanomas in an individual; or two cases of melanoma among first- or second-degree relatives; or one case of melanoma and one case of pancreatic cancer in first- or second-degree relatives [80]. Genetic testing should include the germline mutations in high-penetrance melanoma predisposition genes, CDKN2A (cyclin-dependent kinase 2A) and CDK4 (cyclin-dependent kinase 4) [81]. Other genetic predisposition syndromes associated with increased risk of melanoma are breast–ovarian cancer predisposition syndrome (BRCA genes), Li-Fraumeni syndrome (TP53), xeroderma pigmentosum (XP genes), and Cowden syndrome (PTEN) [82].
Recommendations and conclusions
Although there is no robust evidence that clearly defines the clinical follow-up of these patients,, based on available guidelines, the evidence discussed in the previous sections, and their own clinical experience, the expert panel’s recommendations for melanoma patients’ follow-up (Table 3) consider:
-
(1)
The suitability of intensifying follow-up in the 1 years.
-
(2)
The need to adapt it to the patient’s risk (substage, pathological and molecular characteristics, etc.).
-
(3)
The possible use of more sensitive imaging techniques, such as PET, which, given the clinical benefit of early detection of asymptomatic tumor relapse, could be cost-effective in the first years of follow-up.
-
(4)
The use of imaging techniques in specific organs, such as brain MRI or ultrasound, in the follow-up of certain clinical stages based on the higher risk of relapse at that level.
This is currently the protocol used in our regional practice. We consider that the varying survival outcomes among stage II melanoma patients, currently not eligible for adjuvant treatment, should focused the attention on this population, with more exhaustive imaging-based surveillance (lymph node US and body CT scan) for those with thicker tumors [83]. Head MRI is recommended at baseline and every 6 months for 3 years in patients with stage IIC or higher, as it has been shown to be a frequent site of relapse [42, 43]. Given that the greatest benefits shown in the metastatic setting with targeted therapy and immunotherapy, both in response and survival rates, are associated with lower tumor burden, it is reasonable to think that the sooner the recurrence is detected, the tumor burden will also be lower, and therefore, the chances of obtaining a survival benefit will be greater. Detecting recurrence at a time of lower tumor burden, when patients are asymptomatic, may lead to improved clinical outcomes with effective systemic therapies. Additionally, the identification of individuals at high risk for developing second primary melanomas is essential to tailor surveillance intensity, and patients should be aware of the importance of regular self-examination [84]. The provided recommendations are intended to assist health care professionals in their decisions about the frequency and type of assessments to be performed during the follow-up of early-stage melanoma patients with high risk of recurrence. These recommendations could serve as a basis for future prospective observational studies and even be updated if new scientific evidence emerges.
References
Schadendorf D, van Akkooi ACJ, Berking C, Griewank KG, Gutzmer R, Hauschild A, et al. Melanoma. Lancet. 2018;392:971–84.
Pasquali S, Hadjinicolaou AV, ChiarionSileni V, Rossi CR, Mocellin S. Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2018;2:CD011123–CD011123.
Larkin J, Hodi FS, Wolchok JD. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1270–1.
Flaherty KT, Infante JR, Daud A, Gonzalez R, Kefford RF, Sosman J, et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1694–703.
Eggermont AMM, Blank CU, Mandala M, Long GV, Atkinson V, Dalle S, et al. Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1789–801.
Eggermont AMM, Chiarion-Sileni V, Grob J-J, Dummer R, Wolchok JD, Schmidt H, et al. Adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:522–30.
Eggermont AMM, Chiarion-Sileni V, Grob J-J, Dummer R, Wolchok JD, Schmidt H, et al. Prolonged survival in stage III melanoma with ipilimumab adjuvant therapy. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1845–55.
Weber J, Mandala M, Del Vecchio M, Gogas HJ, Arance AM, Cowey CL, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III or IV melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1824–35.
Long GV, Hauschild A, Santinami M, Atkinson V, Mandalà M, Chiarion-Sileni V, et al. Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1813–23.
Whiteman DC, Baade PD, Olsen CM. More people die from thin melanomas (⩽1 mm) than from thick melanomas (>4 mm) in Queensland. Australia J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135:1190–3.
Landow SM, Gjelsvik A, Weinstock MA. Mortality burden and prognosis of thin melanomas overall and by subcategory of thickness, SEER registry data, 1992–2013. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:258–63.
Thomas DC, Han G, Leong SP, Kashani-Sabet M, Vetto J, Pockaj B, et al. Recurrence of melanoma after a negative sentinel node biopsy: predictors and impact of recurrence site on survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:2254–62.
Leiter U, Buettner PG, Eigentler TK, Bröcker EB, Voit C, Gollnick H, et al. Hazard rates for recurrent and secondary cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of 33,384 patients in the German central malignant melanoma registry. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;66:37–45.
Trotter SC, Sroa N, Winkelmann RR, Olencki T, Bechtel M. A Global review of melanoma follow-up guidelines. J Clin Aesthet Dermato. 2013;6:18–26.
Gershenwald JE, Scolyer RA, Hess KR, Sondak VK, Long GV, Ross MI, et al. Melanoma staging: evidencebased changes in the American Joint committee on cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:472–92.
Fujisawa Y, Yoshikawa S, Minagawa A, Takenouchi T, Yokota K, Uchi H, et al. Classification of 3097 patients from the Japanese melanoma study database using the American joint committee on cancer eighth edition cancer staging system. J Dermatol Sci. 2019;94:284–9.
Kanaki T, Stang A, Gutzmer R, Zimmer L, Chorti E, Sucker A, et al. Impact of American joint committee on cancer 8th edition classification on staging and survival of patients with melanoma. Eur J Cancer. 2019;119:18–29.
Bajaj S, Donnelly D, Call M, Johannet P, Moran U, Polsky D, et al. Melanoma prognosis: accuracy of the American joint Committee on cancer staging manual eighth edition. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112:921–8.
Maurichi A, Miceli R, Camerini T, Mariani L, Patuzzo R, Ruggeri R, et al. Prediction of survival in patients with thin melanoma: results from a multi-institution study. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2479–85.
Han D, Han G, Morrison S, Leong SP, Kashani-Sabet M, Vetto J, et al. Factors predicting survival in thick melanoma: do all thick melanomas have the same prognosis? Surgery. 2020;168:518–26.
Swetter SM, Tsao H, Bichakjian CK, Curiel-Lewandrowski C, Elder DE, Gershenwald JE, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of primary cutaneous melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:208–50.
Tejera-Vaquerizo A, Fernández-Figueras MT, Santos-Briz Á, Ríos-Martín JJ, Monteagudo C, Fernández-Flores Á, et al. Protocol for the histologic diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma: consensus statement of the Spanish society of pathology and the Spanish academy of dermatology and venereology (AEDV) for the national cutaneous melanoma registry. Actas DermoSifiliogr. 2021;112:32–43.
Ny L, Hernberg M, Nyakas M, Koivunen J, Oddershede L, Yoon M, et al. BRAF mutational status as a prognostic marker for survival in malignant melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Oncol. 2020;59:833–44.
Hodi FS, Corless CL, Giobbie-Hurder A, Fletcher JA, Zhu M, Marino-Enriquez A, et al. Imatinib for melanomas harboring mutationally activated or amplified KIT arising on mucosal, acral, and chronically sun-damaged skin. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3182–90.
Ferris LK, Farberg AS, Middlebrook B, Johnson CE, Lassen N, Oelschlager KM, et al. Identification of high-risk cutaneous melanoma tumors is improved when combining the online American joint committee on cancer individualized melanoma patient outcome prediction tool with a 31-gene expression profile-based classification. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:818-825.e3.
Hsueh EC, DeBloom JR, Lee J, Sussman JJ, Covington KR, Middlebrook B, et al. Interim analysis of survival in a prospective, multi-center registry cohort of cutaneous melanoma tested with a prognostic 31-gene expression profile test. J Hematol Oncol. 2017;10:152.
Gastman BR, Gerami P, Kurley SJ, Cook RW, Leachman S, Vetto JT. Identification of patients at risk of metastasis using a prognostic 31-gene expression profile in subpopulations of melanoma patients with favorable outcomes by standard criteria. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:149-157.e4.
Greenhaw BN, Covington KR, Kurley SJ, Yeniay Y, Cao NA, Plasseraud KM, et al. Molecular risk prediction in cutaneous melanoma: a meta-analysis of the 31-gene expression profile prognostic test in 1479 patients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83:745–53.
Botella-Estrada R, Boada-García A, Carrera-Álvarez C, Fernández-Figueras M, González-Cao M, Moreno-Ramírez D, et al. Clinical practice guideline on melanoma from the Spanish academy of dermatology and venereology (AEDV). Actas Dermosifiliog. 2021;112:142–52.
Fonseca IB, Lindote MVN, Monteiro MR, Doria Filho E, Pinto CAL, Jafelicci AS, et al. Sentinel node status is the most important prognostic information for clinical stage IIB and IIC melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:4133–40.
Crystal J, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, Hyngstrom J, Caraco C, Zager JS, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in melanoma is therapeutic: predictors of long-term node basin control with SLN biopsy alone. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:S31–2.
Pizarro Á. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in melanoma does have therapeutic utility. Actas DermoSifiliogr. 2020;111:536–7.
Ipenburg NA, Thompson JF, Uren RF, Chung D, Nieweg OE. Focused ultrasound surveillance of lymph nodes following lymphoscintigraphy without sentinel node biopsy: a useful and safe strategy in elderly or frail melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:2855–63.
Faries MB, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, Andtbacka RH, Mozzillo N, Zager JS, et al. Completion dissection or observation for sentinel-node metastasis in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2211–22.
Leiter U, Stadler R, Mauch C, Hohenberger W, Brockmeyer NH, Berking C, et al. Final analysis of DeCOG-SLT trial: no survival benefit for complete lymph node dissection in patients with melanoma with positive sentinel node. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:3000–8.
Damude S, Wevers KP, Murali R, Kruijff S, Hoekstra HJ, Bastiaannet E. A prediction tool incorporating the biomarker S-100B for patient selection for completion lymph node dissection in stage III melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:1753–9.
Rossi CR, Mocellin S, Campana LG, Borgognoni L, Sestini S, Giudice G, et al. Prediction of non-sentinel node status in patients with melanoma and positive sentinel node biopsy: an Italian melanoma intergroup (IMI) study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:271–9.
Bellomo D, Arias-Mejias SM, Ramana C, Heim JB, Quattrocchi E, Sominidi-Damodaran S, et al. Model combining tumor molecular and clinicopathologic risk factors predicts sentinel lymph node metastasis in primary cutaneous melanoma. JCO Precis Oncol. 2020;4:319–34.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, Melanoma: Cutaneous, Version 2.2022. 2022. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cutaneous_melanoma.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2022
Michielin O, van Akkooi ACJ, Ascierto PA, Dummer R, Keilholz U. Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1884–901.
Tas F, Erturk K. Relapse patterns in patients with local and regional cutaneous melanoma. Clin Transl Oncol. 2019;21:412–9.
Haydu LE, Lo SN, McQuade JL, Amaria RN, Wargo J, Ross MI, et al. Cumulative incidence and predictors of CNS metastasis for patients with american joint committee on cancer 8th edition stage III melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:1429–41.
Lee AY, Droppelmann N, Panageas KS, Zhou Q, Ariyan CE, Brady MS, et al. Patterns and timing of initial relapse in pathologic stage II melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:939–46.
Robinson JK, Reavy R, Mallett KA, Turrisi R. Remote skin self-examination training of melanoma survivors and their skin check partners: a randomized trial and comparison with in-person training. Cancer Med. 2020;9:7301–9.
Leiter U, Buettner PG, Eigentler TK, Forschner A, Meier F, Garbe C. Is detection of melanoma metastasis during surveillance in an early phase of development associated with a survival benefit? Melanoma Res. 2010;20(3):240–6.
Lim KHJ, Spain L, Barker C, Georgiou A, Walls G, Gore M, et al. Contemporary outcomes from the use of regular imaging to detect relapse in high-risk cutaneous melanoma. ESMO open. 2018;3:e000317.
Joseph RW, Elassaiss-Schaap J, Kefford R, Hwu W-J, Wolchok JD, Joshua AM, et al. Baseline tumor size is an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in patients with melanoma treated with pembrolizumab. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24:4960–7.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Melanoma: assessment and management (NG14). 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng14/resources/melanoma-assessment-and-management-pdf-1837271430853. Accessed 12 Mar 2021
Podlipnik S, Carrera C, Sánchez M, Arguis P, Olondo ML, Vilana R, et al. Performance of diagnostic tests in an intensive follow-up protocol for patients with American joint committee on cancer (AJCC) stage IIB, IIC, and III localized primary melanoma: a prospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:516–24.
Leon-Ferre RA, Kottschade LA, Block MS, McWilliams RR, Dronca RS, Creagan ET, et al. Association between the use of surveillance PET/CT and the detection of potentially salvageable occult recurrences among patients with resected high-risk melanoma. Melanoma Res. 2017;27:335–41.
Stahlie EHA, van der Hiel B, Stokkel MPM, Schrage YM, van Houdt WJ, Wouters MW, et al. The use of FDG-PET/CT to detect early recurrence after resection of high-risk stage III melanoma. J Surg Oncol. 2020;122:1328–36.
Ibrahim AM, Le May M, Bossé D, Marginean H, Song X, Nessim C, et al. Imaging intensity and survival outcomes in high-risk resected melanoma treated by systemic therapy at recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:3683–91.
Kurtz J, Beasley GM, Agnese D, Kendra K, Olencki TE, Terando A, et al. Surveillance strategies in the follow-up of melanoma patients: too much or not enough? J Surg Res. 2017;214:32–7.
Bleicher J, Swords DS, Mali ME, McGuire L, Pahlkotter MK, Asare EA, et al. Recurrence patterns in patients with stage II melanoma: the evolving role of routine imaging for surveillance. J Surg Oncol. 2020;122:1770–7.
Park TS, Phan GQ, Yang JC, Kammula U, Hughes MS, Trebska-McGowan K, et al. Routine computer tomography imaging for the detection of recurrences in high-risk melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:947–51.
Freeman M, Laks S. Surveillance imaging for metastasis in high-risk melanoma: importance in individualized patient care and survivorship. Melanoma Manag. 2019;6:MMT2.
Ozdemir S, McCook B, Klassen C. Whole-body versus routine skull base to mid-thigh (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with malignant melanoma. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2020;10:47.
Pflugfelder A, Kochs C, Blum A, Capellaro M, Czeschik C, Dettenborn T, et al. Malignant melanoma S3-guideline “diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of melanoma.” J Ger Soc Dermatology. 2013;11(Suppl 6):1–116 (1-126).
Garbe C, Amaral T, Peris K, Hauschild A, Arenberger P, Bastholt L, et al. European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for melanoma. part 1: diagnostics - update 2019. Eur J Cancer. 2020;126:141–58.
Berger AC, Ollila DW, Christopher A, Kairys JC, Mastrangelo MJ, Feeney K, et al. Patient symptoms are the most frequent indicators of recurrence in patients with american joint committee on Cancer stage II melanoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224:652–9.
Podlipnik S, Moreno-Ramírez D, Carrera C, Barreiro A, Manubens E, Ferrandiz-Pulido L, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of imaging strategy for an intensive follow-up of patients with American joint committee on cancer stage IIB, IIC and III malignant melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 2019;180:1190–7.
Petrelli F, Ardito R, Merelli B, Lonati V, Cabiddu M, Seghezzi S, et al. Prognostic and predictive role of elevated lactate dehydrogenase in patients with melanoma treated with immunotherapy and BRAF inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Melanoma Res. 2019;29:1–12.
Ertekin SS, Podlipnik S, Ribero S, Molina R, Rios J, Carrera C, et al. Monthly changes in serum levels of S100B protein as a predictor of metastasis development in high-risk melanoma patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34:1482–8.
Kang S, Ahn B-C, Hong CM, Song B-I, Lee HJ, Jeong SY, et al. Can (18)F-FDG PET/CT predict recurrence in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma? Nuklearmedizin. 2011;50:116–21.
Son SH, Kang SM, Jeong SY, Lee S-W, Lee S-J, Lee J, et al. Prognostic value of volumetric parameters measured by pretreatment 18F FDG PET/CT in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:e266–73.
Malik D, Sood A, Mittal BR, Basher RK, Bhattacharya A, Singh G. Role of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in restaging and prognosis of recurrent melanoma after curative surgery. World J Nucl Med. 2019;18:176–82.
Lewin J, Sayers L, Kee D, Walpole I, Sanelli A, Te Marvelde L, et al. Surveillance imaging with FDG-PET/CT in the post-operative follow-up of stage 3 melanoma. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:1569–74.
Reinert CP, Gatidis S, Sekler J, Dittmann H, Pfannenberg C, la Fougère C, et al. Clinical and prognostic value of tumor volumetric parameters in melanoma patients undergoing (18)F-FDG-PET/CT: a comparison with serologic markers of tumor burden and inflammation. Cancer Imaging. 2020;20:44.
Huang SK, Hoon DSB. Liquid biopsy utility for the surveillance of cutaneous malignant melanoma patients. Mol Oncol. 2016;10:450–63.
Lee RJ, Gremel G, Marshall A, Myers KA, Fisher N, Dunn JA, et al. Circulating tumor DNA predicts survival in patients with resected high-risk stage II/III melanoma. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:490–6.
Gangadhar TC, Savitch SL, Yee SS, Xu W, Huang AC, Harmon S, et al. Feasibility of monitoring advanced melanoma patients using cell-free DNA from plasma. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2018;31:73–81.
Váraljai R, Wistuba-Hamprecht K, Seremet T, Diaz JMS, Nsengimana J, Sucker A, et al. Application of Circulating Cell-Free Tumor DNA Profiles for Therapeutic Monitoring and Outcome Prediction in Genetically Heterogeneous Metastatic Melanoma. JCO Precis Oncol. 2020;3:1–12.
Mujumdar UJ, Hay JL, Monroe-Hinds YC, Hummer AJ, Begg CB, Wilcox HB, et al. Sun protection and skin self-examination in melanoma survivors. Psychooncology. 2009;18:1106–15.
Menzies S, Barry R, Ormond P. Multiple primary melanoma: a single centre retrospective review. Melanoma Res. 2017;27:638–40.
Beroukhim K, Pourang A, Eisen DB. Risk of second primary cutaneous and noncutaneous melanoma after cutaneous melanoma diagnosis: a population-based study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82:683–9.
Vestergaard ME, Macaskill P, Holt PE, Menzies SW. Dermoscopy compared with naked eye examination for the diagnosis of primary melanoma: a meta-analysis of studies performed in a clinical setting. Br J Dermatol. 2008;159:669–76.
Salerni G, Terán T, Puig S, Malvehy J, Zalaudek I, Argenziano G, et al. Meta-analysis of digital dermoscopy follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions: a study on behalf of the international dermoscopy Society. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2013;27:805–14.
Dinnes J, Deeks JJ, Chuchu N, Ferrante di Ruffano L, Matin RN, Thomson DR, et al. Dermoscopy, with and without visual inspection, for diagnosing melanoma in adults. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2018;12:CD011902–CD011902.
Law MH, Macgregor S, Hayward NK. Melanoma genetics: recent findings take us beyond well-traveled pathways. J Invest Dermatol. 2012;132:1763–74.
Leachman SA, Carucci J, Kohlmann W, Banks KC, Asgari MM, Bergman W, et al. Selection criteria for genetic assessment of patients with familial melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;61:677.e1-677.e14.
Potrony M, Badenas C, Aguilera P, Puig-Butille JA, Carrera C, Malvehy J, et al. Update in genetic susceptibility in melanoma. Ann Transl Med. 2015;3:210.
Leachman SA, Lucero OM, Sampson JE, Cassidy P, Bruno W, Queirolo P, et al. Identification, genetic testing, and management of hereditary melanoma. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2017;36:77–90.
Klapperich ME, Bowen GM, Grossman D. Current controversies in early-stage melanoma: questions on management and surveillance. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:15–25.
Vale L, Kunonga P, Coughlan D, Kontogiannis V, Astin M, Beyer F, et al. Optimal surveillance strategies for patients with stage 1 cutaneous melanoma post primary tumour excision: three systematic reviews and an economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2021;25:1–178.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Anabel Herrero PhD who provided medical writing support on behalf of Springer Healthcare, with funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals.
Funding
Novartis Pharmaceuticals provided economic funding for this work. The sponsor had no role in the design, the analysis and the interpretation of the data, the wording of the article or the decision to send the article for publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to this manuscript. The manuscript has been read and approved for submission by all the named authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Begoña Campos Balea has received honoraria as consultant or advisory boards from Roche, Sanofi, and Boehringer. She has received speaking honoraria from Roche, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Astra-Zeneca, MSD, and Sanofi. Ovidio Fernández-Calvo has received honoraria as consultant or advisory boards from Astellas Pharma, Roche, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Sanofi, EUSA Pharma and Sanofi. He has received speaking honoraria from Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Ipsen, Roche, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, and Janssen. Roberto García-Figueiras and Carlos Neira declares no conflicts of interest. Carmen Peña Penabad has received speaking honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Sanofi and LeoPharma. Carmela Rodríguez-López has received honoraria as consultant or advisory boards from Novartis. She has received speaking honoraria from Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Roche, MSD, and Ipsen. Rocio Vilchez Simo has received honoraria as consultant or advisory boards from Novartis. She has received speaking honoraria from Novartis, Sanofi, Eisai, Roche and Pfyzer. María Quindós-Varela reports honoraria and advisory/consultancy from AstraZeneca, GSK, MerckSharp and Dohme, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, and Pierre Fabre. She has received Travel/Accommodation/Expenses from AstraZeneca, Pharmamar, Roche, GSK, Novartis Merck Sharp and Dohme and speakers bureau from AstraZeneca, GSK, MerckSharp and Dohme, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, and Pierre-Fabre.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal participants performed by any of the authors. So, ethical approval and informed consent are not necessary.
Informed consent
This article does not contain studies with human or animal participants, So the Informed consent statement is not necessary.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Campos-Balea, B., Fernández-Calvo, O., García-Figueiras, R. et al. Follow-up of primary melanoma patients with high risk of recurrence: recommendations based on evidence and consensus. Clin Transl Oncol 24, 1515–1523 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-022-02822-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-022-02822-x