GenoMEL, comprising major familial melanoma research groups from North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia has created the largest familial melanoma sample yet available to characterize mutations in the high-risk melanoma susceptibility genes CDKN2A/alternate reading frames (ARF), which encodes p16 and p14ARF, and CDK4 and to evaluate their relationship with pancreatic cancer (PC), neural system tumors (NST), and uveal melanoma (UM). This study included 466 families (2,137 patients) with at least three melanoma patients from 17 GenoMEL centers. Overall, 41% (n = 190) of families had mutations; most involved p16 (n = 178). Mutations in CDK4 (n = 5) and ARF (n = 7) occurred at similar frequencies (2-3%). There were striking differences in mutations across geographic locales. The proportion of families with the most frequent founder mutation(s) of each locale differed significantly across the seven regions (P = 0.0009). Single founder CDKN2A mutations were predominant in Sweden (p.R112_L113insR, 92% of family's mutations) and the Netherlands (c.225_243del19, 90% of family's mutations). France, Spain, and Italy had the same most frequent mutation (p.G101W). Similarly, Australia and United Kingdom had the same most common mutations (p.M53I, c.IVS2-105A>G, p.R24P, and p.L32P). As reported previously, there was a strong association between PC and CDKN2A mutations (P < 0.0001). This relationship differed by mutation. In contrast, there was little evidence for an association between CDKN2A mutations and NST (P = 0.52) or UM (P = 0.25). There was a marginally significant association between NST and ARF (P = 0.05). However, this particular evaluation had low power and requires confirmation. This GenoMEL study provides the most extensive characterization of mutations in high-risk melanoma susceptibility genes in families with three or more melanoma patients yet available. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(20): 9818-28)

No abstract

Background Evolving dermoscopic terminology motivated us to initiate a new consensus. Objective We sought to establish a dictionary of standardized terms. Methods We reviewed the medical literature, conducted a survey, and convened a discussion among experts. Results Two competitive terminologies exist, a more metaphoric terminology that includes numerous terms and a descriptive terminology based on 5 basic terms. In a survey among members of the International Society of Dermoscopy (IDS) 23.5% (n = 201) participants preferentially use descriptive terminology, 20.1% (n = 172) use metaphoric terminology, and 484 (56.5%) use both. More participants who had been initially trained by metaphoric terminology prefer using descriptive terminology than vice versa (9.7% vs 2.6%, P < .001). Most new terms that were published since the last consensus conference in 2003 were unknown to the majority of the participants. There was uniform consensus that both terminologies are suitable, that metaphoric terms need definitions, that synonyms should be avoided, and that the creation of new metaphoric terms should be discouraged. The expert panel proposed a dictionary of standardized terms taking account of metaphoric and descriptive terms. Limitations A consensus seeks a workable compromise but does not guarantee its implementation. Conclusion The new consensus provides a revised framework of standardized terms to enhance the consistent use of dermoscopic terminology.