What's New in Melanoma

Prado, Giselle; Svoboda, Ryan M; Rigel, Darrell S.

doi:10.1016/j.det.2018.12.005

Cited by 33 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, melanoma is the most common malignancy in women during pregnancy. In addition, the pregnant women in whom melanoma is diagnosed have an increased risk for not only recurrence, but also metastases and death [3][4][5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Melanoma Following In Vitro Fertilization: Co-incident or Coincidence?

Cohen¹,

Erickson

Sateesh³

et al. 2019

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Melanoma may occur during or after natural or in vitro fertilization-associated pregnancy. A 43-year-old woman, who had received in vitro fertilization and developed a melanoma five months postpartum is described. Some studies have not shown in vitro fertilization to increase melanoma risk; however, several investigations have observed melanoma risk to be greater in women who have had this treatment. Therefore, although a potential increased risk for melanoma has been observed in infertile women who were either pregnant before or following in vitro fertilization, whether in vitro fertilization is an etiologic risk factor in the pathogenesis of melanoma for these individuals-or is merely a coincidental event-remains to be established.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The primary cause of melanoma is ultraviolet radiation from sun exposure or indoor tanning bed use [1][2][3]. Melanoma has been observed following delivery by natural pregnancy and in vitro fertilization-associated pregnancy [4][5][6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Melanoma Following In Vitro Fertilization: Co-incident or Coincidence?

Cohen¹,

Erickson

Sateesh³

et al. 2019

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18 Treatment and monitoring Ipilimumab plus nivolumab, mono-nivolumab, and monopembrolizumab treatments were routinely carried out in-label. 1,2 Due to the high toxicity, ipilimumab plus nivolumab therapy was predominantly prescribed in younger patients with very good performance status. Data were collected with respect to patient characteristics [sex, age, disease stage, medication, adverse events (AEs), etc.]…”

Section: Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,2 Once melanoma has spread into the lymph nodes, or even visceral organs and the brain, it remains a life-threatening disease despite the advent of molecular targeted or immunotherapies. 1,2 Melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] represents an unusual subtype of melanoma which was reported to be about 2-9% of melanoma of known primary (MKP) at all stages. 3 Some of the literature in the different geographic regions demonstrated better overall survival of MUP than of MKP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Immune checkpoint (ICP) modulating agents such as the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associate protein 4 (CTLA-4) blocker ipilimumab and the programmed death 1 (PD-1) blocking antibodies nivolumab and pembrolizumab, turned out to be effective in the treatment of stage IV and as well stage III melanoma. 1,5 However, there is a lack of data regarding the efficacy of ICP inhibitors (ICPI) in patients with MUP. In the present pilot study we aimed to assess whether MUP patients have better outcomes under ICPI than patients with MKP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patients with melanoma of unknown primary show better outcome under immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy than patients with known primary: preliminary results

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) is an uncommon clinical subtype of melanoma of known primary (MKP).Objectives: We aimed to compare treatment outcomes of MUP and MKP patients who had undergone therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPI).Methods: We studied 41 metastatic melanoma patients (32 with MKP and 9 with MUP) with an indication for ICPI.Results: Clinical characteristics such as age, gender, stage of disease, etc., did not significantly differ (P < .05) between MUP and MKP patients. 20/32 (62.5%) melanoma-specific deaths (MSD) were observed in the MKP group, whereas 2/9 (22.2%) were detected in the MUP group (P = .035). On logistic regression, the MUP status proved to be an independent predictor for a more favorable outcome under immunotherapy when compared to MKP (P = .030).Conclusion: Our preliminary results indicate that MUP patients show better clinical outcome under ICPI when compared to MKP.

show abstract