In 2016, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against routine screening (total body examination by a primary care physician or patient self-examination) for early detection of skin cancers in asymptomatic general adult populations.[1] However, these recommendations are currently in the process of being updated. While the USPSTF has not provided formal guidance on whether high-risk adult populations should be screened, the Australian Cancer Network and the Canadian Cancer Society both suggest screening in high-risk populations.[2, 3] See "Follow-up for Melanoma Cancer Survivors”, below, for skin surveillance guidelines of melanoma cancer survivors.
The USPSTF provided the following clinical considerations[1] :
Websites such as the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) and The Skin Cancer Foundation provide education on self-examination.[4, 5] The AAD also promotes free skin examinations by volunteer dermatologists for the general population through the Academy's SPOTme™ Screening Program. The program also provides education about the importance of sun protection and early cancer detection.
There are three main methods to help clinically identify a melanoma[6] :
To improve early recognition of melanoma, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines suggest using imaging technologies such as dermoscopy, sequential digital dermoscopy imaging, and total body photography.[10] With training, dermoscopy can be used to increase the sensitivity and specificity of a clinical diagnosis of melanoma, reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies.[11, 12] Dermatoscopic features of melanoma include the following:
Sequential digital dermoscopy documentation can also be used for short- and long-term follow-up of patients with multiple atypical nevi for the detection of melanoma and to reduce the number of unnecessary excisions.[13] Total body photography, using comparison with baseline photographs at each follow-up examination, can also help with the clinical surveillance of new or changed lesions, especially in patients with numerous nevi.[14, 15]
A diagnosis of melanoma is histopathologic and therefore a biopsy is required. Most guidelines recommend a full-thickness biopsy for suspicious lesions. In the United States, both the AAD and the NCCN suggest that a superficial shave biopsy can be used for lesions of low suspicion for melanoma.[10, 16] However, the NCCN states that a broad shave biopsy may be optimal for histological assessment of melanoma in situ (MIS) or lentigo maligna (LM). This is in contrast to the revised United Kingdom guidelines, which suggest that shave biopsies should be avoided in all cases due to the risk of incorrect diagnosis.[17]
Guidelines from the AAD, established in 2011 and updated in 2019, are as follows[16, 18] :
NCCN guidelines support the concept that most melanoma recurrences are diagnosed clinically. Current NCCN guidelines recommend the following for biopsy of a suspicious pigmented lesion[10] :
The biopsy should be reported by a pathologist experienced in melanocytic neoplasms. The following should be included in the pathology report:
The following is encouraged to be included in the pathology report:
Molecular testing should be considered for histologically equivocal lesions. The NCCN also noted that the utility of prognostic GEP testing remains unclear as an independent predictor of worse outcome, and was not superior to Breslow thickness or sentinel lymph node status, and should not replace pathological staging procedures. GEP testing has yet to receive approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and further large prospective investigation and validity studies are required.
Regarding genomic testing, the NCCN stated:
NCCN recommendations for baseline imaging vary as follows[10]
In patients with true scar recurrence, imaging workup should be appropriate to the primary tumor characteristics and melanoma stage.
For surveillance (follow-up), the NCCN guidelines advise that imaging studies may be considered to screen for recurrent/metastatic disease in patients with stage IIB-IV disease, although this recommendation remains controversial. Routine laboratory or radiologic imaging in asymptomatic melanoma patients of any stage is not recommended after 5 years of follow-up.[10] In patients with an equivocal lymph node exam, additional imaging can be considered with short-term follow-up. Additionally, for patients with a positive SLNB who did not have a complete lymph node dissection (CLND), regional lymph node ultrasonography (US) is preferred at a frequency consistent with the MSLT-II and DeCOG trials: every 4 months during the first 2 years, then every 6 months during years 3 through 5.[10]
While abnormal laboratory test results are rarely the sole indicator of metastatic disease, serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels are incorporated into the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) melanoma staging guidelines for the classification of stage IV (distant) disease. Elevated LDH levels are associated with worse survival in this subgroup.[35]
The 2019 guidelines from the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) require diagnosis based on a full-thickness excisional biopsy with a minimal side margin that has been processed by an experienced pathology institute. Histology reports should follow the eighth edition of the AJCC tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) classification and include the following[28, 36] :
ESMO guidelines consider mutation testing for actionable mutations mandatory in patients with resectable or unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma, and highly recommended in high-risk resected disease stage IIC, but not for stage I or stage IIA–IIB. BRAF testing is mandatory. Physical examination with special attention to other suspicious pigmented lesions, tumor satellites, in-transit metastases, regional lymph nodes, and distant metastases is required. Imaging is not needed for low-risk melanomas (pT1a) but in higher-stage tumors (pT1b-pT4b), US, computed tomography (CT), brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) scans can be considered to allow proper tumor assessment for accurate staging.[36]
Joint guidelines from the European Dermatology Forum, the European Association of Dermato-Oncology, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer include the following recommendations on diagnosis and follow-up of melanoma[13] :
Surgical management is important for the diagnosis, staging, and optimal treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma. The recommendations for surgical management in melanoma are outlined below.
The AAD recommendations for surgical management of primary cutaneous melanoma are as follows[16] :
ESMO updated its guidelines on the surgical management of locoregional melanoma in 2020.[37]
Wide local excision:
Treatment of satellite or in-transit metastases:
For wide excision of primary melanoma, the AAD, NCCN, and ESMO practice guidelines agree on the following surgical margin recommendations for primary melanoma[10, 16, 36] :
The AAD guidelines note that margins may be narrower to accommodate function and/or anatomic location. However, for primary invasive melanomas at anatomically constrained sites (eg, head and neck, acral), margins of < 1 cm (by either wide excision or Mohs micrographic surgery) are generally not recommended until further studies are available.[16]
Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a specialized surgical technique that can be used to treat recurrent and primary melanomas at specific anatomical sites.[38, 39, 40, 41] The NCCN states that the gold standard for histologic assessment of a melanoma excision is through the use of permanent sections.
MMS is supported by the AAD and American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS) for use on melanoma in situ (MIS) and lentigo maligna (LM), and may be considered selectively in medium and high risk areas for minimally invasive (T1a) melanomas in anatomically constrained areas (ie, face, ears, acral sites), along with other surgical methods that provide comprehensive histologic assessment, such as staged excision with permanent sections for dermatopathology review.[42] Although no prospective disease-specific outcome studies of MMS versus staged excision versus wide local excision have been reported, it is recommended that regardless of the resection method, permanent section analysis of at least the central debulking be available for dermatopathologic review. These recommendations are evidence level 2A.[42]
The NCCN also cites a study of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) that employed MMS enhanced by immunohistochemical staining as the primary treatment modality for MIS, which resulted in 99% removal of when a total surgical margin of 9 mm was used, versus an 86% rate of removal with 6-mm margins.[10, 43] The stain is composed of antibodies to a melanoma antigen recognized by T-cells (MART-1).[10, 43] The NCCN also supports the use of MMS or staged excision (slow MMS) as a treatment option for LM. When performed with or without immunohistochemical staining, high local control rates and low recurrence rates have been seen. Specifically, for LM excised by MMS, there was a recurrence rate of 0-2% after follow-up of up to 44 months and for LM excised by staged excision, there was a recurrence rate of 0-6% after a follow-up time of up to 138 months.[44]
The appropriate-use criteria for MMS from the AAD, ACMS, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA), and the American Society for Mohs Surgery (ASMS) further state that MMS is appropriate for all recurrent melanoma in situ and lentigo maligna, as well as primary lesions at the following sites[38] :
However, the use of MMS for primary MIS and LM is uncertain for low-risk sites such as the trunk and extremities excluding pretibial surfaces, hands, feed, nail units, and ankles. For MIS, LM type, the AAD also recommends permanent section analysis of the central MMS debulking specimen to identify and appropriately stage potential invasive cutaneous melanoma. If invasive cutaneous melanoma is identified on an MMS section intraoperatively, the tissue should be submitted for formal pathology review.[16]
Regional lymph node status remains a valuable tool to determine prognosis and to select patients for adjuvant therapy or clinical trials, although alternatives such as gene profiling are evolving. For example, in patients with clinical stage I/II melanoma, sentinel lymph node status is the strongest predictor of survival. The Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-1) confirmed the role of lymphatic mapping with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNLB) as a prognostic tool.[45] While post-hoc analysis in this trial found a survival advantage for patients with intermediate-thickness melanoma and microscopic lymph node involvement who underwent SLNB and subsequently early regional lymphadenectomy, post-hoc analysis is subject to error and prospective data are needed. These findings were supported by the retrospective series of 5840 patients in the Melanoma Institute Australia database from 1992-2008.[45]
American Academy of Dermatology
The AAD recommends consideration of SLNB in patients with stage T1b or in T1a with any of the following high-risk features[16] :
However, data suggest that the presence of a single mitotic figure may not correlate well with sentinel node status in thin lesions.[46] In addition, the presence of regression in thin lesions is associated with a lower risk of nodal metastasis.[47]
Following a positive SLNB, the decision to proceed with lymph node dissection versus regional nodal ultrasound surveillance, the AAD recommends interdisciplinary collaboration between surgical and medical oncologists.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network
The NCCN guidelines do not recommend SLNB for patients with MIS (stage 0).[10] Evidence supporting routine SLNB for patients with very thin stage IA or IB lesions remains controversial. SLNB is not recommended in such cases unless there are high-risk features such as ulceration, high mitotic rate, and lymphovascular invasion; in these cases, the patient and provider should decide whether to proceed. However, the NCCN recommends considering SLNB for patients with higher-risk stage IB (> 1 mm thick or 0.8–1.0 mm thick with ulceration or mitotic rate ≥1 per mm2) or stage II melanoma. Patients with positive SLNB findings may be a candidate for completion lymph node dissection (CLND).[10]
American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology
The 2018 update of joint guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) includes the following recommendations[48] :
In the case of a positive SLNB, CLND or careful observation are options for patients with low-risk micrometastatic disease, with due consideration of clinicopathologic factors. For higher-risk patients, careful observation may be considered only after a thorough discussion with patients about the potential risks and benefits of foregoing CLND.[48]
European Society for Medical Oncology
The ESMO consensus conference in 2020 recommended the following updates regarding SLNB and lymph node dissection[37] :
European Consensus-based Interdisciplinary Guidelines
The 2022 update of the European Consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for melanoma includes the following recommendations for SLNB[49] :
Non-surgical management of melanoma can be used in cases of advanced melanoma, in the presence of specific oncogenic mutations, and for palliation. The recommendations for non-surgical management in melanoma are outlined below.
NCCN guidelines recommend consideration of radiation therapy in the following situations[10] :
ESMO recommends considering stereotactic radiation of regional or single distant metastatic disease. Adjuvant radiation therapy can also be considered for high-risk patients where regional control is a major issue and/or where systemic therapy is not possible.[36]
NCCN recommendations for systemic treatment of melanoma stage IV disease with distant metastasis include the following[10]
First-line immunotherapy regimens for systemic therapy (category 1), according to the NCCN guidelines, are as follows[10] :
If the tumor contains a BRAF V600 activating mutation, category 1 recommendations for first-line therapy are as follows[10] :
Second-line or subsequent therapy recommendations are as follows[10] :
Joint guidelines from the European Dermatology Forum, the European Association of Dermato-Oncology, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer include the following recommendations on adjuvant therapy in stage III disease[49] :
The joint European guidelines include the following recommendations for stage IV melanoma[49] :
The joint European guidelines include the following recommendations for brain metastases[49] :
Reported adverse effects of novel melanoma drugs—such as those that target the MAPK pathway (BRAF inhibitors and mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitors) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (eg, monoclonal antibodies against CTLA-4, PD-1, and its ligand programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1])—include the following:
The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) provides the following guidance regarding cutaneous toxicities of such novel melanoma drugs[16] :
The AAD recommends the following dermatologic assessment schedules:
Patients diagnosed with melanoma during pregnancy have a similar prognosis than those who are not pregnant.[52] Regarding cutaneous melanoma management, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) provides the following guidance[16] :
Broadly, there are four clinical scenarios that may warrant genetic counseling and/or testing:
The AAD recommends cancer risk counselling for the following patients with cutaneous melanoma[16] :
With regards to genetic counseling and testing, the NCCN provides the following recommendations:16
Follow-up guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for all patients with melanoma are as follows[10] :
Follow-up for stage 0 in situ is as follows:
Follow-up for stage IA-IIA is as follows:
Follow-up for stage IIB-IV (patients with no evidence of disease) is as follows: