Cancer staging is the process determining to which extent a cancer has spread and where it is located in the body. A thorough staging is of utmost importance, not only because it provides the most accurate prognostic estimation, but also because several crucial decisions, such as the treatment choice and the follow-up strategy, vary according to the tumor’s stage. The current staging system for melanoma is based on the 8th edition of TNM classification issued by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) in 2017. It includes a clinical and a pathological staging, both consisting of 5 stages (0-IV). The stage of a melanoma is determined by several factors, among which the Breslow thickness, the pathological presence or absence of ulceration in the primary tumor, the presence and the number of tumor-involved regional lymph nodes, the presence or absence of in-transit, satellite and/or microsatellite metastases, and the presence of distant metastases. Following melanoma diagnosis, an accurate medical workup, in line with the stage and the physical examination, should be performed. A continuous patient monitoring is fundamental to detect a potential relapse or a second primary
melanoma and should be lifelong. However, there is still no universally adopted follow-up strategy program and different follow-up schemes have been suggested. Future prospective studies are needed to evaluate different follow-up protocols according to the adopted therapy, as novel recent therapies (targeted and immunotherapies) are being increasingly used.
Staging is a process determining the extent to which a cancer has spread in a person’s body and where it is located. Cancer stage is categorized from 0 to IV, with stage IV cancer corresponding to a cancer that has metastasized at distant locations. The most used system to stage solid tumors, including melanoma, is the universally accepted TNM (Tumor, Node, Metastasis) staging system. Cancer staging can be divided into clinical and pathological staging. Clinical and pathological stages are defined by different criteria and may differ but are generally considered as complementary to each other. In general, clinical staging is based on all the available information obtained before surgical excision of the tumor (eg by physical examination, blood tests, and imaging), while pathological staging is performed by a pathologist and relies on the information provided by microscopic examination of the tumor following surgical resection.
The clinical stage of a melanoma can be determined only following a complete excision of the primary tumor, a clinical examination of the skin and lymph nodes, and a radiologic assessment for regional and distant metastases’ detection. Pathological staging of a melanoma takes into account not only the microstaging of the primary tumor and the wide excision but also considers the information on regional lymph nodes after partial or complete lymphadenectomy, when performed. A proper staging is extremely important, because it provides the most accurate prognostic estimation and allows to take several crucial decisions, such as the treatment choice and the follow-up strategy, that are based on clinical tumor stage.
Melanoma Staging System
The current staging system is based on the 8 th edition of TNM classification for staging of melanoma issued by the AJCC in 2017 and is summarized in Tables 1–5 [ 1 ] . This relatively new system has been broadly accepted after its publication and is considered the cornerstone for classifying melanomas [ 2 , 3 ] .
There is both a clinical and a pathological staging, both consisting of 5 stages as follows:
0: in situ disease
I and II: localized disease
Stage I is further divided into substage IA and IB, while stage II includes substages IIA, IIB and IIC. The determining factors for staging and substaging are the Breslow thickness and the presence or absence of ulceration after the pathological assessment of the primary tumor ( Tables 1 and 2 ). Of note, mitotic rate and Clark’s level of invasion, previously used for sub-classification, no longer influence melanoma staging.
III: regional disease
Regional disease is defined by the presence of metastases in regional lymph nodes and/or “in transit metastases”, “satellite metastases”, and microsatellite metastases. Satellite metastases are defined as cutaneous or subcutaneous metastatic lesions up to 2 cm from the margin of the primary tumor. In-transit metastases are defined as cutaneous or subcutaneous lesions located between 2 cm from the primary tumor and the regional nodal basin. Microsatellite metastases are defined as tumor nests larger than 0.05 mm in diameter in the reticular dermis, subcutis, or vessels beneath the primary invasive tumor, but separated from it by at least 0.3 mm of normal tissue on the section in which the Breslow measurement was taken.
Regional lymph nodes metastases are defined as metastases in the lymph node basin that drains lymph from the region around the tumor. Involvement of regional lymph nodes is confirmed by their pathological examination after sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy (for clinically occult lymph node metastases) or therapeutic lymph node dissection when performed (for clinically evident regional lymph node disease). Involvement of regional lymph nodes may be also detected by clinical, radiologic examination and/or diagnostic biopsies (clinical staging). Therefore, there is only 1 stage group for clinical stage III. In contrast, pathological stage III is divided into A, B, C, and D stage groups depending on Breslow thickness, the pathological presence or absence of ulceration in the primary tumor, the number of tumor-involved regional lymph nodes, and the presence or absence of in-transit, satellite and/or microsatellite metastases ( Table 4 ).
IV: distant metastatic disease
This stage includes distant metastases to lung, central nervous system (CNS) or other organs as well as to skin, soft tissue and nonregional lymph nodes. Although there is no further division to substages, a sub-classification according to the number of organs involved, which organs are involved, and serum levels of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) is essential for prognostic reasons ( Table 5 ).
When a suspicious lesion is detected, a biopsy should be performed. A narrow-margin (1–3 mm) excisional biopsy is strongly preferred. In case of primary melanoma, the histopathological features along with clinical examination are determining factors for staging and further management. Therefore, the pathology report should include the Breslow thickness, the ulceration status, the dermal mitotic rate, the margin status, the presence, or absence of microsatellitosis, and the presence or not of pure desmoplasia.
Special attention should be paid to the physical examination of the entire skin surface to look for satellites or in-transit metastases but also for a second primary melanoma. Physical examination of the regional lymph node basin should be included.
Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Imaging
Patients with a melanoma in situ and a clinical stage IA melanoma with normal physical examination and no other symptoms need no further imaging or laboratory tests. They also are not candidates for SLN biopsy at baseline. The staging procedure is completed with the performance of wide excision [ 1 ] .
Patients with clinical stage IB melanoma with normal physical examination and no other symptoms need no further imaging or laboratory tests at baseline. Concerning SLN biopsy, this should be considered in patients with T1b melanoma. The decision depends on several factors, such as comorbidities, age, mitotic rate or lymphovascular invasion [ 1 ] . Patients with a T2a melanoma, should undergo SLN biopsy.
In melanoma patients of any stage, if an equivocal regional lymph node is detected during clinical examination, an ultrasound (US) should be considered prior to SLN biopsy. However, a negative nodal basin US is not a substitute for biopsy of clinically suspicious lymph nodes and histopathology should be warranted. Moreover, abnormalities or suspicious lesions on nodal basin US should be histopathologically confirmed. The presence of lymph node metastasis can be confirmed either with core biopsy or fine-needle aspiration (FNA) [ 6 – 8 ] . Similarly, if clinical or microscopic satellite/in-transit metastases are suspected, a biopsy is mandatory.
If a SLN biopsy is indicated, it should be performed at the same time with the wide excision of the primary melanoma. Noteworthy, SLN biopsy was shown to have only prognostic (and not therapeutic) significance [ 9 – 13 ] . A positive SLN biopsy would directly upstage a patient to stage III, which highlights its significance as a staging procedure, especially after the introduction of adjuvant systemic therapy for stage III. A complete lymph node dissection is not anymore recommended in case of positive SLN biopsy, since it does not offer any therapeutic benefit, it has little prognostic value, and is associated with surgical morbidity [ 14 – 17 ] . It is, however, indicated for the treatment of lymph node metastases diagnosed clinically or by imaging, in the absence of distant metastases.
Imaging for baseline staging should be considered in patients with pathological stage IIIA melanoma and should be performed in all patients with stage IIIB/C/D [ 1 ] . Imaging modalities include chest/abdominal/pelvic CT with intravenous (iv) contrast or whole-body PET/CT, with or without brain MRI with iv contrast. Moreover, if clinically indicated, neck region should be also checked with CT with iv contrast.
Finally, stage IV melanoma patients need careful total body medical imaging (CT or PET/CT, brain MRI). Moreover, plasma LDH should also be assessed [ 1 ] .
After melanoma diagnosis, the role of ongoing surveillance of disease-free patients is of paramount importance. The main goals of the follow-up are the following:
Early identification of relapse (local, distant) and subsequent guidance for adjuvant treatment, where appropriate.
Early detection of a second primary melanoma and/or non-melanoma skin cancer.
Recognition and management of side-effects, in case of adjuvant systemic treatment.
Early detection of relapse is associated with a higher survival rate, highlighting the importance of an adequate follow-up. The likelihood of recurrence varies according to melanoma stage at first presentation. Patients with melanoma in situ, are very unlikely to recur following wide excision. There are a few exceptions though, such as lentigo maligna type [ 18 – 20 ] . In general, patients with earlier stage melanoma at first presentation are less likely to recur compared to those with more advanced stages. Accordingly, the timing of relapse varies according to the stage. Patients with advanced melanoma tend to recur more quickly compared to those with earlier stage [ 21 – 23 ] . Nonetheless, the vast majority of relapses are recorded in the first 5 years and most of them within 2–3 years following surgery. Moreover, the risk of recurrence tends to decrease over time for melanoma stages, but late recurrence (more than 10 years after the initial diagnosis) cannot be excluded [ 21 , 22 , 24 – 26 ]
Patients with a personal history of melanoma are at high risk of developing a second primary melanoma. Concerning the risk of developing a second primary melanoma, data reported in the literature is very heterogenous. The reported percentage of melanoma patients developing a second primary melanoma ranges between 2% and 20% [ 23 , 27 – 30 ] . In a cohort of prospectively monitored melanoma patients, the cumulative 5-year risk of second primary melanoma was 8% [ 30 ] . Interestingly, the risk appears to be higher within the first year after the diagnosis of the first melanoma, but it remains considerable for at least 5 years and very possibly even more [ 23 , 27 – 30 ] . Therefore, individuals with melanoma history should rather be considered at a life-long increased risk of developing a new primary melanoma.
Although the need for a follow-up in patients with melanoma is not a matter of debate, surveillance recommendations vary widely in terms of methods and frequency of visits, and examinations. As there is currently lack of evidence regarding the efficacy of follow-up strategies, different follow-up schemes have been proposed and are mainly based on expert opinions. The suggested follow-up schemes consider the melanoma stage and the presence or not of additional risk factors.
As mentioned above, the first 5 years following the excision of the primary tumor are the most crucial due to high rates of relapse. This is why current guidelines suggest adopting higher intensity follow up strategies during this period. Still, because of the lifetime increased risk of a second primary melanoma or a non-melanoma skin cancer, as well as the risk for late recurrence, monitoring programs for melanoma patients should go beyond 5 years, including at least 1 strongly recommended annual skin exam lifelong [ 31 ] .
The modalities used to monitor melanoma patients include whole body skin examination, physical examination of the regional lymph nodes, blood tests, and imaging exams, such as chest X-ray, ultrasound, CT, PET/CT, and MRI. More analytically, a clinical evaluation performed by a dermatologist is mandatory at any stage and includes a total body skin examination (with or without a total body clinical and dermoscopic digital documentation) to identify local recurrences (scar, satellite/in-transit recurrence) and subsequent primary melanoma or other skin cancers. Clinical evaluation should also include the examination of the regional lymph nodes and the evaluation of patients’ symptoms and/or signs that would direct appropriate imaging if needed. Ultrasound of the lymph nodes is the most accurate method to detect nodal disease and is generally recommended in patients with equivocal lymph node during physical examination, in patients with AJCC T1b stage and above, in patients who were offered SLN biopsy but it was not performed or in patients with positive SLN biopsy who did not undergo complete lymph node dissection [ 32 ] . Other imaging modalities (CT, PET/CT, MRI, chest x-ray) should be considered for monitoring asymptomatic patients in more advanced stages or when signs and symptoms may suggest distant metastasis [ 33 ] . In any clinical scenario, if there is a recurrence suspect, this should be confirmed by histopathologic analysis whenever possible.
Finally, routine blood testing (LDH, S100 protein) to detect recurrence is generally not recommended as low positive predictive values have been demonstrated. Ongoing research focuses on liquid biopsies, namely the detection of molecular alterations in plasma and serum of melanoma patients by characterization of circulating tumor cells and cell-free circulating tumor DNA [ 34 , 35 ] . This may provide valuable information on prognostic outcomes and assessment of treatment response or resistance in the future.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), an alliance of 31 cancer centers in the United States, has released follow up recommendations per melanoma stage [ 1 ] . According to them, no routine imaging is recommended for stage 0 (in situ) melanoma. For patients with stage IA to IIA with no evidence of disease, routine imaging to screen for asymptomatic recurrence or metastatic disease is not recommended. Clinical visits should be scheduled every 6 to 12 months for 5 years and annually thereafter, as clinically indicated. Clinical examination in these visits should emphasize on the regional nodes and skin. For patients with stage IIB to IV (with no evidence of disease), scheduled visits should be conducted every 3 to 6 months for the first 2 years, every 3 to 12 months for the next 3 years and annually thereafter, as clinically indicated again emphasizing on the regional nodes and skin. Moreover, in these stages, imaging (chest x-ray, CT and/or PET/CT) every 3 to 12 months could be considered to screen for asymptomatic recurrence. Regarding central nervous system (CNS), a periodic brain MRI should be performed for up to 3 years to screen for asymptomatic brain metastases in high-risk patients with stage IIIC or higher melanoma, while more frequent surveillance is recommended for patients with prior brain metastases. However, routine imaging is not recommended after 3 to 5 years. Nonetheless, in any case and at any time of follow-up period, when clinically indicated, an appropriate imaging should be offered to evaluate specific signs or symptoms.
Finally, if relapse occurs, imaging is recommended to assess the extent of the disease. In addition, when complete surgical resection of relapse is not feasible and active non-surgical treatment is initiated, clinical examination and/or imaging may be appropriate throughout treatment to assess treatment response.
In Europe, follow up schemes vary among countries, ranging in frequency from 2 to 4 times per year for 5–10 years, again with higher-intensity strategies in more advanced stages and during the first years. Current European consensus-based interdisciplinary guidelines for melanoma have proposed an example of follow-up schedule examinations based on stage and is shown in Table 6 [ 2 ] .
Example of follow up schedule examinations based on melanoma stage proposed by European consensus-based interdisciplinary guidelines [ 2 ].
Irrespectively of the selected follow-up scheme, an individualized approach taking into consideration patient’s risk factors, such as risk for recurrence, prior primary melanoma, family history of melanoma and atypical mole syndrome, is optimal. Moreover, patients’ education must be an integral part of the surveillance strategy and should include:
In conclusion, although there is still no universally adopted follow-up strategy program to monitor melanoma patients, current recommendations, as described above, could serve as a guide for clinicians while future prospective studies are necessary to better standardize this follow-up protocols.
- Melanoma staging: Evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual Gershenwald JE, Scolyer RA, Hess KR, Sondak VK, Long GV, Ross MI, et al. CA Cancer J Clin.2017;67(6):472-492. CrossRef PubMed
- European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for melanoma. Part 1: Diagnostics - Update 2019 Garbe C, Amaral T, Peris K, Hauschild A, Arenberger P, Bastholt L, et al. Eur J Cancer.2020;126:141-158. CrossRef PubMed
- Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up† Michielin O, van Akkooi ACJ, Ascierto PA, Dummer R, Keilholz U. Ann Oncol.2019;30(12):1884-1901. CrossRef PubMed
- Prognostic factors analysis of 17,600 melanoma patients: validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging system Balch CM, Soong SJ, Gershenwald JE, Thompson JF, Reintgen DS, Cascinelli N, et al. J Clin Oncol.2001;19(16):3622-3634. CrossRef
- MSLT Group. Final trial report of sentinel-node biopsy versus nodal observation in melanoma Morton DL, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, Mozzillo N, Nieweg OE, Roses DF, et al. N Engl J Med.2014;370(7):599-609. CrossRef PubMed
- Fine-needle aspiration cytology for the diagnosis of metastatic melanoma: systematic review and meta-analysis Hall BJ, Schmidt RL, Sharma RR, Layfield LJ. Am J Clin Pathol.2013;140(5):635-642. CrossRef PubMed
- Long-term results of ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration cytology in conjunction with sentinel node biopsy support step-wise approach in melanoma Oude Ophuis CMC, Verhoef C, Grünhagen DJ, Siegel P, Schoengen A, Röwert-Huber J, et al. Eur J Surg Oncol.2017;43(8):1509-1516. CrossRef PubMed
- Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of superficial lymph nodes: an alternative to fine-needle aspiration cytology for the diagnosis of lymph node metastasis in cutaneous melanoma Bohelay G, Battistella M, Pages C, de Margerie-Mellon C, Basset-Seguin N, Viguier M, et al. Melanoma research.2015;25:519-527. CrossRef PubMed
- The sentinel lymph node status is an important factor for predicting clinical outcome in patients with Stage I or II cutaneous melanoma Statius Muller MG, van Leeuwen PA, de Lange-De Klerk ES, van Diest PJ, Pijpers R, Ferwerda CC, et al. Cancer.2001;91(12):2401-2408. CrossRef
- Importance of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thin melanoma Wright BE, Scheri RP, Ye X, Faries MB, Turner RR, Essner R, et al. Arch Surg.2008;143(9):892-899. CrossRef PubMed
- Sentinel lymph node biopsy for cutaneous melanoma: a 6 years study Lima Sánchez J, Sánchez Medina M, García Duque O, Fiúza Pérez M, Carreteri Hernández G, Fernández Palácios J. Indian J Plast Surg.2013;46(1):92-97. CrossRef PubMed
- The prognostic importance of sentinel lymph node biopsy in thin melanoma Ranieri JM, Wagner JD, Wenck S, Johnson CS, Coleman JJ. Ann Surg Oncol.2006;13(7):927-932. CrossRef PubMed
- Sentinel node biopsy in thin and thick melanoma Mozzillo N, Pennacchioli E, Gandini S, Caracò C, Crispo A, Botti G, et al. Ann Surg Oncol.2013;20(8):2780-2786. CrossRef PubMed
- Final Analysis of DeCOG-SLT Trial: No Survival Benefit for Complete Lymph Node Dissection in Patients With Melanoma With Positive Sentinel Node Leiter U, Stadler R, Mauch C, Hohenberger W, Brockmeyer NH, Berking C, et al. J Clin Oncol.2019;37(32):3000-3008. CrossRef PubMed
- (2017). Completion Dissection or Observation for Sentinel-Node Metastasis in Melanoma Faries MB, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, Andtbacka RH, Mozzillo N, Zager JS, et al. N Eng J Med.2017;376(23):2211-2222.
- Sentinel lymph node biopsy followed by lymph node dissection for localised primary cutaneous melanoma Kyrgidis A, Tzellos T, Mocellin S, Apalla Z, Lallas A, Pilati P, Stratigos A. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2015;16(5):CD010307. CrossRef PubMed
- The EORTC-DeCOG nomogram adequately predicts outcomes of patients with sentinel node-positive melanoma without the need for completion lymph node dissection Verver D, Rekkas A, Garbe C, van Klaveren D, van Akkooi ACJ, Rutkowski P, et al. Eur J Cancer.2020;134:9-18. CrossRef PubMed
- An assessment of histological margins and recurrence of melanoma in situ Joyce KM, Joyce CW, Jones DM, Donnellan P, Hussey AJ, Regan PJ, et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open.2015;3(2):e301. CrossRef PubMed
- Adequacy of 5-mm surgical excision margins for non-lentiginous melanoma in situ Duffy KL, Truong A, Bowen GM, Andtbacka RH, Hyngstrom J, Bowles T, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol.2014;71(4):835-838. CrossRef PubMed
- Recurrence rate of lentigo maligna after micrographically controlled staged surgical excision de Vries K, Greveling K, Prens LM, Munte K, Koljenović S, van Doorn MB, et al. Br J Dermatol.2016;174(3):588-593. CrossRef PubMed
- Site and timing of first relapse in stage III melanoma patients: implications for follow-up guidelines Romano E, Scordo M, Dusza SW, Coit DG, Chapman PB. J Clin Oncol.2010;28(18):3042-3047. CrossRef PubMed
- Hazard-rate analysis and patterns of recurrence in early stage melanoma: moving towards a rationally designed surveillance strategy Salama AK, de Rosa N, Scheri RP, Pruitt SK, Herndon JE, Marcello J, et al. PLoS One.2013;8(3):e57665. CrossRef PubMed
- Incidence and characteristics of thick second primary melanomas: a study of the German Central Malignant Melanoma Registry Gassenmaier M, Stec T, Keim U, Leiter U, Eigentler TK, Metzler G, Garbe C. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol.2019;33(1):63-70. CrossRef PubMed
- Primary staging and follow-up in melanoma patients--monocenter evaluation of methods, costs and patient survival Hofmann U, Szedlak M, Rittgen W, Jung EG, Schadendorf D. Br J Cancer.2002;87(2):151-157. CrossRef PubMed
- Risk factors related to late metastases in 1,372 melanoma patients disease free more than 10 years Osella-Abate S, Ribero S, Sanlorenzo M, Maule MM, Richiardi L, Merletti F, et al. Int J Cancer.2015;136(10):2453-2457. CrossRef PubMed
- Late recurrence of malignant melanoma. Analysis of 168 patients Crowley NJ, Seigler HF. Ann Surg.1990;212(2):173-177. CrossRef PubMed
- Second Primary Melanoma: Risk Factors, Histopathologic Features, Survival, and Implications for Follow-Up Jones MS, Torisu-Itakura H, Flaherty DC, et al. Am Surg.2016;82:1009-1013. CrossRef PubMed
- Risk factors for second primary melanoma among Dutch patients with melanoma Schuurman MS, de Waal AC, Thijs EJM, van Rossum MM, Kiemeney LALM, Aben KKH. Br J Dermatol.2017;176:971-978. CrossRef PubMed
- Distribution of subsequent primary invasive melanomas following a first primary invasive or in situ melanoma Queensland, Australia, 1982–2010 Youlden DR, Youl PH, Soyer HP, Aitken JF, Baade PD. JAMA Dermatol.2014;150(5):526-534. CrossRef PubMed
- Second primary melanomas in a cohort of 977 melanoma patients within the first 5 years of monitoring Lallas A, Apalla Z, Kyrgidis A, Papageorgiou C, Boukovinas I, Bobos M, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol.2020;82(2):398-406. CrossRef PubMed
- Ten-Year Survival after Multiple Invasive Melanomas Is Worse than after a Single Melanoma: a Population-Based Study Youlden DR, Baade PD, Soyer HP, Youl PH, Kimlin MG, Aitken JF, Green AC, Khosrotehrani K. J Invest Dermatol.2016;136(11):2270-2276. CrossRef PubMed
- Contemporary diagnostic imaging modalities for the staging and surveillance of melanoma patients: a meta-analysis Xing Y, Bronstein Y, Ross MI, Askew RL, Lee JE, Gershenwald JE, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst.2011;103(2):129-142. CrossRef PubMed
- Diagnostic accuracy of imaging studies for initial staging of T2b-T4b melanoma patients. A cross-sectional study Riquelme-Mc Loughlin C, Podlipnik S, Bosch-Amate X, Riera-Monroig J, Barreiro A, Espinosa N, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol.2019;81(6):1330-1338. CrossRef PubMed
- Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection is associated with shorter progression-free survival in advanced melanoma patients Marczynski GT, Laus AC, Dos Reis MB, Reis RM, Vazquez VL. Sci Rep.2020;10(1):18682. CrossRef PubMed
- Liquid Biopsies for Assessing Metastatic Melanoma Progression Huynh K, Hoon DS. Crit Rev Oncog.2016;21(1–2):141-154. CrossRef PubMed