Site Editor
Soo Park, MD
Soo Park, MD
Posted: Wednesday, May 29, 2024
According to Tina J. Hieken, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues, non-Hispanic Black vs White patients with nonmetastatic cutaneous melanoma present with more advanced disease and exhibit inferior outcomes. These data, which were published in the Journal of Surgical Oncology, suggest areas of focus to achieve earlier detection and treatment in this high-risk population.
“When we talk about patients with later-stage melanoma who are female vs male in that non-Hispanic Black cohort who ended up doing worse, some biologic things may be going on here that are interesting,” Dr. Hieken commented in an institutional press release. “Several immune signals suggest that females may respond better to some immunotherapies than males.”
Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, the investigators identified 492,597 patients who had available tumor (T) and node (N) category and race data. Of this population, 0.3% were non-Hispanic Black; they were younger (age < 50: 21% vs 17%) and more commonly female (54% vs 41%) than their non-Hispanic White counterparts (both P < .0005).
Non-Hispanic Black vs White patients demonstrated a higher incidence of lesions in the lower extremities (52% vs 15%; P < .0001), with this site being the most common for the former population, accompanied by higher clinical T categories (Tis–T1: 55% vs 82%, T3–T4: 27% vs 8%; P < .0001) and prognostic stages at presentation (stage III: 19% vs 6%; P < .0001). According to the investigators, within this racial demographic, male vs female patients tended to be older and more often exhibited node-positive disease. The 5-year stage III cancer‐specific survival rates were 42% and 71% for non-Hispanic Black males and females, respectively, after the investigators adjusted for age and clinical nodal status (hazard ratio = 2.48).
For more from Dr. Hieken on treating advanced melanoma, see a video on JNCCN 360.
Disclosure: No information regarding conflicts of interest was provided for the study authors.
JNCCN Spotlights
