Surveillance After a Previous Cutaneous Melanoma Diagnosis: A Scoping Review of Melanoma Follow-Up Guidelines

Abstract

Introduction

Cutaneous melanoma accounts for more than 70% of all skin cancer deaths. Follow-up surveillance is an integral part of melanoma patient care, to facilitate early detection of recurrences and subsequent primary melanomas. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview of recently published melanoma surveillance guidelines from regional and national melanoma working groups.

Methods

A systematic search for relevant studies in MEDLINE and Embase was conducted in September 2022 and was limited to publications from 2010 or later.

Results

A total of 1047 articles were retrieved, and after abstract and full text review, 26 articles from 19 different organizations met inclusion criteria. Life-long annual skin surveillance with a physician was recommended by 53% (9/17) of guidelines. Routine laboratory investigations were recommended by 7/19 guidelines. Regional lymph node ultrasound was recommended by 9/16 guidelines, most often in stage IB or higher, and was optional in 7/16 for patients who met specific criteria. Surveillance with PET-CT or CT and MRI was recommended by 15 and 11 guidelines, respectively, most commonly in stage IIC or higher, with a variable frequency and total duration. Five out of 9 guidelines indicated a preference for skin surveillance to be completed with a dermatologist.

Conclusion

Guidelines were highly variable for many aspects of melanoma surveillance, which may be partly attributed to regional differences in healthcare workforce distribution and availability of imaging technologies. Further high-level studies are recommended to provide more evidence on the most effective clinical and imaging follow-up surveillance protocols.

Keywords

melanoma skin cancer surveillance clinical practice guidelines follow-up review

Introduction

Cutaneous melanoma accounts for 5.2% of all new cancer diagnoses.¹ More than 70% of all deaths from skin cancer can be attributed to melanoma, due to its high metastatic potential.² In recent decades, there has been an increase in the incidence and prevalence rates of malignant melanoma in developed countries.^2,3 As a result of both genetic and environmental risk factors, individuals with a previous history of melanoma are at risk for developing subsequent primary melanomas.^4,5

Additionally, individuals with melanoma are at risk for developing recurrences after definitive management of the primary cutaneous tumor, which includes metastases to distant organs. Distant metastases have a significant adverse impact on melanoma survival rates.⁶ With the development of new therapies to treat metastatic melanoma, it is possible that survival rates for metastatic melanoma may improve, especially if metastases are detected at an early stage.⁷ Complete surgical resection of oligometastases has also demonstrated a survival benefit but is typically limited to patients with isolated disease.⁸

To help facilitate early detection of recurrences and subsequent primary melanomas, individuals with cutaneous melanoma are recommended to undergo clinical follow-up and, in some cases, routine surveillance imaging, in the years following the initial melanoma diagnosis. However, limited high-quality studies have been conducted to investigate the use of follow-up surveillance in melanoma patients. Additionally, the delivery of follow-up care may be impacted by regional availability of healthcare resources, including specialist physician care and surveillance imaging modalities. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of recent international guidelines on follow-up care of melanoma patients and an analysis of the supporting evidence for surveillance recommendations.

Materials and Methods

Literature Search

A database search for relevant studies in MEDLINE and Embase was conducted on September 10, 2022 using the following MeSH keywords: (‘melanoma’) AND (‘follow-up’ OR ‘surveillance’) AND (‘guidelines’ OR ‘recommendations’). A manual search of reference lists of included studies was performed to ensure all relevant studies were captured. To accurately reflect recent research advancements and current clinical practice, the literature search was limited to articles that were published from January 1, 2010 to September 10, 2022. Title, abstract, and full-text screening was completed in duplicate by two reviewers (L.J. and S.S.).

Eligibility Criteria

National and international guidelines that contained recommendations on melanoma follow-up surveillance were eligible for inclusion. Guidelines were required to contain recommendations on at least one of either (i) clinical follow-up or (ii) surveillance investigations. If multiple versions of a guideline publication were published by a particular melanoma expert group, only the most recent publication was included in the review.

Articles were excluded if the primary focus was not cutaneous melanoma. Additionally, publications which focused on staging or re-staging of symptomatic recurrent disease or monitoring of response to treatment were also excluded, as the focus of this review is on routine follow-up surveillance.

Data Extraction

Data extraction was completed by two reviewers (L.J. and S.S.). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist was used as a guide for development of this article.⁹

Results

The MEDLINE and Embase database searches yielded 1047 articles (Supplemental Figure 1). Following title and abstract screening, a total of 87 publications underwent full text review and 18 met criteria for inclusion. An additional 8 citations from 3 different organizations (Cancer Council Australia, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network) were identified after manual review of the citations in included articles.

National Clinical Practice Guidelines

Nineteen different national clinical practice guidelines were referenced from the 26 articles that met the inclusion criteria (Supplemental Table 1). Countries that were represented by the published guidelines included Australia, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Multinational European guidelines were also included.^{10

-35}

Patient Education on Sun Safety

Patient education on sun safety was discussed and recommended by 14 clinical practice guidelines (Supplemental Table 2). Specific sun safety recommendations included variations of the following: (i) minimizing sun exposure during peak daylight hours, (ii) wearing sun-protective clothing, sunglasses, and a wide-brimmed hat, and (iii) applying broad-spectrum ultraviolet (UV) sunscreen regularly to sun-exposed skin when outdoors.

Self-Skin Examinations

Self-skin examination was discussed by 17 guidelines (Supplemental Table 2). All 17 guidelines recommended that patients routinely complete self-exams. Individual recommendations varied amongst guidelines, but the following were frequently occurring instructions for patients: examination of the entire skin surface, examination of the surgical scar, and/or palpation of the regional lymph node basins. In the five guidelines that recommended a specific frequency of self-skin exams, the recommended frequency varied from once monthly to annually.^{17,25,27,29,32}

American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging and Definition of High-Risk Melanoma Group

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for melanoma was used in all 19 clinical practice guideline publications. The seventh edition of the AJCC melanoma staging guidelines was published in 2009 and was used in 10 guidelines.³⁶ The eighth edition was published in 2017 and was incorporated into 9 of the guidelines (Supplemental Table 2).³⁷

Most guidelines (18/19) provided a definition for the high-risk category of melanoma patients based on AJCC stage. The most frequent definition of a high-risk surveillance group began at stage IIB (8/19 guidelines), while 7 guidelines selected stage IIC and 3 guidelines chose stage III as the earliest stages included in high-risk surveillance schedules (Supplemental Table 2). The Brazilian Society of Dermatology guidelines only proposed recommendations for stage 0-II and did not provide surveillance guidelines for more advanced stages.

Recommended Duration of Clinical Skin Surveillance

Seventeen guidelines provided recommendations for the total duration of skin surveillance with a healthcare provider (Supplemental Table 2). The recommendations for clinical surveillance can be stratified into two main categories: (i) life-long surveillance and (ii) fixed-duration surveillance. The most common recommendation was life-long surveillance at an annual frequency, which was recommended by 53% (9/17) of the guidelines. Fixed duration of clinical surveillance following a patient’s initial diagnosis or most recent change in AJCC staging was recommended by 47% (8/17) of the guidelines. Of these 8 guidelines, 4 recommended that routine clinical surveillance occur for a maximum time period of 10 years. The Canadian Melanoma Conference guidelines focused exclusively on surveillance in high-risk (stage IIB-IV) patients and recommended clinical surveillance for 5 years.¹⁸ Three guidelines recommended a stage-dependent, variable fixed-duration schedule. The Network of Catalan and Balearic Melanoma Centers recommended that follow-up occur for a duration of 3-5 years in melanoma in situ, while stage IB-IV melanoma patients should undergo follow-up for 10 years.²⁹ Two guidelines from organizations in the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the British Association of Dermatology, recommended that patients with melanoma in situ may be discharged after post-surgical follow-up and do not require ongoing surveillance, while patients with advanced AJCC stages should be followed for up to 5 and 10 years, respectively.^32,33

Clinical Follow-Up Schedules

Recommendations for clinical follow-up schedules are provided in 17 of the 19 guidelines (Supplemental Table 3). New Zealand’s National Melanoma Working Group and the European Society of Medical Oncology guidelines were not included in the tables. The National Melanoma Working Group guidelines focus exclusively on surveillance imaging and did not discuss healthcare provider-led clinical examination and the European Society of Medical Oncology guidelines did not present a specific timeline for clinical follow-up.

In the 17 guidelines that contained clinical follow-up recommendations, all guidelines recommended a stage-specific approach to determining the frequency of follow-up (Supplemental Table 3). Each guideline stratified follow-up groups into low risk, intermediate risk and/or high-risk categories based on AJCC stage, with more frequent follow-up recommended in more advanced stages. Additionally, 16/17 guidelines recommended more frequent follow-up during the initial years of the total follow-up period. The period of more intensive surveillance occurred during the first 1-5 years after initial diagnosis, definitive management, or re-staging after disease progression. This was followed by a period of less frequent surveillance, then either stopping routine clinical surveillance completely or reducing the frequency to an annual, life-long schedule. The CMC guidelines were the only guidelines that recommended a fixed frequency of follow-up for the full duration of the surveillance period, with 6-monthly visits scheduled for the entire 5-year period of clinical surveillance.

Recommendations for Which Specialists Should Conduct Follow-Up Surveillance Visits With Melanoma Patients

Nine guidelines included recommendations for the medical disciplines and experience of providers who should be involved in the clinical follow-up care of melanoma patients (Supplemental Table 3). Out of these 9 guidelines, 6 indicated a preference for one or two types of specialists, while 3 guidelines suggested multiple different disciplines that could oversee follow-up care. Five guidelines indicated that having clinical skin examinations with a dermatologist is preferrable and one guideline stated that clinical skin surveillance should be completed with either a dermatologist or a primary care physician. In the three guidelines that did not prefer a particular discipline to oversee follow-up, dermatologists, general practitioners, medical oncologists, and surgeons were listed as potential candidates.

Six guidelines discussed expertise in dermoscopy as an important skill for skin surveillance providers to offer to their melanoma patients (Supplemental Table 3). The Cancer Council Australia guidelines recommended that follow-up skin surveillance with a provider who has experience in skin examination would be preferrable.^10

-16 The European Dermatology Forum, European Association of Dermato-Oncology and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines preferred follow-up with a dermatologist due to their focused clinical training on skin examination and dermoscopy.²¹ However, as some European countries may have a limited number of practicing dermatologists, follow-up with a general practitioner that has completed additional training in dermoscopy is a suitable alternative.

Laboratory and Radiographic Surveillance Investigations

Specific recommendations on follow-up imaging are outlined in Supplemental Table 4. Investigations that were discussed by at least half of the included guidelines are summarized below. These included laboratory tests, regional lymph node ultrasound (US), chest x-ray (CXR), positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET-CT), conventional CT with contrast, and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Regional Lymph Node Ultrasound

Regional lymph node US was discussed by 16 guidelines, recommended by 9 and listed as optional by 7 guidelines (Supplemental Table 4). Of the guidelines which indicated that lymph node US is optional, 6 guidelines stated that lymph node US should be performed in patients who either did not undergo a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as recommended or in individuals with a known positive SLNB who did not undergo a complete lymph node dissection. Fifteen guidelines recommended a specific stage to start regional lymph node US. Eight guidelines suggested stage IB as the earliest stage to perform regional lymph node US. The remaining 7 guidelines recommended starting lymph node US at stage IA (n=1), IIA (n=1), IIB (n=1), IIC (n=2), and III (n=2).

Chest X-Ray

CXR was recommended by 2 publications, not recommended by 5, and listed as an optional investigation in 3. In guidelines that did not discuss CXR or recommended against its use in follow-up care, explanations included the use of full body PET-CT or chest CT as preferred surveillance investigations for lung metastases or a general lack of robust evidence to support the use of surveillance imaging.

PET-CT And/or CT

PET-CT or CT for follow-up surveillance was recommended by 15 of the 19 clinical practice guidelines (Supplemental Table 4). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines did not recommend specific imaging modalities but stated that imaging may occur at stage IIC or higher. Of the 17 guidelines that recommended imaging at a particular stage, 7 recommended IIC as the earliest AJCC stage to incorporate imaging into follow-up surveillance. Six guidelines recommended starting surveillance at stage IIB, one recommended stage II and two recommended stage III. The Cancer Council Australia guidelines suggested that follow-up imaging may be useful in patients with stage IIC or higher disease, but the potential for change in management based on findings should be taken into consideration when determining whether to incorporate PET-CT or CT imaging into a surveillance plan.

Eight guidelines indicated a preference for PET-CT over conventional CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis (CT-CAP), due a higher sensitivity and specificity of PET-CT for detection of distant metastases. CT was preferred by 6 publications and one publication suggested that either PET-CT or CT may be performed, without a statement indicating a preference for either test. Limited regional accessibility of PET-CT and higher cost compared to conventional CT were listed as reasons for recommending CT over PET.

The total duration of routine PET-CT or CT imaging ranged from 3 to 5 years in 14 guidelines (Supplemental Table 4). The frequency of imaging was variable, ranging from every 3 months to every 12 months. Eight guidelines recommended a fixed frequency of imaging throughout the full surveillance period, while 6 guidelines recommended more frequent imaging in the first few years of surveillance, followed by a period of reduced frequency of surveillance until the end of the imaging surveillance period. Four guidelines recommended stage-adjusted frequencies, with less frequent imaging in earlier stages and more frequent imaging in the most advanced stages.

Brain MRI

Eleven guidelines recommended the use of brain MRI for surveillance of cerebral metastases (Supplemental Table 4). Two guidelines listed brain MRI as an optional investigation and six guidelines did not discuss brain MRI. Six guidelines suggested that brain MRI should be performed in patients with stage IIC or higher disease, while 5 guidelines suggested starting MRI surveillance at stage IIB. The recommended total duration of MRI surveillance ranged from 3 to 5 years. The frequency of MRI ranged from 3-monthly to 12-monthly intervals. Most guidelines recommended a fixed frequency of imaging throughout the surveillance period. Two guidelines recommended a higher initial frequency of imaging, followed by a period of reduced frequency surveillance prior to the end of the imaging surveillance period.

Laboratory Investigations

Laboratory investigations were recommended for follow-up surveillance by 7/19 publications and were recommended against by 6 guidelines (Supplemental Table 5). Three publications indicated that laboratory investigations were optional and 3 guidelines did not discuss the use of laboratory investigations in follow-up care. In the guidelines that recommended specific laboratory investigations or listed them as optional, S100B and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) were listed as potential surveillance tests.

Discussion

This study summarizes national and international guidelines that were published by melanoma specialist organizations. Outcomes investigated included patient education, self-skin examination, total duration of skin surveillance, definition of high-risk melanoma patients, frequency of clinical surveillance visits with a physician, recommendations for surveillance investigations, and recommendations for specialty of physicians who oversee the care of patients with melanoma.

The recommendations with the highest agreement amongst publications were the guidelines on patient education on sun safety and self-skin examinations. As UV exposure is a known risk factor for melanoma, counselling patients on methods to minimize UV-mediated damage to the skin is essential to prevent additional melanomas. One study found that patients who reported infrequently or never using sunscreen after a first primary melanoma diagnosis had a 2-fold increased risk of developing subsequent primary melanomas compared to individuals who frequently used sunscreen.³⁸ Additionally, a recent literature review of the evidence on sun safety recommendations found that there is strong evidence to support that the risk of both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers may be significantly reduced by daily sunscreen application.³⁹ Patients with melanoma should be advised to minimize sun exposure during peak daylight hours, wear sun-protective clothing, sunglasses and a wide-brimmed hat, and apply broad-spectrum UV sunscreen regularly to exposed skin when outdoors.^35,39

Educating patients on both the importance of self-skin examination and how to perform self-examinations was emphasized by most clinical practice guidelines. Previous studies on self-skin examinations have found that regular self-skin examinations may lead to earlier detection of melanoma and reduced mortality.^40,41 Some studies have found that the majority of melanoma recurrences were initially detected by patients or their family members, compared to detection by a healthcare provider or with surveillance imaging, especially if the recurrences were locoregional.^42
-44 This demonstrates that regular self-examinations are an essential component of a melanoma surveillance plan. Monthly self-skin and lymph node examinations have the strongest support from the literature, although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not been conducted to investigate the optimal frequency of self-examinations in patients with melanoma.⁴⁵

Recommendations for clinical follow-up were highly variable. Recent studies have found that the peak incidence rates of melanoma recurrences and subsequent primary melanomas occur during the first 2-3 years after a melanoma diagnosis.^{5,42,44,46

-61} Overall, less than 5% of melanoma recurrences occur beyond 5 years after definitive management.¹⁵ However, several studies have suggested that there is an elevated risk of subsequent primary melanomas that persists beyond 10 years after the initial melanoma diagnosis.^{46,60,62

-65} Therefore, combining time-limited clinical follow up with life-long self-skin examination could be a reasonable approach.

The frequency of clinical surveillance varied amongst guidelines. All guidelines recommended a stage-specific approach to follow-up schedules, with follow-up frequencies ranging from every 3 months to annually. The 2016 melanoma follow-up (MELFO) trial in Australia investigated follow-up frequencies in stage IB-IIC melanoma patients and found that there were no differences in detection of recurrences with a reduced frequency, stage-specific follow-up schedule compared to higher frequency surveillance schedules.⁶⁶ In stage II melanoma, the reduced-frequency MELFO follow-up schedule recommends a higher intensity surveillance period consisting of 2-3 visits per year for the first 2 years, followed by 1-2 visits per year in year 3 and then annual visits in years 4-5.⁶⁶

The guidelines did not indicate a strong preference for the specialties of healthcare providers who should oversee follow-up care. However, routine surveillance with a provider who has dermoscopy training and experience with conducting skin examinations was consistently recommended. A previous study that compared general practitioner (GP)-based follow-up in Scotland to specialist follow-up at a tertiary care center found that with brief additional training in skin surveillance, GP-led follow-up had similar health outcomes and high patient satisfaction ratings.⁶⁷ In the context of the small number of dermatologists in Canada, GP-led follow-up, especially in low-risk melanomas, could be a sustainable approach.

Lymph node ultrasonography is the preferred surveillance test for regional lymph nodes. Previous studies have found that lymph node US is superior to clinical examination for detection of lymph node metastases and it has a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 99%.^68,69 In this review, 9/16 guidelines recommended routine lymph node US and 7/16 studies listed US as an optional imaging modality or suggested routine use only in individuals who did not undergo SLNB or complete lymph node dissection after a positive SLNB. Evidence regarding the utility of regional lymph node ultrasonography in routine surveillance of early-stage disease is inconclusive. A cohort study of 1149 stage IB and IIA melanoma patients found that there was no survival benefit of routine ultrasonography.⁷⁰ However, the risk of lymph node metastases is higher in patients with more advanced disease and routine ultrasonography may be beneficial in patients with stage IIB or higher disease. A 2011 study by Krüger et al. found that in a cohort of 433 patients who were predominantly in stages II-IV, 67% (22/33) of lymph node recurrences were detected by ultrasonography in the absence of clinical suspicion.⁷¹ Bartlett et al. found that regional lymph node ultrasonography every 3-4 months in SLNB-positive patients was useful in identifying recurrences at a surgically resectable stage in the 13.0% of patients who experienced recurrence.⁷²

The use of PET-CT, conventional CT-CAP and/or MRI was discussed and recommended by most guidelines. Imaging surveillance was not recommended in patients with stage 0-IIA melanoma, as detection rates of distant recurrences by imaging tend to be lower than the false positive rates.⁷³ Most guidelines indicated that surveillance imaging should start at either stage IIB or IIC. Patients with stage 0-IIA melanoma are more likely to develop locoregional metastases than distant metastases, which are more frequently detected by self-exam or physician-led physical examination.⁷⁴ Conversely, multiple studies have found that stage IIB and IIC patients have much higher rates of distant recurrences and detection of these recurrences by imaging. Approximately half of all patients with stage IIB, IIC and III melanoma had recurrences detected by surveillance PET-CT or CT in previous studies.^48,73 A 2011 systematic review found that the sensitivity and specificity of PET-CT (86% and 91%) was significantly higher than conventional contrast-enhanced CT (63% and 78%) of the chest, abdomen and pelvis and PET alone (82% and 83%).⁶⁹ However, CT-CAP may still be an acceptable choice in geographic regions with limited access to PET-CT and this was cited as a reason for recommending CT-CAP over PET-CT by some guidelines. CXR was shown to be inferior for detection of pulmonary metastases compared to CT in a previous prospective cohort study and was not recommended by most clinical practice guidelines.⁴⁸ For screening to rule out potential brain metastases, MRI is the preferred imaging modality, as it has a higher resolution and can detect smaller metastases than CT and PET-CT.⁷⁵

One potential concern with the use of routine surveillance imaging is the high rate of false positive test results. The false positive rate for PET-CT has been estimated to be between 7-14% and for conventional CT, the rate is up to 20%.^{33,74,76

-80} One study estimated that 46% of patients had at least one false-positive result over a 5-year period with PET-CT or CT imaging every 6-12 months.⁸¹ A significant portion of patients with false positive imaging results subsequently undergo unnecessary diagnostic imaging and invasive surgical procedures.^76,79
-81 The potential benefits of early detection of recurrences must be balanced with the potential harms of unnecessary interventions and additional stress that may result from imaging surveillance. Additionally, high-quality evidence that supports a survival benefit from routine surveillance imaging is lacking in the current literature.^74,76 However, with new emerging systemic therapies for metastatic melanoma, the survival benefits of surveillance imaging may become more evident.^74,76

Guidelines on the use of routine laboratory testing differed substantially, with 63% (10/16) of guidelines recommending against routine use of laboratory tests for surveillance. Of the guidelines that recommended specific laboratory tests or listed optional tests, S100B and LDH were most frequently included. Serum S100B is secreted by human melanoma cells and elevated levels may indicate disease progression, presence of metastases and reduced survival odds.^82,83 However, S100B is also expressed by many different cell lineages and elevations have been associated with numerous other pathological states, including myocardial infarction, liver cirrhosis and chronic kidney disease.⁸² In one study that followed 1113 stage IB-IV melanoma patients over 2 years, 16% had false-negative and 12% had false-positive S100B results.⁸² The sensitivity and specificity of S100B were 55% and 88%, respectively.⁸² LDH is also used as a biomarker in melanoma staging to predict prognosis, but a previous study found that LDH had a low sensitivity for detecting new metastases during follow-up surveillance.⁸³ Both S100B and LDH are unable to detect locoregional metastases and may not be useful in patients with early-stage disease.

The role of serum laboratory testing in melanoma follow-up surveillance must be considered in the context of other surveillance modalities. Laboratory tests are often not the first sign of metastasis and more definitive radiologic imaging is needed to definitively determine if distant metastases are present.^48,83
-85 In a 2016 prospective cohort study that followed stage IIB, IIC and III melanoma patients for a median of 2.5 years, only 2.5% of patients had increased serum S100B or melanoma inhibitory activity protein as the first sign of metastasis.⁴⁸

Overall, the quality of supporting evidence for many follow-up surveillance recommendations was limited, especially for surveillance imaging, due to a lack of RCTs that have been conducted on follow-up surveillance schedules. This was a major limitation that likely led to the significant differences in recommendations that were observed amongst the included studies in this review. Further study in RCTs is needed to investigate the utility of surveillance imaging in the follow-up care of melanoma patients. Another limitation in this review was the diversity of approaches within the 19 included guidelines with respect to evaluating the supporting evidence and strength of their recommendations. Six guidelines did not discuss the use of a particular evidence appraisal scheme and did not provide levels of evidence or evidence grading. Of the 13 guidelines that provided an assessment of evidence, different evidence appraisal guidelines were used, making it challenging to provide a quantitative comparison between guidelines. Additionally, most guidelines took both the available supporting evidence and the clinical experience of expert panelists into consideration to develop guidelines with real-world applicability to a particular geographic region. National healthcare systems may differ in terms of access to specialist care and imaging studies and some recommendations from national guidelines may not be applicable to the healthcare systems of other countries.

In conclusion, this scoping review of global melanoma follow-up surveillance guidelines has demonstrated that there are significant differences in recommendations from different working groups and geographic regions. Further high-level studies are needed to provide more evidence on the most effective clinical and imaging follow-up surveillance protocols. In addition, careful consideration of disease prevalence, healthcare structure, workforce composition, and resources should be applied when developing guidelines for a specific jurisdiction or geographic location.

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Material 1 - Supplemental material for Surveillance After a Previous Cutaneous Melanoma Diagnosis: A Scoping Review of Melanoma Follow-Up Guidelines

Supplemental material, Supplementary Material 1, for Surveillance After a Previous Cutaneous Melanoma Diagnosis: A Scoping Review of Melanoma Follow-Up Guidelines by Leah Johnston, Samantha Starkey, Ilya Mukovozov, Lynne Robertson, Teresa Petrella and Raed Alhusayen in Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery

Supplemental Material

Figure S1 - Supplemental material for Surveillance After a Previous Cutaneous Melanoma Diagnosis: A Scoping Review of Melanoma Follow-Up Guidelines

Supplemental material, Figure S1, for Surveillance After a Previous Cutaneous Melanoma Diagnosis: A Scoping Review of Melanoma Follow-Up Guidelines by Leah Johnston, Samantha Starkey, Ilya Mukovozov, Lynne Robertson, Teresa Petrella and Raed Alhusayen in Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Leah Johnston

Ilya Mukovozov

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

National Cancer Institute . Melanoma of the Skin-Cancer Stat Facts. Accessed December 19, 2022.. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html

Aggarwal

Knabel

Fleischer

. United States burden of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer from 1990 to 2019. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(2):388-395.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.03.109

33852922

Dzwierzynski

WW.

Surg

. Melanoma risk factors and prevention. 2021;48(4):543-550.

Pastor-Tomás

Martínez-Franco

Bañuls

et al. Risk factors for the development of a second melanoma in patients with cutaneous melanoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(10):2295-2302.doi:10.1111/jdv.16341

32163215

Lallas

Apalla

Kyrgidis

et al. Second primary melanomas in a cohort of 977 melanoma patients within the first 5 years of monitoring. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82(2):398-406.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2019.08.074

31499156

Keung

EZ.

Gershenwald

. The eighth edition American joint Committee on cancer (AJCC) melanoma staging system: implications for melanoma treatment and care. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2018;18(8):775-784.doi:10.1080/14737140.2018.1489246

29923435

Carlino

MS.

Larkin

Long

. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma. Lancet. 2021;398(10304):1002-1014.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01206-X

34509219

Enomoto

LM.

Levine

EA.

Shen

Votanopoulos

. Role of surgery for metastatic melanoma. Surg Clin North Am. 2020;100(1):127-139.doi:10.1016/j.suc.2019.09.011

31753107

Tricco

AC.

Lillie

Zarin

et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473.doi:10.7326/M18-0850

30178033

10.

Barbour

Millward

Morton

Saw

Cancer Council Australia Melanoma Working Guidelines Party 2018. Guidelines: investigations and follow-up for melanoma patients. clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of melanoma. Accessed September 18, 2022 Melanoma Institute Australia. https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Guidelines:Investigations_and_Follow-up_for_Melanoma_Patients

11.

Morton

Barbour

Bell

Mar

Smithers

Cancer Council Australia Melanoma Working Guidelines Party . Clinical question: What investigations should be performed following a diagnosis of primary cutaneous melanoma for asymptomatic stage I and stage II patients? Melanoma Institute Australia.. Updated May 25, 2018. Accessed September 18, 2022. https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Clinical_question:What_investigations_should_be_performed_following_a_diagnosis_of_primary_cutaneous_melanoma_for_asymptomatic_Stage_I_and_II_patients%3F

12.

Saw

Menzies

McArthur

Spillane

Haydon

Cancer Council Australia Melanoma Working Guidelines Party . Clinical question: What investigations should be performed when in-transit and/or regional node disease (stage III melanoma) is diagnosed? Melanoma Institute Australia.. Updated May 25, 2018. Accessed September 18, 2022. https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Clinical_question:What_investigations_should_be_performed_when_in_transit_and/or_regional_node_disease_(Stage_III_melanoma)_is_diagnosed%3F

13.

Millward

Menzies

Atkinson

Brown

Haydon

Cancer Council Australia Melanoma Working Guidelines Party . Clinical question: What investigations should be performed when stage IV melanoma is diagnosed? Melanoma Institute Australia.. Updated May 25, 2018. Accessed September 18, 2022. https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Clinical_question:What_investigations_should_be_performed_when_Stage_IV_melanoma_is_diagnosed%3F

14.

Barbour

Guminski

Liu

Menzies

Morton

Cancer Council Australia Melanoma Working Guidelines Party 2018. Clinical question: follow up after initial definitive treatment for each stage of melanoma. Accessed September 18, 2022 Melanoma Institute Australia. https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Clinical_question:How_should_patients_at_each_stage_of_melanoma_be_followed_after_initial_definitive_treatment%3F

15.

Barbour

Guminski

Liu

Menzies

Morton

Cancer Council Australia Melanoma Working Guidelines Party 2019. Clinical question: ideal settings, duration and frequency of follow-up for patients with melanoma. Accessed September 18, 2022 Melanoma Institute Australia. https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Clinical_question:What_is_the_ideal_setting,_duration_and_frequency_of_follow-up_for_melanoma_patients%3F

16.

Mar

VJ.

Soyer

HP.

Button-Sloan

et al. Diagnosis and management of cutaneous melanoma. Aust J Gen Pract. 2020;49(11):733-739.doi:10.31128/AJGP-02-20-5238

33123704

17.

Castro

LGM.

Bakos

RM.

Duprat Neto

et al. Brazilian guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of primary cutaneous melanoma - Part II. An Bras Dermatol. 2016;91(1):49-58.doi:10.1590/abd1806-4841.20164715

26982779

18.

Lee

CW.

McKinnon

JG.

Davis

. Canadian melanoma conference recommendations on high-risk melanoma surveillance: a report from the 14th annual Canadian melanoma conference; Banff, Alberta; 20-22 February 2020. Curr Oncol. 2021;28(3):2040-2051.doi:10.3390/curroncol28030189

34072050

19.

Herceg

Jakopović

Plavetić

et al. CANCER PATIENTS FOLLOW-UP – CROATIAN SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL ONCOLOGY CLINICAL GUIDELINES Part V: melanoma, sarcomas, central nerve system tumors, lung cancer].. Lijec Vjesn. 2016;139(1-2):17-23.30148587

20.

Herceg

Buzina

DS.

Ceović

et al. klinicke preporuke hrvatskog drustva za internisticku onkologiju hlz-a za dijagnozu, lijecenje i pracenje bolesnika/ca oboljelih od melanoma koze [croatian society for medical oncology clinical guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with melanoma. Lijec Vjesn. 2016;138(1-2):22-29.

21.

Garbe

Amaral

Peris

et al. European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for melanoma. Part 1: diagnostics: update 2022. Eur J Cancer. 2022;170:236-255.doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2022.03.008

35570085

22.

Michielin

van Akkooi

ACJ

Ascierto

Dummer

Keilholz

ESMO Guidelines Committee. Electronic address: clinicalguidelines@esmo.org . Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(12):1884-1901.doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz411

31566661

23.

Guillot

Dalac

Denis

et al. French updated recommendations in stage I to III melanoma treatment and management. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31(4):594-602.doi:10.1111/jdv.14064

28120528

24.

Pflugfelder

Kochs

Blum

et al. Malignant melanoma S3-guideline “diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of melanoma”. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2013;11 Suppl 6(Suppl 6):1-116.doi:10.1111/ddg.12113_suppl

24028775

25.

Moscarella

Ricci

Borgognoni

et al. Follow-Up of cutaneous melanoma patients: a proposal for standardization. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2014;149(6):633-638.24938723

26.

Francis

Sehji

Barnett

Martin

RCW

. Radiological imaging of melanoma: a review to guide clinical practice in New Zealand. N Z Med J. 2021;134(1528):79-87.33444308

27.

Rutkowski

Lugowska

. Follow-Up in melanoma patients. Memo. 2014;7(2):83-86.doi:10.1007/s12254-014-0151-y

25089158

28.

Campos-Balea

Fernández-Calvo

García-Figueiras

et al. Follow-Up of primary melanoma patients with high risk of recurrence: recommendations based on evidence and consensus. Clin Transl Oncol. 2022;24(8):1515-1523.doi:10.1007/s12094-022-02822-x

35349041

29.

Mangas

Paradelo

Puig

et al. Valoración inicial, diagnóstico, estadificación, tratamiento y seguimiento de los pacientes con melanoma maligno primario de la piel. Documento de consenso de la “Xarxa de Centres de Melanoma de Catalunya i Balears” [Initial evaluation, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and follow-up of patients with primary cutaneous malignant melanoma. Consensus statement of the Network of Catalan and Balearic Melanoma Centers] [published correction appears in Actas Dermosifiliogr Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2010 2010;101 101((4) 2):378:129-142.

30.

Majem

Manzano

JL.

Marquez-Rodas

et al. SEOM clinical guideline for the management of cutaneous melanoma (2020. Clin Transl Oncol. 2021;23(5):948-960.doi:10.1007/s12094-020-02539-9

33651321

31.

Dummer

Siano

Hunger

et al. The updated Swiss guidelines 2016 for the treatment and follow-up of cutaneous melanoma. Swiss Med Wkly. 2016;146::w14279 doi:10.4414/smw.2016.14279

26901103

32.

Marsden

JR.

Newton-Bishop

JA.

Burrows

et al. Revised UK guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma 2010. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63(9):1401-1419.doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2010.07.006

20728418

33.

Macbeth

Newton-Bishop

O’Connell

Hawkins

Group

Guideline Development Group . Melanoma: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2015;351(351):h3708.doi:10.1136/bmj.h3708

26223435

34.

Swetter

SM.

Tsao

Bichakjian

et al. Guidelines of care for the management of primary cutaneous melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(1):208-250.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.08.055

30392755

35.

Swetter

SM.

Thompson

JA.

Albertini

et al. Melanoma: cutaneous, version 3.2022, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;17(4):367-402.

36.

Balch

CM.

Gershenwald

JE.

Soong

S-J

et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(36):6199-6206.doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.23.4799

19917835

37.

Gershenwald

JE.

Scolyer

RA.

Hess

et al. Melanoma staging: evidence-based changes in the American joint Committee on cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(6):472-492.doi:10.3322/caac.21409

29028110

38.

von Schuckmann

LA.

Wilson

LF.

Hughes

MCB

et al. Sun protection behavior after diagnosis of high-risk primary melanoma and risk of a subsequent primary. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(1):139-148.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.06.068

30009865

39.

Colantonio

Dawson

Lin

Beecker

Application

. Safety, and sun protection: the evidence. J Cutan Med Surg. 2019;23(4):357-369.

40.

Coroiu

Moran

Bergeron

et al. Short and long-term barriers and facilitators of skin self-examination among individuals diagnosed with melanoma. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):123 doi:10.1186/s12885-019-6476-5

32059700

41.

Yagerman

Marghoob

. Melanoma patient self-detection: a review of efficacy of the skin self-examination and patient-directed educational efforts. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2013;13(12):1423-1431.doi:10.1586/14737140.2013.856272

24236821

42.

Lee

AY.

Droppelmann

Panageas

et al. Patterns and timing of initial relapse in pathologic stage II melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(4):939-946.doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5642-0

27804026

43.

Berger

AC.

Ollila

DW.

Christopher

et al. Patient symptoms are the most frequent indicators of recurrence in patients with American joint Committee on cancer stage II melanoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224(4):652-659.doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.12.038

28189663

44.

Park

TS.

Phan

GQ.

Yang

et al. Routine computer tomography imaging for the detection of recurrences in high-risk melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(4):947-951.doi:10.1245/s10434-017-5768-8

28144760

45.

Bhurosy

Heckman

CJ.

Riley

. Prevalence and correlates of skin self-examination behaviors among melanoma survivors: a systematic review. Transl Behav Med. 2020;10(5):1120-1133.doi:10.1093/tbm/ibaa003

33044529

46.

Leiter

Buettner

PG.

Eigentler

et al. Hazard rates for recurrent and secondary cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of 33,384 patients in the German central malignant melanoma registry. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;66(1):37-45.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2010.09.772

21700361

47.

Livingstone

Krajewski

Eigentler

et al. Prospective evaluation of follow-up in melanoma patients in Germany - results of a multicentre and longitudinal study. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(5):653-667.doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2015.01.007

25638778

48.

Podlipnik

Carrera

Sánchez

et al. Performance of diagnostic tests in an intensive follow-up protocol for patients with American joint Committee on cancer (AJCC) stage IIb, IIC, and III localized primary melanoma: a prospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75(3):516-524.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2016.02.1229

27183845

49.

Leon-Ferre

RA.

Kottschade

LA.

Block

et al. Association between the use of surveillance PET/CT and the detection of potentially salvageable occult recurrences among patients with resected high-risk melanoma. Melanoma Res. 2017;27(4):335-341.doi:10.1097/CMR.0000000000000344

28296712

50.

Pozsgai

Németh

Oláh

Gyulai

Lengyel

. The significance of imaging examinations during follow-up for malignant melanoma. Eur J Dermatol. 2021;31(3):357-363.doi:10.1684/ejd.2021.4054

34309521

51.

Tas

Erturk

. Recurrence behavior in early-stage cutaneous melanoma: pattern, timing, survival, and influencing factors. Melanoma Res. 2017;27(2):134-139.doi:10.1097/CMR.0000000000000332

28099368

52.

Hohnheiser

AM.

Gefeller

Göhl

Schuler

Hohenberger

Merkel

. Malignant melanoma of the skin: long-term follow-up and time to first recurrence. World J Surg. 2011;35(3):580-589.doi:10.1007/s00268-010-0859-8

21125274

53.

Lee

HH.

Paeng

JC.

Cheon

GJ.

Lee

DS.

Chung

J-K.

Kang

. Recurrence of melanoma after initial treatment: diagnostic performance of FDG PET in posttreatment surveillance. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;52(5):327-333.doi:10.1007/s13139-018-0537-6

30344780

54.

El Sharouni

M-A.

Witkamp

AJ.

Sigurdsson

van Diest

. Comparison of survival between patients with single vs multiple primary cutaneous melanomas. JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(9):1049-1056.doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1134

31241717

55.

Helgadottir

Isaksson

Fritz

et al. Multiple primary melanoma incidence trends over five decades: a nationwide population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(3):318-328.doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa088

32577730

56.

Karapetyan

Yang

Wang

et al. Indoor tanning exposure in association with multiple primary melanoma. Cancer. 2021;127(4):560-568.doi:10.1002/cncr.33307

33170961

57.

Claeson

Holmström

Hallberg

et al. Multiple Primary Melanomas: A Common Occurrence in Western Sweden. Acta Derm Venereol. 2017;97(6):715-719.doi:10.2340/00015555-2598

27958612

58.

Gassenmaier

Stec

Keim

et al. Incidence and characteristics of thick second primary melanomas: a study of the German central malignant melanoma registry. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33(1):63-70.doi:10.1111/jdv.15194

30051517

59.

Menzies

Barry

Ormond

. Multiple primary melanoma: a single centre retrospective review. Melanoma Res. 2017;27(6):638-640.doi:10.1097/CMR.0000000000000395

29076952

60.

de Giorgi

Rossari

Papi

et al. Multiple primary melanoma: the impact of atypical naevi and follow up. Br J Dermatol. 2010;163(6):1319-1322.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09961.x

20670298

61.

Ungureanu

Zboraș

Vasilovici

et al. Multiple primary melanomas: our experience. Exp Ther Med. 2021;21(1):88 doi:10.3892/etm.2020.9520

33363599

62.

Bradford

PT.

Freedman

DM.

Goldstein

AM.

Tucker

. Increased risk of second primary cancers after a diagnosis of melanoma. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(3):265-272.doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2010.2

20231496

63.

Schuurman

MS.

de Waal

AC.

Thijs

EJM.

van Rossum

MM.

Kiemeney

LALM.

Aben

KKH

. Risk factors for second primary melanoma among Dutch patients with melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 2017;176(4):971-978.doi:10.1111/bjd.15024

27596937

64.

van der Leest

RJT.

Liu

Coebergh

JWW

et al. Risk of second primary in situ and invasive melanoma in a Dutch population-based cohort: 1989-2008. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167(6):1321-1330.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.11123.x

22759226

65.

Moore

MM.

Geller

AC.

Warton

EM.

Schwalbe

Asgari

. Multiple primary melanomas among 16,570 patients with melanoma diagnosed at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 1996 to 2011. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;73(4):630-636.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.06.059

26298295

66.

Damude

Hoekstra-Weebers

JEHM.

Francken

AB.

Ter Meulen

Bastiaannet

Hoekstra

. The MELFO-Study: prospective, randomized, clinical trial for the evaluation of a Stage-adjusted reduced follow-up schedule in cutaneous melanoma Patients-Results after 1 year. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(9):2762-2771.doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5263-7

27194552

67.

Murchie

Nicolson

MC.

Hannaford

PC.

Raja

EA.

Lee

AJ.

Campbell

. Patient satisfaction with GP-led melanoma follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(10):1447-1455.doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605638

20461089

68.

Ulrich

van Akkooi

AJC.

Eggermont

AMM.

Voit

. New developments in melanoma: utility of ultrasound imaging (initial staging, follow-up and pre-SLNB. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2011;11(11):1693-1701.doi:10.1586/era.11.115

22050018

69.

Xing

Bronstein

Ross

et al. Contemporary diagnostic imaging modalities for the staging and surveillance of melanoma patients: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(2):129-142.doi:10.1093/jnci/djq455

21081714

70.

Ribero

Podlipnik

Osella-Abate

et al. Ultrasound-based follow-up does not increase survival in early-stage melanoma patients: a comparative cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2017;85:59-66.doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2017.07.051

28888850

71.

Krüger

Kretschmer

Thoms

K-M

et al. Lymph node ultrasound during melanoma follow-up significantly improves metastasis detection compared with clinical examination alone: a study on 433 patients. Melanoma Res. 2011;21(5):457-463.doi:10.1097/CMR.0b013e328348dad3

21730878

72.

Bartlett

EK.

Lee

AY.

Spanheimer

et al. Nodal and systemic recurrence following observation of a positive sentinel lymph node in melanoma. Br J Surg. 2020;107(11):1480-1488.doi:10.1002/bjs.11621

32484242

73.

Bleicher

Swords

DS.

Mali

et al. Recurrence patterns in patients with stage II melanoma: the evolving role of routine imaging for surveillance. J Surg Oncol. 2020;122(8):1770-1777.doi:10.1002/jso.26214

33098702

74.

Rueth

NM.

Xing

Chiang

Y-J

et al. Is surveillance imaging effective for detecting surgically treatable recurrences in patients with melanoma? A comparative analysis of stage-specific surveillance strategies. Ann Surg. 2014;259(6):1215-1222.doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000000233

24096759

75.

Bisschop

de Heer

EC.

Brouwers

AH.

Hospers

GAP.

Jalving

. Rational use of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma: A systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2020;153:103044 doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.103044

32673997

76.

Lewin

Sayers

Kee

et al. Surveillance imaging with FDG-PET/CT in the post-operative follow-up of stage 3 melanoma. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(7):1569-1574.doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy124

29659679

77.

Vensby

PH.

Schmidt

Kjær

Fischer

. The value of FDG PET/CT for follow-up of patients with melanoma: a retrospective analysis. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;7(6):255-262.29348980

78.

Koskivuo

Kemppainen

Giordano

et al. Whole body PET/CT in the follow-up of asymptomatic patients with stage IIB-IIIB cutaneous melanoma.. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(11):1355-1359.doi:10.1080/0284186X.2016.1213879

27553064

79.

Danielsen

Højgaard

Kjær

Fischer

. Positron emission tomography in the follow-up of cutaneous malignant melanoma patients: a systematic review. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 20132013;4(1):17-28.24380042

80.

Helvind

NM.

Aros Mardones

CA.

Hölmich

et al. Routine PET-CT scans provide early and accurate recurrence detection in asymptomatic stage IIb-III melanoma patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47(12):3020-3027.doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2021.06.011

34120809

81.

Turner

RM.

Dieng

Khanna

et al. Performance of long-term CT and PET/CT surveillance for detection of distant recurrence in patients with resected stage IIIA-D melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(8):4561-4569.doi:10.1245/s10434-020-09270-3

33393039

82.

Gebhardt

Lichtenberger

Utikal

. Biomarker value and pitfalls of serum S100B in the follow-up of high-risk melanoma patients. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2016;14(2):158-164.doi:10.1111/ddg.12727

26819111

83.

Ertekin

SS.

Podlipnik

Ribero

et al. Monthly changes in serum levels of S100B protein as a predictor of metastasis development in high-risk melanoma patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(7):1482-1488.doi:10.1111/jdv.16212

31967695

84.

Aukema

TS.

Olmos

RAV.

Korse

et al. Utility of FDG PET/CT and brain MRI in melanoma patients with increased serum S-100b level during follow-up. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1657-1661.doi:10.1245/s10434-010-0963-x

20151211

85.

Deckers

EA.

Wevers

KP.

Muller Kobold

et al. S-100B as an extra selection tool for FDG PET/CT scanning in follow-up of AJCC stage III melanoma patients. J Surg Oncol. 2019;120(6):1031-1037.doi:10.1002/jso.25682

31468535

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.18 MB

0.14 MB