Clinical utility of skin cancer and melanoma risk scores for population screening: TRoPICS study.

BACKGROUND: Screening for skin cancer can be cost-effective if focused on high-risk groups. Risk prediction tools have been developed for keratinocyte cancers and melanoma to optimize advice and management. However, few have been validated in a clinical setting over the past few years. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical utility of risk assessment tools to identify individuals with prevalent skin cancers in a volunteer-based screening clinic. METHODS: Participants were adults presenting for a skin check at a volunteer-based skin cancer screening facility. We used previously published tools, based on questionnaire responses, to predict melanoma and keratinocyte cancers [KCs; basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)] and classified each participant into one of five risk categories. Participants subsequently underwent a full skin examination by a dermatologist. All suspicious lesions were biopsied, and all cancers were histopathologically confirmed. RESULTS: Of 789 people who presented to the clinic, 507 (64%) consented to the study. Twenty-two BCCs, 19 SCCs and eight melanomas were diagnosed. The proportion of keratinocyte cancers diagnosed increased according to risk category from <1% in the lowest to 24% in the highest risk category (P < 0.001). Subtype analysis revealed similar proportionate increases in BCC or SCC prevalence according to risk category. However, a similar proportion of melanoma cases were detected in the low-risk and high-risk groups. CONCLUSION: The risk prediction model for keratinocyte cancers can reliably identify individuals with a significant skin cancer burden prior to a skin examination in the community setting. The prediction tool for melanoma needs to be tested in a larger sample exposed to a wider range of environmental risk factors.

The interplay of sun damage and genetic risk in Australian multiple and single primary melanoma cases and controls.

BACKGROUND: Skin phenotype, host genotype and ultraviolet (UV) damage play a role in the development of melanoma. OBJECTIVES: To ascertain whether the level of UV damage at the site of melanomas was associated with genetic polymorphisms. METHODS: Deep phenotyping was performed on 1244 individuals; 281 with multiple primary melanomas (MPMs), 304 with single primary melanoma (SPM) and 659 convenience controls. Genotype data was generated using the Illumina CoreExome microarray platform, assaying over 500 000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. A subset of variants were combined to assess a polygenic risk score (PRS) for melanoma. RESULTS: Most MPM cases were diagnosed in patients aged > 40 years, in sites with visible chronic UV damage. Women and those diagnosed at age ≤ 40 years were less likely to have perilesional UV damage. Patients with MPM had higher frequencies of MITF E318K, MC1R R-alleles and the ASIP risk haplotype. Individuals who had melanoma in a visibly UV-damaged site were more likely to carry MC1R rs75570604 [odds ratio (OR) 2·5], 9q31.2 rs10816595 (OR 1·4) and MTAP rs869329 (OR 1·4). These same alleles were more common in patients with MPM who were diagnosed at age ≤ 40 years. The mean PRS was significantly higher in MPM than in SPM and controls. Naevus count was comparable in early-onset MPM cases and those diagnosed at age > 40 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our cohort demonstrated higher frequencies of previously reported alleles associated with melanoma. MPM melanomas more commonly occur in UV-damaged areas, and these individuals are more likely to carry MC1R red hair colour alleles. Awareness of the interplay of genetic vulnerability with UV damage can stratify risk and guide recommendations for melanoma screening. What's already known about this topic? Skin phenotype, host genotype and ultraviolet (UV) damage all play a role in melanoma development. One of the main risk factors is a personal history of melanoma; second and subsequent primary melanomas account for over 20% of all melanomas registered in Queensland. Multiple loci are associated with melanoma risk, including many low-penetrance loci, which may have a cumulatively significant risk. Population-wide screening programmes for melanoma are not yet economically viable. What does this study add? Patients diagnosed with melanoma at age ≤ 40 years were more likely than older patients to have melanomas in non-UV-damaged sites. Patients with multiple melanomas had higher frequencies of MITF E318K, MC1R R-alleles, and the ASIP extended risk haplotype than patients with single melanoma. CDKN2A, MC1R and MTAP variants were more frequent in patients who developed melanomas at a younger age, but also in those whose melanomas were all on visibly UV-damaged sites. What is the translational message? Incorporating these genetic findings into the known risk factors of skin phenotype and visible UV damage may allow for a more customized and economically feasible approach to early detection of melanoma, particularly in younger patients. Plain language summary available online.

Phenotypic and genotypic analysis of amelanotic and hypomelanotic melanoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma is associated with poorer outcomes due to a more advanced disease stage at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To determine phenotypic risks and genotypic associations with amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma to develop a clinical and genetic profile that could assist in identifying high-risk individuals. METHODS: The Brisbane Naevus Morphology Study conducted from 2009 to 2016 has recruited a core of 1254 participants. Participants were drawn from a combination of volunteers from dermatology outpatient clinics, private dermatology clinics, the Brisbane Longitudinal Twin Study and QSkin study. Case participants had a personal history of melanoma and control participants no personal history of melanoma. We specifically examined seven known candidate pigmentation and melanoma genes and pigmentary phenotypic characteristics in participants with amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma compared to pigmented melanomas. This assayed single nucleotide polymorphisms in MC1R, TYR, HERC/OCA2, IRF4, MTAP, PLA2G6 and MITF. RESULTS: Forty-seven participants had at least one amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma, and 389 had pigmented melanomas, with amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma patients significantly older than pigmented melanoma participants (63.3 ± 13.0 vs. 54.6 ± 15.3 years; P < 0.001). Amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma patients were more likely than pigmented melanoma patients to have red hair (34% vs. 15%; P = 0.01), severe hand freckling (13% vs. 5%; P = 0.01) and propensity to sunburn (63% vs. 44%; P = 0.01). MC1R R/R genotype was much more frequent in our amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma population (31.1% vs. 11%; P < 0.001; OR 26.4 vs. 5.9; control 1.0). Amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma was associated with TYR rs1126809*A/A [OR (CI 95%) 2.7 (1.1-6.8) vs. 1.2 (0.8-1.9)] and PLA2G6 rs11570734*A/A [OR (CI 95%) 3.7 (1.0-13.6) vs. 1.3 (0.9-2.0)]. The MTAP melanoma risk SNP genotype, associated with darker pigmentation, (rs4636294*A/A) was less common in amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma patients [OR (CI 95%) 0.8 (0.3-2.1) vs. 2.0 (1.3-3.1)]. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of phenotypic and genotypic associations of amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma can help predict risks and associations of this difficult to diagnose melanoma, which may ultimately assist clinical management and patient skin self-examination.