Skip to main content
Download PDF

Cutaneous melanoma in older patients

BMC Geriatrics volume 24, Article number: 232 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

In industrialized countries, the aging population is steadily rising. The incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) is highest in old people. This study focuses on the clinicopathological profile of CMM and indicators of diagnostic-therapeutic performance in older patients.

Methods

This retrospective population-based cohort study included 1,368 incident CMM, as recorded in 2017 by the Regional Veneto Cancer Registry (Northeast Italy). Older subjects were defined as ≥ 80, old as 65–79, and adults as < 65 years of age. The strength of association between pairs of variables was tested by Cramer’s-V. Using age groups as the dependent variable, ordered logistic regression was fitted using the clinicopathological CMM profiles as covariates. In each of the three age-groups, the indicators of clinical performance were computed using the Clopper-Pearson exact method.

Results

Compared to patients aged younger than 80 years (1,187), CMM in older patients (181; 13.2%) featured different CMM topography, a higher prevalence of ulcers (43.3% versus 12.7%; p < 0.001), a higher Breslow index (p < 0.001), a lower prevalence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (64.4% versus 76.5%, p < 0.01), and a more advanced pTNM stage at clinical presentation (p < 0.001). Elderly patients with a positive sentinel-lymph node less frequently underwent sentinel- lymph node biopsy and lymphadenectomy (60.0% versus 94.2%, and 44.4% versus 85.5%, respectively; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

In older CMM patients, the clinicopathological presentation of CMM shows a distinctive profile. The present results provide critical information to optimize secondary prevention strategies and refine diagnostic-therapeutic procedures tailored to older patients.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) accounts for less than 10% of skin cancer cases, but causes more than 80% of skin cancer deaths [1, 2]. In the USA, CMM ranks among the five most common malignancies [1, 3], and, over the past 50 years, its incidence and mortality rates have been increasing in all western countries, including Italy [4,5,6,7,8]. Data suggest that this increasing trend will continue in the coming decades [9,10,11].

People aged over 80 years are conventionally referred to as the “oldest-old” or “very old”. Between 2016 and 2050, the proportion of very old people will more than double worldwide, and this population will grow faster than the total population [12]. Optimizing clinical management of CMM in old patients today will mitigate problems anticipated to arise in the near future [13].

In CMM patients, age is an independent prognostic factor and previous studies have consistently associated CMM in old people with an unfavorable clinicopathological profile, including a higher prevalence of the nodular subtype, high Breslow thickness, high mitotic index, as well as a high prevalence of metastatic disease at clinical presentation [14,15,16,17].

Such a distinctive clinicopathological profile prompts dedicated primary and secondary prevention strategies, personalized diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and age-tailored post-treatment follow-up schedules [18,19,20].

Fragmentary information is available on the epidemiological and clinical impact of CMM in old and very old patients [21,22,23]. This population-based study aims to provide a comparative analysis of the clinicopathological profile of CMM arising in adult, old, and very old patients.

Methods

Socio-epidemiological context

The Italian public healthcare system (PHS) is based on values of universality, free access, freedom of choice, pluralism in provision, and fairness. PHS is regionally managed and provides universal coverage supported by national taxation [24].

The Veneto is a north-eastern region of Italy with a resident population of 4,9 million (Females: 2,478,665; Males: 2,391,165; Mean age: 45.6 years).

In 2015, the Regional Oncology Network (Italian acronym: ROV) established clinical management procedures for oncology patients, including CMM. For each of the most incident malignancies, dedicated protocols recommend standardized clinical care pathways (Italian acronym: PDTA) covering prevention strategies, diagnostic-therapeutic procedures, and end-of-life care; specific indicators are also included to monitor consistency between the recommendations provided and real-world clinical practice [25,26,27,28].

Regional cancer registry: high-resolution CMM recording

Since 2016, the Veneto cancer registry (Italian acronym; RTV) censors all malignancies occurring in the resident regional population. This population-based cohort study includes all incident cases of CMM recorded by RTV between January 1st and December 31st, 2017. Recording procedures rely on different information sources (e.g.: pathology reports, clinical records, death certificates, and health service administrative records) [29]. The CMM-related variables considered in this study include: sociodemographic data (sex and age categorized as < 65, 65–79, ≥ 80), primary CMM site (lower limbs, upper limbs, head, hands/feet, and trunk), CMM histotype (superficial spreading [SSM], nodular [N-CMM], lentigo maligna [LMM], acral-lentiginous, desmoplastic, Spitzoid melanoma, or not otherwise specified [NOS]), Breslow thickness (classified according to the AJCC 8th edition tumor categories [30] as ≤ 1, 1–2, 2–4, > 4 mm), Clark’s level of CMM spreading (I, II, III, IV, and V), CMM growth pattern (radial versus vertical), ulceration (absent versus present), mitotic count (number of mitoses per mm2), tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes ([TIL]; absent versus present), as well as T, N, and M AJCC stages at diagnosis (8th edition) [30].

Indicators of clinical management

Based on the Manual of Melanoma Clinical Pathway Quality Indicators [27], and consistent with the recommendations of international scientific societies/institutions, the Veneto Regional Oncology Working Group (ROV) identified a set of clinicopathological indicators of consistency between recommended guidelines and regional oncology practice [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38].

Statistics

Categorical variables were described by their absolute frequency and percentage; the quantitative variable was described by median and interquartile range (Q1-Q3), since the Shapiro-Wilk normality test was rejected.

The association between age groups and categorical melanoma characteristics was investigated using a Chi-squared test or Fisher’s test. The latter was only used when there were less than five absolute frequencies in the contingency tables. When the null hypothesis (i.e., distribution is independent of age group) was rejected, a post-hoc analysis with Holm’s correction was performed for a pairwise comparison between age groups. The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to test the independence between age groups and the quantitative variable, while the Mann-Whitney test was used for the following post-hoc analysis. Cramer’s V was also calculated to measure the strength of the association between each pair of variables. A diagram was produced in which the variables with a higher Cramer’s V value appeared closer together and were connected by darker, thicker lines. Variable pairs with a Cramer’s V value less than 0.1 were not connected. In this phase, the subjects with missing values in the variable considered to evaluate the association with age groups were excluded from the sample.

An ordered proportional odds logistic regression using age groups as the dependent variable was fitted using the anatomopathological characteristics of melanoma as covariates and correcting for sex, in order to test the association between age and the clinicopathological characteristics of melanoma in a multivariate setting. To avoid overadjustment, variables representing the presence of ulcerated lesions and melanoma thickness were not included in the explanatory variables, as they were already involved in the definition of melanoma stage. The cases with missing values were removed from the sample, reducing the sample size to 964.

Clinical performance indicators were computed (as percentages) for the three different age groups and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method. Independence tests (Chi-squared test or Fisher’s test) and post-hoc analysis (with Holm’s correction) were used to compare these values by age groups.

Results were deemed statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level. All statistical analyses were conducted using the computing software R 4.3.1.

Ethics

This study project was formally approved by the Ethics Committee of the Veneto Oncological Institute (protocol number 52/2016). According to the study protocol, data analysis was conducted on anonymous aggregated data to minimize the chance of individuals being identified.

Results

This study considered 1,368 incident CMM occurring throughout the regional population of Veneto between January 1st and December 31st, 2017. The “adult-group” included 779 (56.9%) patients, the “old-group” accounted for 408 (29.8%), and the remaining 181 (13.2%) were “very-old” (Table 1).

Table 1 Demographics and clinicopathological profile of the considered CMM patients
Full size table

All the considered CMM clinicopathological variables differed significantly by patient age (Table 1). On comparing the three age-groups, significant differences emerged in CMM topography, prevalence of histotype and ulcer lesions, and CMM thickness. Moreover, the median mitotic count steadily increased by age (< 65 = 0; 65–79 = 1; ≥80 = 3) and older patients showed a significantly higher prevalence of vertical growth pattern and the lowest prevalence of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL). At initial diagnosis, the prevalence of TNM stage I was lowest among older patients and steadily increased by age group (44.1% versus 60.4% versus 77.6%).

Figure 1 shows the strength of pairwise associations between anatomopathological and sociodemographic variables of melanoma.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Pairwise association between anatomopathological and sociodemographic variables

Full size image

Multivariable ordered logistic regression (Table 2) confirmed the associations between age groups and tumor site and CMM stage at clinical presentation.

Table 2 Ordered proportional odds logistic regression model
Full size table

Table 3 focuses on the association between age groups and clinical performance indicators. The percentage of patients with 1–4 mm thick lesions admitted to sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) decreased as age increased. Notably, fewer SLNB-positive patients underwent lymphadenectomy. The prevalence of TNM stage IB–III CMM patients treated with wide surgical excision who underwent nodal ultrasound within 12 months of CMM presentation was significantly lower in the ≥ 80s than in the other age groups.

Table 3 Clinical performance indicators by age groups
Full size table

Discussion

This population-based cohort study compared the clinicopathological features of CMMs at clinical presentation in a large cohort of northern-Italian CMM patients stratified by age (i.e., adult, old, and very old). Compared to adult and old patients, the older subjects displayed a distinct disease profile in terms of gender balance, tumor topography, higher prevalence of neoplastic ulcer, a more aggressive pattern of local spreading, decreased TIL, and advanced TNM stages.

CMM histotype and local spreading

Among older patients, the prevalence of nodular-CMM was significantly higher than recorded in patients of adult age. This histotype-dependent aggressiveness is consistent with the high prevalence of epidermal invasion (resulting in neoplastic ulcer) and deep cutaneous spreading (resulting in high Breslow thickness and Clark’s levels). Conversely, superficial spreading melanoma significantly prevailed in adult and old patients, providing the biological rationale for the less aggressive CMM behavior associated with the younger study population.

Age-related prevalence of histological subtypes was a key determinant of the different CMM stages at clinical presentation. Compared to adults, old and very old patients showed a significantly higher prevalence of advanced stages [21, 22], representing the most well-established adverse prognostic variable.

Moreover, in older patients, the invasive behavior of the nodular histotype may be exacerbated by declining age-related immunocompetence [39]. Indeed, the study findings suggested an association between older CMM patients and a lower prevalence of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) [40], which is a reliable indicator of the host’s immunoreaction against melanomatous cells [40,41,42].

Timely diagnosis in older patients

In old and (more so) in very old patients, the advanced CMM stage at presentation plausibly resulted from a combination of greater CMM aggressiveness and diagnostic delay [43]. A declining interest in personal care (particularly skin self-examination), susceptibility to depression and mood disorders, decreased family/social support and, more in general, age-related frailty, may explain the diagnostic delay [44, 45].

In this peculiar setting, the involvement of general practitioners in the diagnosis, hopefully supported by “virtual” tele-dermatology, may provide “at-home” monitoring of at-risk lesions, ultimately promoting secondary prevention strategies [46]. A Cochrane systematic review found that more than 93% of malignant skin lesions may be confidently assessed by tele-dermatology [47], and this digital opportunity may play a crucial role in diagnostic anticipation.

Diagnostic-therapeutic workup in old CMM patients

Sentinel nodal biopsy (SLNB), lymphadenectomy (in SLNB-positive cases), and ultrasound investigation of nodal status were applied less in older than in younger patients. Similar results have been reported elsewhere and were interpreted as resulting from patient comorbidities or older patients’ poor compliance with aggressive treatments [18,19,20,21]. Moreover, the impact of SLNB on old patients’ survival was not documented, thus lowering the clinical priority of the “sentinel” procedure [18] and prompting the need for personalized diagnostic/therapeutic readjustments to balance effective cancer therapy with appreciable quality of life.

The present results also show that old patients often underwent “extended” CMM surgical excision, theoretically prioritizing patient safety over esthetic expectancies. The ethical and clinical implications of these therapeutic choices warrant more extensive investigation [17, 48,49,50].

The main strength of this study is its population-based (rather than center-specific) design, thus minimizing the risk of selection bias. Moreover, the use of standardized algorithms reduced measurement variability, thereby increasing the reliability of the values.

In terms of limitations, first, the lack of some variables (e.g., CMM molecular profiling) could have led to important differences being missed in each of the CMM age-groups. Second, the study is limited to the 2017 data, since more recent and complete data were not available for the analysis.

Conclusion

In older patients, the clinicopathological presentation of CMM differs from that of general population. Compared to malignancies at a younger age, older patients showed a higher prevalence of the head, hands, or feet as the primary site, and a higher TNM stage at presentation.

Clinical management also differs, with less frequent SLNB biopsies and lymphadenectomy (in SLN-positive cases). In all cases, but particularly in older frail patients, tele-dermatology could efficiently activate secondary prevention strategies [51].

Data availability

The data supporting this study’s findings are held by the Veneto Epidemiological Registry and were used under license for this work. The anonymized minimal data set necessary to replicate our findings have been made publicly available at the following link: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.6084/m9.figshare.24961311.

Abbreviations

CMM:

Cutaneous malignant melanoma

PHS:

Italian public healthcare system

RTV:

Veneto cancer registry

SLNB:

Sentinel lymph node biopsy

TIL:

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes

References

  1. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: Cancer of Any Site. 2022 Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html. Accessed March 08, 2023.

  2. Coricovac D, Dehelean C, Moaca EA, Pinzaru I, Bratu T, Navolan D et al. Cutaneous Melanoma-A long road from experimental models to clinical outcome: a review. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(6).

  3. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Saginala K, Barsouk A, Aluru JS, Rawla P, Barsouk A. Epidemiology of Melanoma. Med Sci Basel Switz. 2021;9(4).

  6. Bucchi L, Mancini S, Zamagni F, Crocetti E, Dal Maso L, Ferretti S, et al. Patient presentation, skin biopsy utilization and cutaneous malignant melanoma incidence and mortality in northern Italy: Trends and correlations. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol JEADV. 2023;37(2):293–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Briatico G, Mancuso P, Argenziano G, Longo C, Mangone L, Moscarella E, et al. Trends in cutaneous melanoma mortality in Italy from 1982 to 2016. Int J Dermatol. 2022;61(10):1237–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Buja A, Rugge M, De Luca G, Bovo E, Zorzi M, De Toni C, et al. Cutaneous melanoma in Alpine Population: incidence trends and Clinicopathological Profile. Curr Oncol Tor Ont. 2022;29(3):2165–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Arnold M, Singh D, Laversanne M, Vignat J, Vaccarella S, Meheus F, et al. Global Burden of Cutaneous Melanoma in 2020 and projections to 2040. JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158(5):495–503.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Garbe C, Keim U, Gandini S, Amaral T, Katalinic A, Hollezcek B, et al. Epidemiology of cutaneous melanoma and keratinocyte cancer in white populations 1943–2036. Eur J Cancer Oxf Engl 1990. 2021;152:18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Paulson KG, Gupta D, Kim TS, Veatch JR, Byrd DR, Bhatia S, et al. Age-specific incidence of Melanoma in the United States. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156(1):57–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World population ageing, 2019: highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/430). New York: UN.; 2019. Available from: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3846855. Accessed April 14, 2023.

  13. Whiteman DC, Green AC, Olsen CM. The growing Burden of Invasive Melanoma: projections of incidence rates and numbers of new cases in six susceptible populations through 2031. J Invest Dermatol. 2016;136(6):1161–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Van Herck Y, Feyaerts A, Alibhai S, Papamichael D, Decoster L, Lambrechts Y, et al. Is cancer biology different in older patients? Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021;2(10):e663–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ribero S, Stucci LS, Marra E, Marconcini R, Spagnolo F, Orgiano L, et al. Effect of age on Melanoma Risk, Prognosis and Treatment Response. Acta Derm Venereol. 2018;98(7):624–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tas F, Erturk K. Patient age and cutaneous malignant melanoma: Elderly patients are likely to have more aggressive histological features and poorer survival. Mol Clin Oncol. 2017;7(6):1083–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Buja A, Rugge M, Damiani G, De Luca G, Zorzi M, Fusinato R, et al. Impact of wide local excision on Melanoma Patient Survival: a Population-based study. Front Public Health. 2022;10:806934.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rees MJ, Liao H, Spillane J, Speakman D, McCormack C, Donahoe S, et al. Melanoma in the very elderly, management in patients 85years of age and over. J Geriatr Oncol. 2018;9(5):488–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rees MJ, Liao H, Spillane J, Speakman D, McCormack C, Donahoe S, et al. Localized melanoma in older patients, the impact of increasing age and comorbid medical conditions. Eur J Surg Oncol J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol. 2016;42(9):1359–66.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ciocan D, Barbe C, Aubin F, Granel-Brocard F, Lipsker D, Velten M, et al. Distinctive features of melanoma and its management in elderly patients: a population-based study in France. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149(10):1150–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bateni SB, Johns AJ, Gingrich AA, Gholami S, Bold RJ, Canter RJ, et al. Elderly Age is Associated with more conservative treatment of Invasive Melanoma. Anticancer Res. 2020;40(5):2895–903.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schuurman MS, Hollestein LM, Bastiaannet E, Posthuma EFM, van Akkooi AJC, Kukutsch NA, et al. Melanoma in older patients: declining gap in survival between younger and older patients with melanoma. Acta Oncol Stockh Swed. 2020;59(1):4–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cavanaugh-Hussey MW, Mu EW, Kang S, Balch CM, Wang T. Older Age is Associated with a higher incidence of Melanoma Death but a Lower Incidence of Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in the SEER databases (2003–2011). Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(7):2120–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ferre F, de Belvis AG, Valerio L, Longhi S, Lazzari A, Fattore G, et al. Italy: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2014;16(4):1–168.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. AIOM, Linee Guida, Melanoma. edizione 2021. Available from: https://www.aiom.it/linee-guida-aiom-2021-melanoma/. Accessed April 03, 2023.

  26. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Cutaneous Melanoma Guidelines, Version 2.2023. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cutaneous_melanoma.pdf. Accessed April 03, 2023.

  27. National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. Melanoma: Assessment and Management. London, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).:; 2015. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng14. Accessed April 03, 2023.

  28. Buja A, Rugge M, De Luca G, Zorzi M, Cozzolino C, Vecchiato A, et al. Clinical performance indicators for monitoring the management of cutaneous melanoma: a population-based perspective. Melanoma Res. 2022;32(5):353–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Guzzinati S, Battagello J, Bovo E, Baracco M, Baracco S, Carpin E, et al. Quality control on digital cancer registration. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(12):e0279415.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Gershenwald JE, Scolyer RA, Hess KR, Sondak VK, Long GV, Ross MI, 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):472–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Bray F, Znaor A, Cueva P, Korir A, Swaminathan R, Ullrich A, et al. Planning and developing Population-Based Cancer Registration in Low- or middle-income settings. Lyon (FR); 2014.

  32. Read RL, Pasquali S, Haydu L, Thompson JF, Stretch JR, Saw RPM, et al. Quality assurance in melanoma surgery: the evolving experience at a large tertiary referral centre. Eur J Surg Oncol J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol. 2015;41(7):830–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hölmich LR, Klausen S, Spaun E, Schmidt G, Gad D, Svane IM, et al. The Danish Melanoma database. Clin Epidemiol. 2016;8:543–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Follmann M, Schadendorf D, Kochs C, Buchberger B, Winter A, Wesselmann S. Quality assurance for care of melanoma patients based on guideline-derived quality indicators and certification. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges J Ger Soc Dermatol JDDG. 2014;12(2):139–47.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Follmann M, Eigentler T, Adam H, Wenzel G, Langer T, Wesselmann S. Quality assurance in melanoma care: guideline-based quality indicators for melanoma - implementation, evaluation and update process. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges J Ger Soc Dermatol JDDG. 2020;18(8):848–57.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Scottish Cancer Taskforce. Review of Cutaneous Melanoma Quality Performance Indicators Consultation - Scottish Government - Citizen Space. 2018. Available from: https://consult.gov.scot/nhs/revised-melanoma-qpis/. Accessed April 03, 2023.

  37. Jochems A, Schouwenburg MG, Leeneman B, Franken MG, van den Eertwegh AJM, Haanen JBAG, et al. Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry: Quality assurance in the care of patients with metastatic melanoma in the Netherlands. Eur J Cancer Oxf Engl 1990. 2017;72:156–65.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Istituto Toscano Tumori. Clinical recommendations. 2015. Available from: http://www.ittumori.it/ITA/pubblicazioni/documenti/ITT_2016_Aggiornamento%20Racc.Cliniche.pdf. Accessed April 03, 2023.

  39. Foster AD, Sivarapatna A, Gress RE. The aging immune system and its relationship with cancer. Aging Health. 2011;7(5):707–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Zablocka T, Nikolajeva A, Kreismane M, Pjanova D, Isajevs S. Addressing the importance of melanoma tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in disease progression and clinicopathological characteristics. Mol Clin Oncol. 2021;15(6):255.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Maibach F, Sadozai H, Seyed Jafari SM, Hunger RE, Schenk M. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and their prognostic value in cutaneous melanoma. Front Immunol. 2020;11:2105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Chae YK, Chang S, Ko T, Anker J, Agte S, Iams W, et al. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) signature is inversely associated with T-cell infiltration in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):2918.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Jones D, Di Martino E, Bradley SH, Essang B, Hemphill S, Wright JM, et al. Factors influencing symptom appraisal and help-seeking of older adults with possible cancer: a mixed-methods systematic review. Br J Gen Pract J R Coll Gen Pract. 2022;72(723):e702–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lange JR, Kang S, Balch CM. Melanoma in the older patient: measuring frailty as an index of survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(13):3531–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Harris E. Meta-analysis: social isolation, loneliness tied to higher mortality. JAMA. 2023.

  46. van Bussel MJP, Odekerken-Schröder GJ, Ou C, Swart RR, Jacobs MJG. Analyzing the determinants to accept a virtual assistant and use cases among cancer patients: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):890.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Chuchu N, Dinnes J, Takwoingi Y, Matin RN, Bayliss SE, Davenport C, et al. Teledermatology for diagnosing skin cancer in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;12(12):CD013193.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Imamura T, Nakamura Y, Tanaka R, Teramoto Y, Asami Y, Maruyama H, et al. Cutaneous surgery under local anesthesia in very elderly patients 90 years of age and older is as safe as in elderly patients ranging in age from 75 to 80 years old. Int J Dermatol. 2017;56(6):681–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Paredes AZ, Aquina CT, Selby LV, DiFilippo S, Pawlik TM. Increasing importance of Ethics in Surgical decision making. Adv Surg. 2020;54:251–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Johnston ME 2nd, Sussman JJ, Patel SH. Surgical Oncology and geriatric patients. Clin Geriatr Med. 2019;35(1):53–63.

  51. Rojas KD, Perez ME, Marchetti MA, Nichols AJ, Penedo FJ, Jaimes N. Skin cancer: primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Part II. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87(2):271–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research has received “Current Research” funds from the Italian Ministry of Health to cover publication costs.

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Padova.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hygiene and Public Health Unit, Laboratory of Health Care Services and Health Promotion Evaluation, Department of Cardiologic, Vascular and Thoracic Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padua, Via Loredan, 18, 35131, Padua, Italy

    Alessandra Buja & Anna Zanovello

  2. Pathology and Cytopathology Unit, Department of Medicine - DIMED, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

    Massimo Rugge

  3. Veneto Tumour Registry (RTV), Azienda Zero, Padua, Italy

    Massimo Rugge & Manuel Zorzi

  4. Soft-Tissue, Peritoneum and Melanoma Surgical Oncology Unit, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy

    Chiara Trevisiol, Antonella Vecchiato, Paolo Del Fiore, Saveria Tropea, Marco Rastrelli & Simone Mocellin

  5. Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

    Alessandra Rosalba Brazzale

  6. Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology - DISCOG, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

    Marco Rastrelli, Carlo Riccardo Rossi & Simone Mocellin

Authors
  1. Alessandra Buja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Massimo Rugge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chiara Trevisiol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anna Zanovello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alessandra Rosalba Brazzale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Manuel Zorzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Antonella Vecchiato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Paolo Del Fiore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Saveria Tropea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Marco Rastrelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Carlo Riccardo Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Simone Mocellin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AB, MRu, CT, AZ, AV, PDF, ST, MRa, CRR, and SM contributed to the conceptualization and design of the study; AZ, ARB, and MZ contributed to the collection and analysis of data; AB, CT and AZ contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data and in writing the original draft; MRu substantively revised the work; All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandra Buja.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This retrospective study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Italian legislation identifies cancer registries as collectors of personal data for surveillance purposes, with no need to obtain individuals’ explicit informed consent [REF: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2017/05/12/17A03142/sg]. This study project was formally approved by the Ethics Committee of the Veneto Oncological Institute (protocol number 52/2016).

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buja, A., Rugge, M., Trevisiol, C. et al. Cutaneous melanoma in older patients. BMC Geriatr 24, 232 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12877-024-04806-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12877-024-04806-8

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us