4.6 Review

Metastatic melanomas of unknown primary show better prognosis than those of known primary: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
Volume 72, Issue 1, Pages 59-70

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.09.029

Keywords

malignant melanoma; melanoma; melanoma, unknown primary; meta-analysis; prognosis; systematic review

Categories

Funding

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning [NRF-2013R1A2A2A04015894]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) is a condition of metastatic melanoma without a primary lesion. Objective: We sought to identify the prognosis of MUP compared with melanoma of known primary (MKP). Methods: We searched for observational studies containing at least 10 patients with MUP from MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 22, 2012. The outcomes of interest were overall and disease-free survival; meta-analyses of hazard ratio stratified by stage using a random effects model were performed. In addition, second systematic review identified risk factors influencing the survival of patients with MUP. Results: Eighteen studies including 2084 patients with MUP and 5894 with MKP were included. MUP had a better overall survival compared with MKP in stage III (15 studies; hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.96, P = .010) and stage IV (6 studies; hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.75-0.96, P = .008). Secondly, 22 studies including 3312 patients with MUP were reviewed, and increased stage and old age were the risk factors in patients with MUP. Limitations: Diverse observational studies were reviewed, and selection and reporting biases are possible. Conclusions: The current meta-analyses suggest better survival outcomes in patients with MUP than those in patients with MKP with the same corresponding tumor stage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available