Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Maria Cristina de Lorenzo Messina
Based on 4 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, Maria Messina wrote the following 4 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Guideline Brazilian guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of primary cutaneous melanoma - Part II. 2016

Castro, Luiz Guilherme Martins / Bakos, Renato Marchiori / Duprat Neto, João Pedreira / Bittencourt, Flávia Vasques / Di Giacomo, Thais Helena Bello / Serpa, Sérgio Schrader / Messina, Maria Cristina de Lorenzo / Loureiro, Walter Refkalefsky / Macarenco, Ricardo Silvestre e Silva / Stolf, Hamilton Ometto / Gontijo, Gabriel. ·Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, SP, Brazil. · Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. · Departamento de Câncer de Pele, A. C. Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. · Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. · Universidade Estácio de Sá, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. · Universidade Estadual do Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil. · Universidade Estadual Paulista "Júlio de Mesquita Filho", Botucatu, SP, Brazil. ·An Bras Dermatol · Pubmed #26982779.

ABSTRACT: The last Brazilian guidelines on melanoma were published in 2002. Development in diagnosis and treatment made updating necessary. The coordinators elaborated ten clinical questions, based on PICO system. A Medline search, according to specific MeSH terms for each of the 10 questions was performed and articles selected were classified from A to D according to level of scientific evidence. Based on the results, recommendations were defined and classified according to scientific strength. The present Guidelines were divided in two parts for editorial and publication reasons. In this second part, the following clinical questions were answered: 1) which patients with primary cutaneous melanoma benefit from sentinel lymph node biopsy? 2) Follow-up with body mapping is indicated for which patients? 3) Is preventive excision of acral nevi beneficious to patients? 4) Is preventive excision of giant congenital nevi beneficious to patients? 5) How should stages 0 and I primary cutaneous melanoma patients be followed?

2 Guideline Guidelines of the Brazilian Dermatology Society for diagnosis, treatment and follow up of primary cutaneous melanoma--Part I. 2015

Castro, Luiz Guilherme Martins / Messina, Maria Cristina / Loureiro, Walter / Macarenco, Ricardo Silvestre / Duprat Neto, João Pedreira / Di Giacomo, Thais Helena Bello / Bittencourt, Flávia Vasques / Bakos, Renato Marchiori / Serpa, Sérgio Schrader / Stolf, Hamilton Ometto / Gontijo, Gabriel. ·Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. · Universidade Estadual do Pará, Belém, SP, Brazil. · Departamento de Câncer de Pele, A. C. Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. · Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. · Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. · Universidade Estácio de Sá, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. · Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, SP, Brazil. ·An Bras Dermatol · Pubmed #26734867.

ABSTRACT: The last Brazilian guidelines on melanoma were published in 2002. Development in diagnosis and treatment made updating necessary. The coordinators elaborated ten clinical questions, based on PICO system. A Medline search, according to specific MeSH terms for each of the 10 questions was performed and articles selected were classified from A to D according to level of scientific evidence. Based on the results, recommendations were defined and classified according to scientific strength. The present Guidelines were divided in two parts for editorial and publication reasons. In the first part, the following clinical questions were answered: 1) The use of dermoscopy for diagnosis of primary cutaneous melanoma brings benefits for patients when compared with clinical examination? 2) Does dermoscopy favor diagnosis of nail apparatus melanoma? 3) Is there a prognostic difference when incisional or excisional biopsies are used? 4) Does revision by a pathologist trained in melanoma contribute to diagnosis and treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma? What margins should be used to treat lentigo maligna melanoma and melanoma in situ?

3 Clinical Trial Efficacy and safety of retreatment with ipilimumab in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma who progressed after initially achieving disease control. 2013

Robert, Caroline / Schadendorf, Dirk / Messina, Marianne / Hodi, F Stephen / O'Day, Steven / Anonymous2450751. ·Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. caroline.robert@igr.fr ·Clin Cancer Res · Pubmed #23444228.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) that has been shown to improve survival in patients with pretreated, advanced melanoma in a phase III trial. Some patients in this study who initially responded to ipilimumab treatment but later progressed were eligible for retreatment with their original randomized regimen. Here, outcomes for these patients concerning baseline characteristics, best overall response, and disease control rate are assessed and considered with respect to the overall study population. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In the phase III study, 676 pretreated patients were randomly allocated to treatment with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus gp100 vaccine, ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus placebo, or gp100 vaccine alone. Of these patients, 32 had a partial or complete objective response or stable disease after treatment and met the eligibility criteria for retreatment, although a total of 40 patients were retreated. RESULTS: Best overall response rates (complete responses plus partial responses) for 31 retreatment-eligible patients in the ipilimumab plus gp100 and ipilimumab plus placebo groups were 3 of 23 (13.0%) and 3 of 8 (37.5%), respectively, and disease control rates were 65.2% and 75.0%. No new types of toxicities occurred during retreatment and most events were mild-to-moderate. CONCLUSION: Ipilimumab provided durable objective responses and/or stable disease in qualifying patients who received retreatment upon disease progression with a similar toxicity profile to that seen during their original treatment regimen.

4 Clinical Trial Health related quality of life outcomes for unresectable stage III or IV melanoma patients receiving ipilimumab treatment. 2012

Revicki, Dennis A / van den Eertwegh, Alfons J M / Lorigan, Paul / Lebbe, Celeste / Linette, Gerald / Ottensmeier, Christian H / Safikhani, Shima / Messina, Marianne / Hoos, Axel / Wagner, Samuel / Kotapati, Srividya. ·United BioSource Corporation, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA. dennis.revicki@unitedbiosource.com ·Health Qual Life Outcomes · Pubmed #22694829.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In an international, randomized Phase III trial ipilimumab demonstrated a significant overall survival benefit in previously treated advanced melanoma patients. This report summarizes health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes for ipilimumab with/without gp100 vaccine compared to gp100 alone during the clinical trial's 12 week treatment induction period. METHODS: The Phase III clinical trial (MDX010-20) was a double-blind, fixed dose study in 676 previously treated advanced unresectable stage III or IV melanoma patients. Patients were randomized 3:1:1 to receive either ipilimumab (3 mg/kg q3w x 4 doses) + gp100 (peptide vaccine; 1 mg q3w x 4 doses; ipilimumab plus gp100, n = 403); gp100 vaccine + placebo (gp100 alone, n = 136); or ipilimumab + placebo (ipilimumab alone, n = 137). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) assessed HRQL. Baseline to Week 12 changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 function, global health status, and symptom scores were analyzed for ipilimumab with/without gp100 vaccine compared to gp100 alone. Mean change in scores were categorized "no change" (0-5), "a little" (5-10 points), "moderate" (10-20 points), and "very much" (>20). RESULTS: In the ipilimumab plus gp100 and ipilimumab alone groups, mean changes from baseline to Week 12 generally indicated "no change" or "a little" impairment across EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status, function, and symptom subscales. Significant differences in constipation, favoring ipilimumab, were observed (p < 0.05). For ipilimumab alone arm, subscales with no or a little impairment were physical, emotional, cognitive, social function, global health, nausea, pain, dyspnea, constipation, and diarrhea subscales. For the gp100 alone group, the observed changes were moderate to large for global health, role function, fatigue, and for pain. CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab with/without gp100 vaccine does not have a significant negative HRQL impact during the treatment induction phase relative to gp100 alone in stage III or IV melanoma patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identification number NCT00094653.