Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by P. Nathan
Based on 12 articles published since 2010
(Why 12 articles?)

Between 2010 and 2020, P. Nathan wrote the following 12 articles about Melanoma.
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Guideline Uveal Melanoma UK National Guidelines. 2015

Nathan, P / Cohen, V / Coupland, S / Curtis, K / Damato, B / Evans, J / Fenwick, S / Kirkpatrick, L / Li, O / Marshall, E / McGuirk, K / Ottensmeier, C / Pearce, N / Salvi, S / Stedman, B / Szlosarek, P / Turnbull, N / Anonymous4080839. ·Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, Middlesex, UK. Electronic address: nathan.pd@gmail.com. · Ocular Oncology Service, St Bartholomew's and Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK. · Department Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, UK. · OcuMel UK, UK. · Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK. · University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, UK. · Patient Representative, UK. · Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK. · The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK. · Southampton University Hospitals and University of Southampton, UK. · University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK. · Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK. · Southampton University Hospitals, NHS Trust, Southampton, UK. · St Bartholomew's Hospital, UK; Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. · Project Manager, London, UK. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #26278648.

ABSTRACT: The United Kingdom (UK) uveal melanoma guideline development group used an evidence based systematic approach (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)) to make recommendations in key areas of uncertainty in the field including: the use and effectiveness of new technologies for prognostication, the appropriate pathway for the surveillance of patients following treatment for primary uveal melanoma, the use and effectiveness of new technologies in the treatment of hepatic recurrence and the use of systemic treatments. The guidelines were sent for international peer review and have been accredited by NICE. A summary of key recommendations is presented. The full documents are available on the Melanoma Focus website.

2 Guideline Revised U.K. guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma 2010. 2010

Marsden, J R / Newton-Bishop, J A / Burrows, L / Cook, M / Corrie, P G / Cox, N H / Gore, M E / Lorigan, P / MacKie, R / Nathan, P / Peach, H / Powell, B / Walker, C / Anonymous4180665. ·University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham B29 6JD, UK. jerry.marsden@uhb.nhs.uk ·Br J Dermatol · Pubmed #20608932.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

3 Review BRAF mutation testing algorithm for vemurafenib treatment in melanoma: recommendations from an expert panel. 2013

Gonzalez, D / Fearfield, L / Nathan, P / Tanière, P / Wallace, A / Brown, E / Harwood, C / Marsden, J / Whittaker, S. ·Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK. david.gonzalez-de-castro@icr.ac.uk ·Br J Dermatol · Pubmed #23360189.

ABSTRACT: The incidence of melanoma has increased rapidly over the past 30 years, and the disease is now the sixth most common cancer among men and women in the U.K. Many patients are diagnosed with or develop metastatic disease, and survival is substantially reduced in these patients. Mutations in the BRAF gene have been identified as key drivers of melanoma cells and are found in around 50% of cutaneous melanomas. Vemurafenib (Zelboraf(®) ; Roche Molecular Systems Inc., Pleasanton, CA, U.S.A.) is the first licensed inhibitor of mutated BRAF, and offers a new first-line option for patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who harbour BRAF mutations. Vemurafenib was developed in conjunction with a companion diagnostic, the cobas(®) 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test. The purpose of this paper is to make evidence-based recommendations to facilitate the implementation of BRAF mutation testing and targeted therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma in the U.K. The recommendations are the result of a meeting of an expert panel and have been reviewed by melanoma specialists and representatives of the National Cancer Research Network Clinical Study Group on behalf of the wider melanoma community. This article is intended to be a starting point for practical advice and recommendations, which will no doubt be updated as we gain further experience in personalizing therapy for patients with melanoma.

4 Clinical Trial Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study. 2017

Long, G V / Flaherty, K T / Stroyakovskiy, D / Gogas, H / Levchenko, E / de Braud, F / Larkin, J / Garbe, C / Jouary, T / Hauschild, A / Chiarion-Sileni, V / Lebbe, C / Mandalà, M / Millward, M / Arance, A / Bondarenko, I / Haanen, J B A G / Hansson, J / Utikal, J / Ferraresi, V / Mohr, P / Probachai, V / Schadendorf, D / Nathan, P / Robert, C / Ribas, A / Davies, M A / Lane, S R / Legos, J J / Mookerjee, B / Grob, J-J. ·Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, and Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, North Sydney, Australia. · Developmental Therapeutics and Melanoma Programs, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, USA. · Moscow City Oncology Hospital #62, Moscow, Russia. · First Department of Medicine, "Laiko" General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. · Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, Saint Petersburg, Russia. · Dipartimento di Medicina Oncologica, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. · Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Department of Dermatology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. · Service D'oncologie Médicale, Hopital Francois Mitterrand, Pau, France. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. · Melanoma and Oesophageal Oncology Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute-IRCCS, Padova, Italy. · APHP Dermatology and CIC Departments, INSERM U976, University Paris Diderot, Paris, France. · Department of Oncology and Hematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Medical Oncology Department, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Dnipropetrovsk State Medical Academy, Clinical Hospital #4, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. · Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. · Skin Cancer Unit, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karls University of Heidelberg, Mannheim and Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Medical Oncology A, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy. · Dermatologisches Zentrum Buxtehude, Elbe Kliniken Buxtehude, Buxtehude, Germany. · Dnipropetrovsk Clinical Oncology Center of Dnipropetrovsk State Council, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK. · Gustave Roussy, Département de Médecine Oncologique, Service de Dermatologie et Université Paris-Sud, Faculté de Médecine, Villejuif, France. · Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, USA. · Melanoma Medical Oncology and Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. · Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, USA. · Service de Dermatologie, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Timone, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #28475671.

ABSTRACT: Background: Previous analysis of COMBI-d (NCT01584648) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with combination dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. This study was continued to assess 3-year landmark efficacy and safety after ≥36-month follow-up for all living patients. Patients and methods: This double-blind, phase 3 study enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or dabrafenib plus placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints were OS, overall response, duration of response, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Results: Between 4 May and 30 November 2012, a total of 423 of 947 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n = 211) or dabrafenib monotherapy (n = 212). At data cut-off (15 February 2016), outcomes remained superior with the combination: 3-year PFS was 22% with dabrafenib plus trametinib versus 12% with monotherapy, and 3-year OS was 44% versus 32%, respectively. Twenty-five patients receiving monotherapy crossed over to combination therapy, with continued follow-up under the monotherapy arm (per intent-to-treat principle). Of combination-arm patients alive at 3 years, 58% remained on dabrafenib plus trametinib. Three-year OS with the combination reached 62% in the most favourable subgroup (normal lactate dehydrogenase and <3 organ sites with metastasis) versus only 25% in the unfavourable subgroup (elevated lactate dehydrogenase). The dabrafenib plus trametinib safety profile was consistent with previous clinical trial observations, and no new safety signals were detected with long-term use. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that durable (≥3 years) survival is achievable with dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma and support long-term first-line use of the combination in this setting.

5 Clinical Trial Vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma patients with brain metastases: an open-label, single-arm, phase 2, multicentre study. 2017

McArthur, G A / Maio, M / Arance, A / Nathan, P / Blank, C / Avril, M-F / Garbe, C / Hauschild, A / Schadendorf, D / Hamid, O / Fluck, M / Thebeau, M / Schachter, J / Kefford, R / Chamberlain, M / Makrutzki, M / Robson, S / Gonzalez, R / Margolin, K. ·Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne and University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. · AOU Senese Policlinico Santa Maria Alle Scotte, Siena, Italy. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Spain. · Mount Vernon Hospital, Centre for Cancer Treatment, Northwood, UK. · The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · University Paris Descartes, Hospital Cochin, APHP, Paris, France. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Kiel. · Department of Dermatology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, USA. · Fachklinik Hornheide, Munster, Germany. · Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, USA. · Chaim Sheba Medical Centre, Oncology Institute, Ramat-Gan, Israel. · Crown Princess Cancer Centre Westmead Hospital and Department of Clinical Medicine, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW, Australia. · Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, USA. · F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. · University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora. · City of Hope, Duarte, USA. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #27993793.

ABSTRACT: Background: Vemurafenib has shown activity in patients with BRAFV600 mutated melanoma with brain metastases (BM). This phase 2 study evaluated vemurafenib in patients with/without prior treatment for BM. Methods: Patients with BRAFV600 mutated melanoma with BM were enrolled into cohort 1 (previously untreated BM) and cohort 2 (previously treated BM) and received vemurafenib (960 mg BID) until disease progression (PD) or intolerance. Primary endpoint was best overall response rate (BORR) in the brain in cohort 1 that was evaluated using modified RECIST 1.1 criteria using lesions ≥0.5 cm to assess response. Results: 146 patients were treated (cohort 1 n = 90; cohort 2 n = 56), 62% of whom were male. Median (range) time since diagnosis of BM: 1.0 (0-9) month in cohort 1 and 4.2 (1-68) months in cohort 2. Median duration of treatment was 4.1 months (range 0.3-34.5) in cohort 1 and 4.1 months (range 0.2-27.6) in cohort 2. Intracranial BORR in cohort 1 by an independent review committee (IRC) was 18% (2 CRs, 14 PRs). Extracranial BORR by IRC was 33% in cohort 1 and 23% in cohort 2. Median PFS (brain only, investigator-assessed) was 3.7 months (range 0.03-33.4; IQR 1.9-5.6) in cohort 1 and 4.0 months (range 0.3-27.4; IQR 2.2-7.4) in cohort 2. Median OS was 8.9 months (range 0.6-34.5; IQR 4.9-17.0) in cohort 1 and 9.6 months (range 0.7-34.3; IQR 4.5-18.4) in cohort 2. Adverse events (AEs) were similar in type, grade and frequency to other studies of single-agent vemurafenib. Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 59 (66%) patients in cohort 1 and 36 (64%) in cohort 2. Overall, 84% of patients died during the study (86% in cohort 1 and 80% in cohort 2), mainly due to disease progression. Conclusions: The study demonstrates clinically meaningful response rates of melanoma BM to vemurafenib, which was well tolerated and without significant CNS toxicity.

6 Article Current role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in the management of cutaneous melanoma: A UK consensus statement. 2020

Peach, H / Board, R / Cook, M / Corrie, P / Ellis, S / Geh, J / King, P / Laitung, G / Larkin, J / Marsden, J / Middleton, M / Moncrieff, M / Nathan, P / Powell, B / Pritchard-Jones, R / Rodwell, S / Steven, N / Lorigan, P. ·Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, United Kingdom. Electronic address: h.peach@nhs.net. · Lancashire Teaching Hospitals, United Kingdom. · Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust, United Kingdom. · Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom. · Guys and St.Thomas's Hospital, United Kingdom. · Royal Cornwall Hospital, United Kingdom. · Royal Marsden Hospital, United Kingdom. · Oxford University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom. · Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, United Kingdom. · Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, United Kingdom. · St.George's University Hospitals, United Kingdom. · University of Liverpool Hospital, United Kingdom. · CEO Melanoma Focus, United Kingdom. · Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. · The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom. ·J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg · Pubmed #31477493.

ABSTRACT: Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) has been at the forefront of the surgical staging of melanoma patients for the past 15 years. The high accuracy of this prognostic staging procedure is now recognised in all international guidelines for melanoma. However during this period there have been a number of important changes in the management of melanoma, many occurring within the past five years. The outcomes of five recent randomised Phase 3 trials have established the role of adjuvant targeted therapy and immunotherapy in resected Stage 3 and Stage 4 disease and have potentially changed the role of SNB. Two landmark international prospective studies have examined the benefit of performing a completion lymph node dissection (CLND) following the detection of microscopicallyinvolved sentinel nodes. Finally, the marked increase in the incidence of melanoma and the role of SNB in potentially guiding therapy has resulted in a significant increase in the pathological workload of the dermatopathology services. To address these issues a multi-disciplinary consensus meeting involving many melanoma experts from the UK was convened in May 2018. Three main areas were considered: oncology, surgery and pathology. This report is a summary of the conclusions reached, which were agreed by the clinicians attending the meeting and then externally peer reviewed. The recommendations summarised in this Consensus Statement.

7 Article More than 5000 patients with metastatic melanoma in Europe per year do not have access to recommended first-line innovative treatments. 2017

Kandolf Sekulovic, L / Peris, K / Hauschild, A / Stratigos, A / Grob, J-J / Nathan, P / Dummer, R / Forsea, A-M / Hoeller, C / Gogas, H / Demidov, L / Lebbe, C / Blank, C / Olah, J / Bastholt, L / Herceg, D / Neyns, B / Vieira, R / Hansson, J / Rutkowski, P / Krajsova, I / Bylaite-Bucinskiene, M / Zalaudek, I / Maric-Brozic, J / Babovic, N / Banjin, M / Putnik, K / Weinlich, G / Todorovic, V / Kirov, K / Ocvirk, J / Zhukavets, A / Kukushkina, M / De La Cruz Merino, L / Ymeri, A / Risteski, M / Garbe, C. ·Department of Dermatology, Medical Faculty, Military Medical Academy, Belgrade, Serbia. · Institute of Dermatology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany. · National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. · Service de Dermatologie et Cancérologie Cutanée, Hopital de la Timone, Marseille, France. · Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, United Kingdom. · UniversitätsSpital Zürich-Skin Cancer Center, University Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland. · Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Elias University Hospital Bucharest, Romania. · Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · NN Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia. · APHP Hospital Saint Louis, Paris, France. · Netherland Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University of Szeged, Hungary. · Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark. · Department of Oncology, University Hospital Zagreb, Croatia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Dermatology, Medical Faculty, University of Coimbra, Portugal. · Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warszawa, Poland. · General Teaching Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. · Department of Dermatology, Vilnius University, Lithuania. · Division of Dermatology and Venerology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. · University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Zagreb, Croatia. · Institute of Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia. · Department of Oncology, University Hospital Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. · North Estonia Medical Centre, Tallinn, Estonia. · Department of Dermatology & Venerology & Allergy, Medical University Innsbruck, Austria. · Clinic for Oncology and Radiotherapy, Podgorica, Montenegro. · Clinic of Oncodermatology, National Cancer Center, Sofia, Bulgaria. · Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. · N.N. Alexandrov National Cancer Сenter of Belarus (NCCB), Minsk, Belarus. · National Cancer Institute, Kiev, Ukraine. · Department of Clinical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain. · University Hospital Mother Theresa, Tirana, Albania. · University Clinic of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Skopje, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. · Centre for Dermatooncology, Department of Dermatology, Eberhard Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28264791.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Despite the efficacy of innovative treatments for metastatic melanoma, their high costs has led to disparities in cancer care among different European countries. We analysed the availability of these innovative therapies in Europe and estimated the number of patients without access to first-line recommended treatment per current guidelines of professional entities such as the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), and European Dermatology Forum (EDF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Web-based online survey was conducted in 30 European countries with questions about the treatment schedules from 1st May 2015 to 1st May 2016: number of metastatic melanoma patients, registration and reimbursement of innovative medicines (updated data, as of 1st October 2016), percentage of patients treated and availability of clinical studies and compassionate-use programmes. RESULTS: The recommended BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) + MEK inhibitor (MEKi) combination was both registered and fully reimbursed in 9/30 (30%) countries, and in 13/30 (43%) (all from Eastern Europe) not reimbursed. First-line immunotherapy with anti-PD1 antibodies was registered and fully reimbursed in 14/30 (47%) countries, while in 13/30 (43%) (all from Eastern Europe) not reimbursed. It was estimated that in Europe 19,600 patients with metastatic melanoma are treated, and 5238 (27%) do not have access to recommended first-line therapy. Significant correlation was found between human development index (HDI, UNDP report 2015), (r = 0.662; p < 0.001), health expenditure per capita (r = 0.695; p < 0.001) and the Mackenbach score of health policy performance (r = 0.765; p < 0.001) with the percentage of patients treated with innovative medicines and a number of reimbursed medicines. CONCLUSIONS: Great discrepancy exists in metastatic melanoma treatment across Europe. It is crucial to increase the awareness of national and European policymakers, oncological societies, melanoma patients' associations and pharma industry.

8 Article Pregnancy and melanoma: a European-wide survey to assess current management and a critical literature overview. 2017

Ribero, S / Longo, C / Dika, E / Fortes, C / Pasquali, S / Nagore, E / Glass, D / Robert, C / Eggermont, A M / Testori, A / Quaglino, P / Nathan, P / Argenziano, G / Puig, S / Bataille, V / Anonymous9870869. ·Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, London, UK. · Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. · Dermatology and Skin Cancer Unit, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy. · Dermatology Department, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. · Clinical Epidemiology Unit, IDI-IRCSS-FLMM Rome, Rome, Italy. · Surgical Oncology, Veneto Institute of Oncology - IRCCS, Padova, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain. · Institut de Cancérologie, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. · Mount Vernon Cancer Center, Northwood, UK. · Dermatology Department, Federico II University of Naples, Naples, Italy. · Melanoma Unit, Dermatology Department Hospital Clinic and University of Barcelona, CIBER de Enfermedades Raras, Barcelona, Spain. · Dermatology Department, West Herts NHS Trust, Herts, UK. ·J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol · Pubmed #27231086.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Management of melanoma during pregnancy can be extremely challenging. The reported incidence of melanoma in pregnancy ranges from 2.8 to 5.0 per 100 000 pregnancies. There are no guidelines for the management of melanoma during pregnancy. METHODS: The survey was designed to investigate the opinions of melanoma physicians on decision making in relation to pregnancy and melanoma. A clinical scenario-based survey on management of pregnancy in melanoma was distributed all over Europe via the membership of the EORTC and other European melanoma societies. RESULTS: A total of 290 questionnaires were returned with a larger participation from southern Europe. A large heterogeneity was found for the answers given in the different clinical scenarios with 50% of the answers showing discordance, especially regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy during pregnancy. Discordant answers were also found for the counselling of women about a potential delay in getting pregnant after a high-risk melanoma (35% for a 2 year wait minimum vs. 57% no waiting needed), while for thin melanomas, as expected, there was more concordance with 70% of the physicians recommending no delay. Fifteen per cent of physicians recommended an abortion in stage II melanoma during the third month of pregnancy. Twenty per cent of the responders advised against hormonal replacement therapy in melanoma patients. CONCLUSIONS: The management of melanoma during pregnancy varies widely in Europe. At present, there is a lack of consensus in Europe, which may lead to very important decisions in women with melanoma, and guidelines are needed.

9 Article Prediction of high naevus count in a healthy U.K. population to estimate melanoma risk. 2016

Ribero, S / Zugna, D / Osella-Abate, S / Glass, D / Nathan, P / Spector, T / Bataille, V. ·Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, St Thomas' Campus, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, U.K. · Section of Dermatology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Torino, Italy. · Imperial College London, London, U.K. · Department of Dermatology, London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, London, U.K. · Unit of Cancer Epidemiology - CERMS, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Torino, Italy. · Mount Vernon Cancer Network, West Herts NHS Trust, Herts, U.K. · Department of Dermatology, West Herts NHS Trust, Herts, U.K. ·Br J Dermatol · Pubmed #26479165.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Despite recent discoveries of germline and somatic mutations in melanoma, naevus count remains the most important risk factor for melanoma. Counting naevi on the whole body is time consuming. In order to identify patients at risk for melanoma, many studies have used naevus count on selected body sites as a proxy for total body naevus count (TBNC). OBJECTIVES: The main aim of this study was to assess the predictive value of naevus count on 17 different body sites in estimating TBNC in a large cohort of healthy U.K. Caucasian female subjects. Once the site with the best predictive value for TBNC was determined, a second aim was to estimate the cut-off values of naevus counts at this anatomical site that best predict the presence of 50 or 100 naevi, respectively. METHODS: The most predictive body site for TBNC was assessed in a cohort of healthy female twins. This finding was replicated on a control group from a U.K. case-control study and a prediction model was performed afterwards. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was used to evaluate the best cut-off for the prediction of having a TBNC of more than 50 or 100. RESULTS: There were 3694 female twins included. The TBNC showed a steady decline after the age of 30 years (P < 0·001). The most predictive sites for TBNC were the arms and legs: the adjusted correlation coefficients were 0·50 and 0·51 (P < 0·001) for the right and left arm, respectively, and 0·49 and 0·48 for the right and left legs, respectively (P < 0·001). The arm remained the most predictive site for TBNC when replicated in a control population including both sexes. In the twin study, women with more than 11 naevi on the right arm were approximately nine times more likely to have more than 100 naevi (odds ratio = 9·38, 95% confidence interval 6·71-13·11). CONCLUSIONS: The ability to estimate TBNC quickly by counting naevi on one arm could be a very useful tool in assessing melanoma risk in primary care.

10 Article Revised UK guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma 2010. 2010

Marsden, J R / Newton-Bishop, J A / Burrows, L / Cook, M / Corrie, P G / Cox, N H / Gore, M E / Lorigan, P / Mackie, R / Nathan, P / Peach, H / Powell, B / Walker, C / Anonymous4220668. ·University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham B29 6JD, United Kingdom. jerry.marsden@uhb.nhs.uk ·J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg · Pubmed #20728418.

ABSTRACT: These guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma present an evidence-based guidance for treatment, with identification of the strength of evidence available at the time of preparation of the guidelines, and a brief overview of epidemiology, diagnosis, investigation, and follow-up.

11 Minor Concerns regarding BRAF testing algorithm: reply from authors. 2013

Gonzalez, D / Fearfield, L / Nathan, P / Tanière, P / Wallace, A / Brown, E / Harwood, C / Marsden, J / Whittaker, S. ·Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5NG, U.K. ·Br J Dermatol · Pubmed #23855556.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

12 Minor Urgent treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma using Braf inhibitors in the absence of Braf mutation status. 2013

Nathan, P / Sharma, A / Lorigan, P. · ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #23613475.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --