A. Jochems

Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry: Quality assurance in the care of patients with metastatic melanoma in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND In recent years, the treatment of metastatic melanoma has changed dramatically due to the development of immune checkpoint and mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase inhibitors. A population-based registry, the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), was set up in July 2013 to assure the safety and quality of melanoma care in the Netherlands. This article describes the design and objectives of the DMTR and presents some results of the first 2 years of registration. METHODS The DMTR documents detailed information on all Dutch patients with unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma. This includes tumour and patient characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, quality of life, healthcare utilisation, informal care and productivity losses. These data are used for clinical auditing, increasing the transparency of melanoma care, providing insights into real-world cost-effectiveness and creating a platform for research. RESULTS Within 1 year, all melanoma centres were participating in the DMTR. The quality performance indicators demonstrated that the BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab have been safely introduced in the Netherlands with toxicity rates that were consistent with the phase III trials conducted. The median overall survival of patients treated with systemic therapy was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1-11.1) in the first registration year and 12.7 months (95% CI 11.6-13.7) in the second year. CONCLUSION The DMTR is the first comprehensive multipurpose nationwide registry and its collaboration with all stakeholders involved in melanoma care reflects an integrative view of cancer management. In future, the DMTR will provide insights into challenging questions regarding the definition of possible subsets of patients who benefit most from the new drugs.

Conjunctival Metastasis of a Cutaneous Melanoma

Purpose: To report a patient who presented with a conjunctival tumour as a first sign of distant metastasis of cutaneous melanoma. The patient was treated successfully with BRAF/MEK-inhibitors and anti-PD-1 antibodies. Methods: Clinical and histopathological examination of the conjunctival lesion. Results: A 74-year-old man was referred to our hospital with a pigmented conjunctival tumour, 5 months after having been diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma on his right scapula with loco-regional axillary lymph node metastases. The conjunctival lesion was excised and showed a BRAF V600E mutation. Histopathology showed a melanoma with characteristics suspicious for metastasis, as the lesion did not have a relation with the overlying epithelium. Systemic screening showed multiple distant metastases of the cutaneous melanoma in spleen, liver, and bone. Systemic treatment with the combination of a BRAF-inhibitor (dabrafenib) and MEK-inhibitor (trametinib) was started and followed by a switch to an anti-PD-1 antibody (pembrolizumab). Twenty-two months later, the patient is alive and in good clinical health. Conclusion: Conjunctival metastases of cutaneous melanoma may mimic primary conjunctival melanoma. A good medical history and systemic work-up are required to differentiate these diseases. Identification of the proper diagnosis including mutation analysis is crucial, allowing patients to benefit from newly introduced treatment strategies for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.