Purpose: This study evaluated the characteristics of patients with head and neck (H&N) melanoma who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNLB) and assessed the clinical course of patients categorizing subjects according to SLNB status and melanoma location (scalp area vs. non-scalp areas). Methods: Patients undergoing SLNB for melanoma of H&N from 2015 to 2021 were prospectively characterized according to sentinel lymph node (SLN) status. SPECT/CT had been previously performed. Patients were followed until the first adverse event to evaluate progression-free survival. Results: 93 patients were enrolled. SLNB was negative in 75 patients. The median Breslow index was higher for patients with positive SLNB compared with patients with negative SLNB. In addition, the Breslow index was higher for melanoma of the scalp compared with non-scalp melanoma. The median follow-up was 24.8 months. Progression occurred at the systemic level in the 62.5% of cases. There was a significant association between positive SLNB and progression (p-value < 0.01) of disease, with lower progression-free survival for patients with melanoma of the scalp compared with those with melanoma at other anatomic sites (p-value: 0.15). Conclusions: Scalp melanomas are more aggressive than other types of H&N melanomas. Sentinel lymph node status is the strongest prognostic criterion for recurrence.

There are no randomized controlled trials to guide surgical margins for invasive head and neck (H&N) melanoma using conventional excision. Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has shown improved local recurrence rates and survival for invasive H&N melanomas.
Determine local recurrence (LR), nodal recurrence, and distant recurrence rates, and disease specific survival for invasive melanoma of the H&N treated with MMS.
A retrospective multicenter study of 785 cases of invasive H&N melanoma treated with MMS using frozen sections with melanoma antigen recognized by T-cells 1 immunohistochemical staining was performed to evaluate long-term outcomes over 12-years.
785 melanomas (thickness: 0.3 mm-8.5 mm) were treated with MMS. LR, nodal recurrence, and distant recurrence rates were 0.51% (4/785), 1.0% (8/785), and 1.1% (9/785) respectively. For T1, T2, T3, and T4 tumors LR was 0.16% (1/636), 1.18% (1/85), 2.22% (1/45), and 5.26% (1/19), respectively. Five and 10-year disease specific survival were 96.8% (95% CI 95.0% to 98.5%) and 93.4% (95% CI 88.5% to 98.3%).
A nonrandomized retrospective study.
MMS achieves significant improvements in LR compared to a meta-analysis of historical cohorts of patients treated with conventional excision. MMS should be considered an important surgical option for invasive H&N melanoma.

Type 2 Diabetes (DM2) and the consecutively daily use of antidiabetic medication are characterized by a frequent prevalence worldwide and were shown to impact the initiation and progression of malignant diseases. While these effects were observed in a variety of malignancies, comprehensive data about the role of DM2 and antidiabetic drugs in the outcome of head and neck melanoma (HNM) patients are missing.
This retrospective population-based cohort study included 382 HNM patients from Eastern Bavaria having received tumor resection to negative margins between 2010 and 2017. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was evaluated with regard to DM2 and routine metformin intake. Statistical analysis was performed by uni- and multivariate analyses. The median follow-up time was 5.6 years.
DM2 was diagnosed in 68 patients (17.8%), routine metformin intake was found in 39 cases (10.2%). The univariate survival analysis revealed impaired 5-year RFS in HNM patients with DM2 compared to non-diabetic controls (p = 0.016; 64.0% and 74.5%, respectively). The multivariate Cox regression substantiated this effect (HR = 1.980, 95% CI = 1.108-3.538, p = 0.021). In detail, the cumulative locoregional recurrence rate displayed the most far-reaching negative effect on the RFS of diabetic HNM patients (HR = 4.173, 95% CI = 1.628-10.697, p = 0.003). For metformin intake, a profound positive effect on the RFS in multivariate statistics was observed, both in the complete cohort (HR = 0.396, 95% CI = 0.177-0.884, p = 0.024) as well as in the cohort of diabetic HNM patients (HR = 0.352, 95% CI = 0.135-0.913, p = 0.032).
This study emphasizes that DM2 is a relevant comorbid condition in HNM patients, impairing patient survival. Metformin intake was associated with a favorable outcome in HNM patients, providing possible therapeutic implications for future adjuvant treatment regimes.

Molecular and histopathological analysis of melanoma subtypes has revealed distinct epidemiological, genetic, and clinical features. However, immunotherapy for advanced metastatic melanoma patients does not differ based on subtype. Response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has been shown to vary, therefore, predictive biomarkers are needed in the design of precision treatments. Targeted sequencing and histopathological analysis (CD8 and CD20 immunohistochemistry) were performed on subtypes of metastatic melanoma (cutaneous melanoma (CM, n = 10); head and neck melanoma (HNM, n = 7); uveal melanoma (UM, n = 4); acral lentiginous melanoma (AM, n = 1) and mucosal melanoma (MM, n = 1) treated with ICI). Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly associated with high CD8 expression (p = 0.025) and mutations in DNA damage repair (DDR) pathway genes (p = 0.012) in all subtypes but not with CD20 expression. Our study identified that immune cell infiltration and DDR gene mutations may have an impact in response to ICI treatment in metastatic melanoma but differs among subtypes. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the immune infiltration cells\' role and DDR gene mutations in metastatic melanoma may identify prognostic biomarkers.

The head and neck region is unique from the other anatomic sites due to its rich blood supply and ability to heal well after surgery. Surgical extirpation of melanoma usually requires wide resection margins, and the defect from surgery can be devastating to the patient and impossible to conceal sometimes. Therefore, the goal of a reconstructive technique is to restore the uniformity of skin color, texture, and contour and preserve the function. In general, head and neck skin defects are reconstructed with local and regional flaps. In this paper, the authors review the most common flaps used in head and neck reconstruction.

The rates of melanoma continue to rise, with recent estimates have shown that 18% to 22% of new melanoma cases occur within the head and neck in the United States each year. The mainstay of treatment of nonmetastatic primary melanomas of the head and neck includes the surgical resection and management of regional disease as indicated. Thorough knowledge of the classification and staging of melanoma is paramount to evaluate prognosis, determine the appropriate surgical intervention, and assess eligibility for adjuvant therapy and clinic trials. The traditional clinicopathologic classification of melanoma is based on morphologic aspects of the growth phase and distinguishes 4 of the most common subtypes as defined by the World Health Organization: superficial spreading, nodular, acral lentiginous, and lentigo maligna melanoma. The data used to derive the AJCC TNM Categories are based on superficial spreading melanoma and nodular subtypes. Melanoma is diagnosed histopathologically following initial biopsy that will assist with classifying the tumor to guide treatment. Classification is based on tumor thickness and ulceration (T stage, Breslow Staging), Regional Lymph Node Involvement (N Stage), and presence of metastasis (M Stage). Tumor thickness (Breslow thickness) and ulceration are 2 independent prognostic factors that have been shown to be the strongest predictors of survival and outcome. Clark level of invasion and mitotic rate are no longer incorporated into the current AJCC staging system, but still have shown to be important prognostic factors for cutaneous melanoma. For patients with metastatic (Stage IV) disease Lactate Dehydrogenase remains an independent predictor of survival. The Maxillofacial surgeon must remain up to date on the most current management strategies in this patient population. Classification systems and staging provide the foundation for clinical decision making and prognostication for the Maxillofacial surgeon when caring for these patients.

Oral mucosal melanoma (OMM) is the subject of few studies, resulting in a lack of understanding. The aim of this study is to review the current literature on OMM. The term searched was \"oral mucosal melanoma\" between 01/01/2000 and 03/15/2021 in the PubMed Database (MEDLINE). Patients presenting with OMM and treated in our center between January 2009 and January 2020 were included in a case series. Demographics, location, risk factors, genetic mutations, treatment performed, and overall survival (OS) rates were evaluated. The PubMed database search yielded a total of 513 results, thirty-eight articles were finally included, which amounted to 2230 cases of OMM. 13 patients were included in the case series. A male-to-female ratio of 1.28:1.00 was found with a mean age at first diagnosis of 58.2 years old. Hard palate (1060 cases) and then gingiva (794 cases) were the two main locations. No risk factors could be identified. OMM were staged III or IV at diagnosis. Mutations were described as such: KIT in 14.6% of cases, BRAF in 7%, and NRAS in 5.6%. Treatment protocols varied but radical surgery was the cornerstone treatment associated with adjuvant therapies. Immunotherapy has not been evaluated for OMM. OS rates were 43.4% at 3 years, 33.1% at 5 year and 15.4% at 10 years. OMM show distinct features from cutaneous melanoma (CM): typical locations, no identified risk factors, different mutations profile, worse prognosis with advanced stage at diagnosis. Targeted therapies are still underused compared to CM.

The specificity of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for detecting lymph node metastasis in head and neck melanoma (HNM) is low under current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guidelines.
Multiple machine learning (ML) algorithms were developed to identify HNM patients at very low risk of occult nodal metastasis using National Cancer Database (NCDB) data from 8466 clinically node negative HNM patients who underwent SLNB. SLNB performance under NCCN guidelines and ML algorithm recommendations was compared on independent test data from the NCDB (n = 2117) and an academic medical center (n = 96).
The top-performing ML algorithm (AUC = 0.734) recommendations obtained significantly higher specificity compared to the NCCN guidelines in both internal (25.8% vs. 11.3%, p < 0.001) and external test populations (30.1% vs. 7.1%, p < 0.001), while achieving sensitivity >97%.
Machine learning can identify clinically node negative HNM patients at very low risk of nodal metastasis, who may not benefit from SLNB.

The incidence of melanoma is continuing to rise in the United States, and head and neck melanomas account for 25% of all cutaneous melanomas. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations for surgical margins and sentinel lymph node biopsy in head and neck melanomas are the same as cutaneous melanoma located in other regions, but require special considerations when performing wide local excision, sentinel lymph node biopsy, and completion lymph node dissection and reconstruction taking into account the location of the melanoma and structures involved in and around the suggested margins.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies reported cutaneous melanoma in head and neck (HNM) differed from those in other regions (body melanoma, BM). Individualized tools to predict the survival of patients with HNM or BM remain insufficient. We aimed at comparing the characteristics of HNM and BM, developing and validating nomograms for predicting the survival of patients with HNM or BM.
METHODS: The information of patients with HNM or BM from 2004 to 2015 was obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The HNM group and BM group were randomly divided into training and validation cohorts. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox models to identify independent prognostic factors. Nomograms were developed via the rms and dynnom packages, and were measured by the concordance index (C-index), the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and calibration plots.
RESULTS: Of 70,605 patients acquired, 21% had HNM and 79% had BM. The HNM group contained more older patients, male sex and lentigo maligna melanoma, and more frequently had thicker tumors and metastases than the BM group. The 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 88.1 ± 0.3% and 74.4 ± 0.4% in the HNM group and 92.5 ± 0.1% and 85.8 ± 0.2% in the BM group, respectively. Eight variables (age, sex, histology, thickness, ulceration, stage, metastases, and surgery) were identified to construct nomograms of CSS and OS for patients with HNM or BM. Additionally, four dynamic nomograms were available on web. The internal and external validation of each nomogram showed high C-index values (0.785-0.896) and AUC values (0.81-0.925), and the calibration plots showed great consistency.
CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of HNM and BM are heterogeneous. We constructed and validated four nomograms for predicting the 3-, 5- and 10-year CSS and OS probabilities of patients with HNM or BM. These nomograms can serve as practical clinical tools for survival prediction and individual health management.