Pigment cells and neuronal cells both are derived from the neural crest. Here, we describe the Pit-Oct-Unc (POU) domain transcription factor Brn3a, normally involved in neuronal development, to be frequently expressed in melanoma, but not in melanocytes and nevi. RNAi-mediated silencing of Brn3a strongly reduced the viability of melanoma cell lines and decreased tumour growth in vivo. In melanoma cell lines, inhibition of Brn3a caused DNA double-strand breaks as evidenced by Mre11/Rad50-containing nuclear foci. Activated DNA damage signalling caused stabilization of the tumour suppressor p53, which resulted in cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. When Brn3a was ectopically expressed in primary melanocytes and fibroblasts, anchorage-independent growth was increased. In tumourigenic melanocytes and fibroblasts, Brn3a accelerated tumour growth in vivo. Furthermore, Brn3a cooperated with proliferation pathways such as oncogenic BRAF, by reducing oncogene-induced senescence in non-malignant melanocytes. Together, these results identify Brn3a as a new factor in melanoma that is essential for melanoma cell survival and that promotes melanocytic transformation and tumourigenesis.

Adjuvant treatment of melanoma patients with immune-checkpoint inhibition (ICI) and targeted therapy (TT) significantly improved recurrence-free survival. This study investigates the real-world situation of 904 patients from 13 German skin cancer centers with an indication for adjuvant treatment since the approval of adjuvant ICI and TT. From adjusted log-binomial regression models, we estimated relative risks for associations between various influence factors and treatment decisions (adjuvant therapy yes/no, TT vs. ICI in BRAF mutant patients). Of these patients, 76.9% (95% CI 74–80) opted for a systemic adjuvant treatment. The probability of starting an adjuvant treatment was 26% lower in patients >65 years (RR 0.74, 95% CI 68–80). The most common reasons against adjuvant treatment given by patients were age (29.4%, 95% CI 24–38), and fear of adverse events (21.1%, 95% CI 16–28) and impaired quality of life (11.9%, 95% CI 7–16). Of all BRAF-mutated patients who opted for adjuvant treatment, 52.9% (95% CI 47–59) decided for ICI. Treatment decision for TT or ICI was barely associated with age, gender and tumor stage, but with comorbidities and affiliated center. Shortly after their approval, adjuvant treatments have been well accepted by physicians and patients. Age plays a decisive role in the decision for adjuvant treatment, while pre-existing autoimmune disease and regional differences influence the choice between TT or ICI.

The COVID‐19 pandemic caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 has far‐reaching direct and indirect medical consequences. These include both the course and treatment of diseases. It is becoming increasingly clear that infections with SARS‐CoV‐2 can cause considerable immunological alterations, which particularly also affect pathogenetically and/or therapeutically relevant factors. Against this background we summarize here the current state of knowledge on the interaction of SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19 with mediators of the acute phase of inflammation (TNF, IL‐1, IL‐6), type 1 and type 17 immune responses (IL‐12, IL‐23, IL‐17, IL‐36), type 2 immune reactions (IL‐4, IL‐13, IL‐5, IL‐31, IgE), B‐cell immunity, checkpoint regulators (PD‐1, PD‐L1, CTLA4), and orally druggable signaling pathways (JAK, PDE4, calcineurin). In addition, we discuss in this context non‐specific immune modulation by glucocorticosteroids, methotrexate, antimalarial drugs, azathioprine, dapsone, mycophenolate mofetil and fumaric acid esters, as well as neutrophil granulocyte‐mediated innate immune mechanisms. From these recent findings we derive possible implications for the therapeutic modulation of said immunological mechanisms in connection with SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19. Although, of course, the greatest care should be taken with patients with immunologically mediated diseases or immunomodulating therapies, it appears that many treatments can also be carried out during the COVID‐19 pandemic; some even appear to alleviate COVID‐19.

Background: Concomitant radiation with BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) therapy may increase radiation-induced side effects but also potentially improve tumour control in melanoma patients. Methods: A total of 155 patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma from 17 European skin cancer centres were retrospectively analysed. Out of these, 87 patients received concomitant radiotherapy and BRAFi (59 vemurafenib, 28 dabrafenib), while in 68 patients BRAFi therapy was interrupted during radiation (51 vemurafenib, 17 dabrafenib). Overall survival was calculated from the first radiation (OSRT) and from start of BRAFi therapy (OSBRAFi). Results: The median duration of BRAFi treatment interruption prior to radiotherapy was 4 days and lasted for 17 days. Median OSRT and OSBRAFi in the entire cohort were 9.8 and 12.6 months in the interrupted group and 7.3 and 11.5 months in the concomitant group (P=0.075/P=0.217), respectively. Interrupted vemurafenib treatment with a median OSRT and OSBRAFi of 10.1 and 13.1 months, respectively, was superior to concomitant vemurafenib treatment with a median OSRT and OSBRAFi of 6.6 and 10.9 months (P=0.004/P=0.067). Interrupted dabrafenib treatment with a median OSRT and OSBRAFi of 7.7 and 9.8 months, respectively, did not differ from concomitant dabrafenib treatment with a median OSRT and OSBRAFi of 9.9 and 11.6 months (P=0.132/P=0.404). Median local control of the irradiated area did not differ in the interrupted and concomitant BRAFi treatment groups (P=0.619). Skin toxicity of grade ≥2 (CTCAE) was significantly increased in patients with concomitant vemurafenib compared to the group with treatment interruption (P=0.002). Conclusions: Interruption of vemurafenib treatment during radiation was associated with better survival and less toxicity compared to concomitant treatment. Due to lower number of patients, the relevance of treatment interruption in dabrafenib treated patients should be further investigated. The results of this analysis indicate that treatment with the BRAFi vemurafenib should be interrupted during radiotherapy. Prospective studies are desperately needed.

Background Melanoma is the most dangerous type of skin cancer but is curable if detected early. Recent publications demonstrated that artificial intelligence is capable in classifying images of benign nevi and melanoma with dermatologist-level precision. However, a statistically significant improvement compared with dermatologist classification has not been reported to date. Methods For this comparative study, 4204 biopsy-proven images of melanoma and nevi (1:1) were used for the training of a convolutional neural network (CNN). New techniques of deep learning were integrated. For the experiment, an additional 804 biopsy-proven dermoscopic images of melanoma and nevi (1:1) were randomly presented to dermatologists of nine German university hospitals, who evaluated the quality of each image and stated their recommended treatment (19,296 recommendations in total). Three McNemar's tests comparing the results of the CNN's test runs in terms of sensitivity, specificity and overall correctness were predefined as the main outcomes. Findings The respective sensitivity and specificity of lesion classification by the dermatologists were 67.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 62.6%–71.7%) and 62.2% (95% CI: 57.6%–66.9%). In comparison, the trained CNN achieved a higher sensitivity of 82.3% (95% CI: 78.3%–85.7%) and a higher specificity of 77.9% (95% CI: 73.8%–81.8%). The three McNemar's tests in 2 × 2 tables all reached a significance level of p < 0.001. This significance level was sustained for both subgroups. Interpretation For the first time, automated dermoscopic melanoma image classification was shown to be significantly superior to both junior and board-certified dermatologists (p < 0.001).