The use of nationwide, population-based registries when investigating possible associations between cancers is advantageous in reducing the biases of diagnosis and selection and provides better statistical power when a rare cancer, such as uveal melanoma, is studied. Previous studies using population-based databases, such as the Connecticut Tumor Registry, have pointed out increased risks (relative risk [RR] = 1.31) for development of a second primary cancer in patients who have cancer, where environmental exposures such as smoking and diet, treatment with chemotherapy or radiation, and a genetic predisposition for cancer may interact.
25 In the same registry, eye cancer was associated with both an increased risk of a second cancer and cutaneous melanomas, but the results are not readily transferable to the subset of patients with uveal melanoma, as retinoblastoma and other eye malignancies were included in the analysis.
26 In Finland, Teppo et al.
27 found an increased risk for a second malignancy in patients who had the first cancer diagnosed before the age of 50, but not in the general population of persons with cancer. A study based on the Danish Cancer Registry
28 found an elevated risk of second cancers in male patients with uveal melanoma, but not in females and no significantly raised risks for either cutaneous melanoma or nonmelanoma skin cancers. Case–control studies conducted in patients with uveal melanoma have produced inconsistent results. Turner et al.
29 found an increased prevalence of non–basal-cell carcinomas and gynecological cancers, whereas Lischko et al.
30 and Holly et al.
31 found nonsignificant increased rates of both skin- and non-skin cancers in patients with uveal melanoma, compared with those in control subjects. Concurrent second cancers in patients with uveal melanoma have been reported to occur in 8% to 13%.
30 31 32 33
Our findings, with data from a nationwide, population-based survey of patients with uveal melanoma over a 39-year period and with minimal loss to follow-up (due to emigration in nine cases), indicate that uveal melanoma is associated with a raised risk of a second primary cancer. According to the risk ratios, 13% more cancer cases occurred among Swedish patients with uveal melanoma compared with the expected rates in the general population.
The risk of actual development of two primary cancers is most variable, depending on factors such as applied treatment, curability, and age at diagnosis of the first cancer. The median age at diagnosis of uveal melanoma in our survey was 64 years for both men and women, and most of the patients underwent primary enucleation (86.4%). Brachytherapy (ruthenium episcleral plaque) was applied in 12.9% of the cases and 0.7% received therapy with charged particles (protons). The use of chemotherapy in patients with uveal melanoma has been restricted to palliation, and because of the short life expectancy of patients with metastases the risk of inducing another cancer is probably negligible. In the setting of uveal melanoma, it is therefore unlikely that the management would inflict an elevated risk of second primary cancer.
Our initial findings of a substantially raised risk of primary liver cancer are concordant with the results (SIR 5.10) Swerdlow et al.
28 reported from the Danish Cancer Registry. Although, after reevaluation of the archival specimens the SIR was adjusted to 0.86 (95% CI: 0.37–1.69) as primary liver cancer was only confirmed in 4 of 10 specimens whereas 4 of 10 specimens were melanoma metastases.
An association between breast cancer and uveal melanoma has been suggested, the proposed linkage through
BRCA2 gene mutations.
34 35 In patients with uveal melanoma, the prevalence of
BRCA2 mutations are rare, probably not more than 2% to 3%.
36 37 In the Swedish patients with uveal melanoma, we found a relative risk of female breast cancer of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.61–1.33). As expected, the identification of patients possibly carrying a rare mutation would be diluted in a population-based investigation.
Although both cutaneous and uveal melanocytes are derived from the neural crest, the malignant melanomas arising in the skin and uvea display discrepancies, both in their clinical behavior and on a genetic and molecular level.
38 39 40 41 42 43 Solar light is established as one causative factor in cutaneous melanoma
44 but the role of UV light as a risk factor for uveal melanoma is questionable.
10 An association has been proposed between the two entities through the dysplastic nevus syndrome (DNS), also called familial atypical mole-and-melanoma (FAM-M) syndrome, an autosomal dominant condition predisposing the carrier to cutaneous melanoma. The definition of DNS has varied in the literature and consequently the prevalence, which makes it difficult to compare the investigations in which dysplastic nevi and cutaneous melanoma were reported to occur more often in patients with uveal melanoma and their close relatives than by chance alone.
45 46 47 48 49 In a previous case–control study, we did not detect a higher frequency of uveal nevi in patients with DNS.
50 Case reports of coexistent primary uveal and cutaneous melanoma have been scarce,
48 51 52 but a recent population-based investigation by Shors et al.
53 using the SEER database pointed out a 4.6-fold increased risk of development of cutaneous melanoma in the presence of an initial uveal melanoma, findings that were supported by information from the Swedish Family-Cancer database, with a significant SIR of 5.04 for development of cutaneous melanoma 1 to 10 years after an uveal melanoma.
54 The reverse, an increased risk of uveal melanoma after a primary cutaneous melanoma was not found in either study.
In our investigation, to minimize the risk of including uveal melanoma metastases, we omitted the registered cases of cutaneous melanoma (18 patients) diagnosed only at autopsy or within 2 years of the patient’s death, which still leaves an SIR of 1.75. If we had calculated the standardized incidence ratios directly from the notifications in the Cancer Registry, and disregarded the possibility of a miscoded metastatic uveal melanoma, the SIR would be 4.60 (95% CI: 3.08–6.61). This finding could indicate that previously published SIRs in patients with uveal melanoma may have included cases in which metastatic uveal melanoma was miscoded as primary cutaneous melanoma.
Although misclassifications of metastatic uveal melanomas in cancer registries probably have inflated incidence ratios, coexistence of uveal and cutaneous melanoma appears to be more common than previously believed. Using stringent criteria, we could not confirm that patients with uveal melanoma are at a statistically significant increased risk of development of subsequent cutaneous melanoma. However, lesions reported as subsequent primary cutaneous melanoma but unavailable for histopathological confirmation (and therefore withdrawn from analysis in our study) may have included true cases of primary cutaneous melanoma. Our findings could provide some support for dermatological examination after diagnosis of uveal melanoma.