Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24061524›Full record

GuidelineThe American journal of surgical pathology2013

Data set for pathology reporting of cutaneous invasive melanoma: recommendations from the international collaboration on cancer reporting (ICCR).

Richard A Scolyer, Meagan J Judge, Alan Evans, David P Frishberg, Victor G Prieto, John F Thompson, Martin J Trotter, Maureen Y Walsh, Noreen M G Walsh, David W Ellis and 1 more

Abstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in The American journal of surgical pathology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 117 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Richard A Scolyer*Melanoma Institute Australia Disciplines of †Pathology **Surgery, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney Departments of ‡Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology ††Melanoma and Surgical Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital §Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Sydney, NSW ¶¶Royal Adelaide Hospital and Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia ∥Department of Pathology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland ¶Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA #Departments of Pathology and Dermatology, University of Texas-MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX ‡‡Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB ∥∥Department of Pathology, Capital District Health Authority and Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada §§Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK.
Meagan J Judge
Alan Evans
David P Frishberg
Victor G Prieto
John F Thompson
Martin J Trotter
Maureen Y Walsh
Noreen M G Walsh
David W Ellis
International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center · USMelanoma Institute Australia · AURoyal Adelaide Hospital · AURoyal College of Pathologists of Australasia · AUUniversity of Sydney · AUUniversity of Ulster · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An accurate and complete pathology report is critical for the optimal management of cutaneous melanoma patients. Protocols for the pathologic reporting of melanoma have been independently developed by the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA), Royal College of Pathologists (United Kingdom) (RCPath), and College of American Pathologists (CAP). In this study, data sets, checklists, and structured reporting protocols for pathologic examination and reporting of cutaneous melanoma were analyzed by an international panel of melanoma pathologists and clinicians with the aim of developing a common, internationally agreed upon, evidence-based data set. The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting cutaneous melanoma expert review panel analyzed the existing RCPA, RCPath, and CAP data sets to develop a protocol containing "required" (mandatory/core) and "recommended" (nonmandatory/noncore) elements. Required elements were defined as those that had agreed evidentiary support at National Health and Medical Research Council level III-2 level of evidence or above and that were unanimously agreed upon by the review panel to be essential for the clinical management, staging, or assessment of the prognosis of melanoma or fundamental for pathologic diagnosis. Recommended elements were those considered to be clinically important and recommended for good practice but with lesser degrees of supportive evidence. Sixteen core/required data elements for cutaneous melanoma pathology reports were defined (with an additional 4 core/required elements for specimens received with lymph nodes). Eighteen additional data elements with a lesser level of evidentiary support were included in the recommended data set. Consensus response values (permitted responses) were formulated for each data item. Development and agreement of this evidence-based protocol at an international level was accomplished in a timely and efficient manner, and the processes described herein may facilitate the development of protocols for other tumor types. Widespread utilization of an internationally agreed upon, structured pathology data set for melanoma will lead not only to improved patient management but is a prerequisite for research and for international benchmarking in health care.

Indexed as

HumansMelanomaPathology, ClinicalResearch DesignSkin Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID24061524
PMCPMC3864181
OpenAlexW2067534315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.