Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28241261›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2017

Outcomes of Melanoma In Situ Treated With Mohs Micrographic Surgery Compared With Wide Local Excision.

Adi Nosrati, Jacqueline G Berliner, Shilpa Goel, Joseph McGuire, Vera Morhenn, Juliana R de Souza, Yildiray Yeniay, Rasnik Singh, Kristina Lee, Mio Nakamura and 7 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Red Nodule in a Post-surgical Scar: A Quiz.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2020
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Current perspectives on Mohs micrographic surgery for melanoma.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2018
    Review
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

17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Adi NosratiDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco2Dermatology Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California.
Jacqueline G BerlinerDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco2Dermatology Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California.
Shilpa GoelDermatology Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California.
Joseph McGuireHelen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco.
Vera MorhennDermatology Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California.
Juliana R de SouzaDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco.
Yildiray YeniayDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco.
Rasnik SinghDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco.
Kristina LeeDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco.
Mio NakamuraDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco.
Rachel R WuDermatology Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California.
Ann GriffinHelen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco.
Barbara GrimesDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco.
Eleni LinosDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco.
Mary Margaret ChrenDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco2Dermatology Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California.
Roy GrekinDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco.
Maria L WeiDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco2Dermatology Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California.
University of California, San Francisco · USSan Francisco VA Medical Center · USUCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center · US

Funding

Involving older adults in decision making for skin cancerK76AG054631 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LINOS, ELENI · 2016 to 2018
$644k
NIA NIH HHS K76 AG054631
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Melanoma in situ (MIS) is increasing in incidence, and expert consensus opinion recommends surgical excision for therapeutic management. Currently, wide local excision (WLE) is the standard of care. However, Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is now used to treat a growing subset of individuals with MIS. During MMS, unlike WLE, the entire cutaneous surgical margin is evaluated intraoperatively for tumor cells. Objective: To assess the outcomes of patients with MIS treated with MMS compared with those treated with WLE. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective review of a prospective database. The study cohort consisted of 662 patients with MIS treated with MMS or WLE per standard of care in dermatology and surgery (general surgery, otolaryngology, plastics, oculoplastics, surgical oncology) at an academic tertiary care referral center from January 1, 1978, to December 31, 2013, with follow-up through 2015. Exposure: Mohs micrographic surgery or WLE. Main Outcomes and Measures: Recurrence, overall survival, and melanoma-specific survival. Results: There were 277 patients treated with MMS (mean [SD] age, 64.0 [13.1] years; 62.1% male) and 385 treated with WLE (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [15.6] years; P < .001 for age; 54.8% male). Median follow-up was 8.6 (range, 0.2-37) years. Compared with WLE, MMS was used more frequently on the face (222 [80.2%] vs 141 [36.7%]) and scalp and neck (23 [8.3%] vs 26 [6.8%]; P < .001). The median (range) year of diagnosis was 2008 (1986-2013) for the MMS group vs 2003 (1978-2013) for the WLE group (P < .001). Overall recurrence rates were 5 (1.8%) in the MMS group and 22 (5.7%) in the WLE group (P = .07). Mean (SD) time to recurrence after MMS was 3.91 (4.4) years, and after WLE, 4.45 (2.7) years (P = .73). The 5-year recurrence rate was 1.1% in the MMS group and 4.1% in the WLE group (P = .07). For WLE-treated tumors, the surgical margin taken was greater for tumors that recurred compared with tumors that did not recur (P = .003). Five-year overall survival for MMS was 92% and for WLE was 94% (P = .28). Melanoma-specific mortality for the MMS group was 2 vs 13 patients for the WLE group, with mean (SD) survival of 6.5 (4.8) and 6.1 (0.8) years, respectively (P = .77). Conclusions and Relevance: No significant differences were found in the recurrence rate, overall survival, or melanoma-specific survival of patients with MIS treated with MMS compared with WLE.

Indexed as

Academic Medical CentersAdultAgedCarcinoma in SituDatabases, FactualDermatologic Surgical ProceduresFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedMohs SurgeryNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRetrospective StudiesSkin Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID28241261
PMCPMC5817486
OpenAlexW2592914193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.