Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30232648›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2018

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Completion Lymph Node Dissection for Melanoma.

Sabran J Masoud, Jennifer A Perone, Norma E Farrow, Paul J Mosca, Douglas S Tyler, Georgia M Beasley

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Validation of Melanoma Immune Profile (MIP), a Prognostic Immune Gene Prediction Score for Stage II-III Melanoma.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sabran J MasoudDepartment of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Jennifer A PeroneDepartment of Surgery, University Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.
Norma E FarrowDepartment of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Paul J MoscaDepartment of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Douglas S TylerDepartment of Surgery, University Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.
Georgia M BeasleyDepartment of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. Georgia.beasley@duke.edu.
Duke University · USThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · USDuke Medical Center · US

Funding

Viral Oncology Training GrantT32CA009111 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LUFTIG, MICAH A. · 1985 to 2023
$8.9M
Translational Research in Surgical OncologyT32CA093245 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI ALLEN, PETER J, HARPOLE, DAVID H. · 2002 to 2020
$5.2M
UTMB Clinical and Translational Science AwardTL1TR001440 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI HOMMEL, JONATHAN DEAN · 2015 to 2024
$3.4M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001440NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009111NCI NIH HHS T32 CA093245
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementThis review critically evaluates recent trials which have challenged the practice of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) for melanoma patients diagnosed with regional metastasis by positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Two trials in the last 2 years, DeCOG-SLT and MSLT-II, found no significant differences in melanoma-specific survival between patients, whether they received immediate CLND or observation after positive SLNB, despite decreases in nodal recurrence achieved by dissection. These trials together disfavor routine CLND in most patients after positive SLNB. However, their conclusions are limited by study populations which overall harbored a lower burden of SLN disease. Special attention needs to be given to patients who do have higher risk disease, with SLN tumor burdens exceeding 1 mm in diameter, for whom CLND may remain both prognostic and therapeutic. Current guidelines thus recommend either CLND or careful observation after positive SLNB after appropriate risk stratification of patients. While a decline in CLND is inevitable, treatment of stage III melanoma is witnessing the concurrent rise of effective adjuvant therapies. PD-1 inhibitors such as nivolumab, or combination BRAF/MEK inhibitors for V600E or K mutant melanoma, which were previously available to only trial patients with completely resected stage III disease, are now approved for use in patients with positive SLNB alone. Providers are better equipped than ever to treat clinically occult, regional metastatic disease with SLNB followed by adjuvant therapy for most patients, but should take steps to avoid undertreatment of high-risk patients who may proceed to disease relapse or progression.

Indexed as

Lymph Node ExcisionSentinel Lymph Node BiopsyAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalCutaneous Malignant MelanomaHumansMelanomaNeoplasm MetastasisNivolumabProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorProtein Kinase InhibitorsSkin NeoplasmsAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalNivolumabPDCD1 protein, humanProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorProtein Kinase InhibitorsLymph node dissectionMelanomaMetastasisSentinel lymph node biopsyStagingSurvival

Identifiers

PMID30232648
PMCPMC6684152
OpenAlexW2891498532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.