Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34047915›Full record

ReviewAdvances in therapy2021

Melanoma In Situ: A Critical Review and Re-Evaluation of Current Excision Margin Recommendations.

Erica B Friedman, Richard A Scolyer, Gabrielle J Williams, John F Thompson

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Mapping Biopsy for Primary Extramammary Paget's Disease in Reducing Recurrence Following Surgical Excision.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Erica B FriedmanNew York University School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Richard A ScolyerMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, 40 Rocklands Road, North Sydney, NSW, 2060, Australia.
Gabrielle J WilliamsMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, 40 Rocklands Road, North Sydney, NSW, 2060, Australia.
John F ThompsonMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, 40 Rocklands Road, North Sydney, NSW, 2060, Australia. john.thompson@melanoma.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2816-2496
The University of Sydney · AUNYU Langone Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most international clinical guidelines recommend 5-10 mm clinical margins for excision of melanoma in situ (MIS). While the evidence supporting this is weak, these guidelines are generally consistent. However, as a result of the high incidence of subclinical extension of MIS, especially of the lentigo maligna (LM) subtype, wider margins will often be needed to achieve complete histologic clearance. In this review, we assessed all available contemporary evidence on clearance margins for MIS. No randomized trials were identified and the 31 non-randomized studies were largely retrospective reviews of single-surgeon or single-institution experiences using Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) for LM or staged excision (SE) for treatment of MIS on the head/neck and/or LM specifically. The available data challenge the adequacy of current international guidelines as they consistently demonstrate the need for clinical margins > 5 mm and often > 10 mm. For LM, any MIS on the head/neck, and/or ≥ 3 cm in diameter, all may require wider clinical margins because of the higher likelihood of subclinical spread. Histologic clearance should be confirmed prior to undertaking complex reconstruction. However, it is not clear whether wider margins are necessary for all MIS subtypes. Indeed, it seems that this is unlikely to be the case. Until optimal surgical margins can be better defined in a randomized trial setting, ideally controlling for MIS subtype and including correlation with histologic excision margins, techniques such as preliminary border mapping of large, ill-defined lesions and, most importantly, sound clinical judgement will be needed when planning surgical clearance margins for the treatment of MIS.

Indexed as

Hutchinson's Melanotic FreckleMelanomaSkin NeoplasmsHumansMargins of ExcisionRetrospective StudiesDiagnosisExcisionIn situLentigo malignaMarginsMelanomaPathologySurgeryTreatment

Identifiers

PMID34047915
PMCPMC8280024
OpenAlexW3164946384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.