ReviewAdvances in therapy2021
Melanoma In Situ: A Critical Review and Re-Evaluation of Current Excision Margin Recommendations.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retro- and prospective histologic and immunohistochemical analysis of safety margins following complete excision of less than 1 mm melanomas.Melanoma research · 2026Article
- Mohs Micrographic Surgery: A Narrative Review of Current Practices, Emerging Trends, and Case-Based Insights.Advances in therapy · 2025Review
- Indications and Mechanisms of Action of the Main Treatment Modalities for Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Exploring Potential Therapeutic Applications of Tazarotene: Gene Regulation Mechanisms and Effects on Melanoma Cell Growth.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Skin Cancer: Epidemiology, Screening and Clinical Features of Acral Lentiginous Melanoma (ALM), MelanomaJournal of Cancer · 2025Review
- Incomplete Excision Rate for Lentigo Maligna and Associated Risk Factors.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2024Article
- Establishing Consensus for Mohs Micrographic Surgical Techniques in the Treatment of Melanoma in Situ for Future Clinical Trials: A Modified Delphi Study.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2024Article
- Comparison of large language models in management advice for melanoma: Google's AI BARD, BingAI and ChatGPT.Skin health and disease · 2024Article
- 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 · 2023Article
- Solid Lipid Nanoparticles Hydroquinone-Based for the Treatment of Melanoma: Efficacy and Safety Studies.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- Long-term outcomes of margin-controlled excision for eyelid melanoma.Eye (London, England) · 2023Observational
- Characteristics, treatment and outcomes of 589 melanoma patients documented by 27 general practitioners on the Skin Cancer Audit Research Database.The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.