Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36920356›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2023

Early Detection and Prognostic Assessment of Cutaneous Melanoma: Consensus on Optimal Practice and the Role of Gene Expression Profile Testing.

Mohammed Kashani-Sabet, Sancy A Leachman, Jennifer A Stein, Jack L Arbiser, Elizabeth G Berry, Julide T Celebi, Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski, Laura K Ferris, Jane M Grant-Kels, Douglas Grossman and 33 more

Open access · greenAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Non-invasive infrared thermography for screening, diagnosis and monitoring of skin cancer.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2025
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Artificial intelligence and skin cancer.Frontiers in medicine · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

43 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.

Mohammed Kashani-SabetCenter for Melanoma Research and Treatment, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco.
Sancy A LeachmanDepartments of Dermatology and Family Medicine, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Jennifer A SteinRonald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York.
Jack L ArbiserDepartment of Dermatology, Emory University School of Medicine, Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta Veterans Administration Health Center, Atlanta, Georgia.
Elizabeth G BerryDepartments of Dermatology and Family Medicine, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Julide T CelebiRonald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York.
Clara Curiel-LewandrowskiUA Cancer Center Skin Cancer Institute, Division of Dermatology, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Laura K FerrisDepartments of Dermatology and Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jane M Grant-KelsDepartment of Dermatology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington.
Douglas GrossmanHuntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Rajan P KulkarniDepartments of Dermatology and Family Medicine, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Michael A MarchettiDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Kelly C NelsonDepartment of Dermatology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
David PolskyRonald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York.
Elizabeth V SeiverlingDepartment of Dermatology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Susan M SwetterDepartment of Dermatology/Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program, Stanford University Medical Center and Cancer Institute, Palo Alto, California.
Hensin TsaoDepartment of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Alexandra Verdieck-DevlaeminckDepartments of Dermatology and Family Medicine, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Maria L WeiDermatology Department, University of California, San Francisco.
Anna BarDepartments of Dermatology and Family Medicine, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Edmund K BartlettDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Jean L BologniaDepartment of Dermatology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Tawnya L BowlesIntermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah.
Kelly B ChaDepartment of Dermatology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.
Emily Y ChuDepartment of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Rebecca I HartmanDepartment of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Elena B HawrylukDepartment of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Risa M JampelDepartment of Dermatology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland.
Lilit KarapetyanDepartment of Cutaneous Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Meenal KheterpalDepartment of Dermatology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
David H LawsonDepartment of Dermatology, Emory University School of Medicine, Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta Veterans Administration Health Center, Atlanta, Georgia.
Philip D LemingCincinnati Cancer Advisors, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Tracey N LiebmanRonald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York.
Michael E MingDepartment of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Debjani SahniBoston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Stephanie A SavoryDepartment of Dermatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Saba S ShaikhDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Arthur J SoberDepartment of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Vernon K SondakDepartment of Cutaneous Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Natalie SpaccarelliOhio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Richard P UsatineUniversity of Texas Health, San Antonio.
Suraj VennaInova Schar Cancer Institute, Inova Fairfax Hospital, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.
John M KirkwoodDepartments of Dermatology and Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Oregon Health & Science University · USNYU Langone Health · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USMoffitt Cancer Center · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUPMC Hillman Cancer Center · USBoston Medical Center · USCalifornia Pacific Medical Center · USDuke University · USEmory University · USFlorida College · USFox Chase Cancer Center · USHarvard University · USInova Fairfax Hospital · USIntermountain Medical Center · USMichigan Medicine · USThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

VECTOR CORE FACILITYP30CA047904 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Jessie Nedrow · 1988 to 2026
$158.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA047904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Therapy for advanced melanoma has transformed during the past decade, but early detection and prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma (CM) remain paramount goals. Best practices for screening and use of pigmented lesion evaluation tools and gene expression profile (GEP) testing in CM remain to be defined. Objective: To provide consensus recommendations on optimal screening practices and prebiopsy diagnostic, postbiopsy diagnostic, and prognostic assessment of CM. Evidence Review: Case scenarios were interrogated using a modified Delphi consensus method. Melanoma panelists (n = 60) were invited to vote on hypothetical scenarios via an emailed survey (n = 42), which was followed by a consensus conference (n = 51) that reviewed the literature and the rationale for survey answers. Panelists participated in a follow-up survey for final recommendations on the scenarios (n = 45). Findings: The panelists reached consensus (≥70% agreement) in supporting a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening in clinical settings and public screening events, screening personnel recommendations (self/partner, primary care provider, general dermatologist, and pigmented lesion expert), screening intervals, and acceptable appointment wait times. Participants also reached consensus that visual and dermoscopic examination are sufficient for evaluation and follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions deemed innocuous. The panelists reached consensus on interpreting reflectance confocal microscopy and some but not all results from epidermal tape stripping, but they did not reach consensus on use of certain pigmented lesion evaluation tools, such as electrical impedance spectroscopy. Regarding GEP scores, the panelists reached consensus that a low-risk prognostic GEP score should not outweigh concerning histologic features when selecting patients to undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy but did not reach consensus on imaging recommendations in the setting of a high-risk prognostic GEP score and low-risk histology and/or negative nodal status. Conclusions and Relevance: For this consensus statement, panelists reached consensus on aspects of a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening and follow-up as well as use of visual examination and dermoscopy. These findings support a practical approach to diagnosing and evaluating CM. Panelists did not reach consensus on a clearly defined role for GEP testing in clinical decision-making, citing the need for additional studies to establish the clinical use of existing GEP assays.

Indexed as

MelanomaSkin NeoplasmsCutaneous Malignant MelanomaHumansPrognosisPublic HealthRisk AssessmentTranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID36920356
PMCPMC11225588
OpenAlexW4324311227

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.