ArticleJAMA dermatology2023
Early Detection and Prognostic Assessment of Cutaneous Melanoma: Consensus on Optimal Practice and the Role of Gene Expression Profile Testing.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2025Guideline
- Non-Invasive Skin Cancer Diagnosis by Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy: Biophysics, Devices, Clinical Evidence, and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- European Expert Consensus on Essential Variables for Teledermatological Assessment of Skin Tumours.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2026Article
- Differential phosphorylation of PHIP phosphopeptides with implications in insulin signaling.BMC molecular and cell biology · 2026Article
- Key Biomarker Correlations in Cutaneous Melanoma: Implications for Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Strategies-A Retrospective Single-Centered Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Molecular and Genetic Markers for Malignant Melanoma: Implications for Prognosis and Therapy.Dermatopathology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- MTHFD1L is a novel prognostic marker and therapeutic target in cutaneous melanoma.Diagnostic pathology · 2025Article
- Review of Non-Invasive Imaging Technologies for Cutaneous Melanoma.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Society of Surgical Oncology Consensus Statement: Assessing the Evidence for and Utility of Gene Expression Profiling of Primary Cutaneous Melanoma.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Review
- The Prognostic Value of the 31-Gene Expression Profile Test in Cutaneous Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2024Review
- Targeted Screening for Cancer: Learnings and Applicability to Melanoma: A Scoping Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence and skin cancer.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Quantitative melanoma diagnosis using spectral phasor analysis of hyperspectral imaging from label-free slices.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Thin and in situ melanoma: an update for the dermatologist.Anais brasileiros de dermatologiaReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
43 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.