ArticleSkin health and disease2023
The risk of subsequent invasive melanoma after a primary in situ or invasive melanoma in a high incidence country (New Zealand).
Article in Skin health and disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of microsimulation models for skin cancer.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Characteristics and overall survival in patients with T1 melanoma: A nationwide matched cohort study.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Over-diagnosis, Overtreatment or Oversurveillance of Melanoma: Is There a Way Out?Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2023Article
- The risk of subsequent invasive melanoma after a primary in situ or invasive melanoma in a high incidence country (New Zealand).Skin health and disease · 2023Article
- Skin cancer special issue in Skin Health and Disease.Skin health and disease · 2023Article
- Skin cancer special edition.Skin health and disease · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with invasive melanoma are at increased risk of developing subsequent invasive melanoma, but the risks for those with primary in situ melanoma are unclear. Objectives: To assess and compare the cumulative risk of subsequent invasive melanoma after primary invasive or in situ melanoma. To estimate the standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of subsequent invasive melanoma compared to population incidence in both cohorts. Methods: Patients with a first diagnosis of melanoma (invasive or in situ) between 2001 and 2017 were identified from the New Zealand national cancer registry, and any subsequent invasive melanoma during follow-up to the end of 2017 identified. Cumulative risk of subsequent invasive melanoma was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis separately for primary invasive and in situ cohorts. Risk of subsequent invasive melanoma was assessed using Cox proportional hazard models. SIR was assessed, allowing for age, sex, ethnicity, year of diagnosis and follow up time. Results: Among 33 284 primary invasive and 27 978 primary in situ melanoma patients, median follow up time was 5.5 and 5.7 years, respectively. A subsequent invasive melanoma developed in 1777 (5%) of the invasive and 1469 (5%) of the in situ cohort, with the same median interval (2.5 years) from initial to first subsequent lesion in both cohorts. The cumulative incidence of subsequent invasive melanoma at 5 years was similar in the two cohorts (invasive 4.2%, in situ 3.8%); the cumulative incidence increased linearly over time in both cohorts. The risk of subsequent invasive melanoma was marginally higher for primary invasive compared to in situ melanoma after adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity and body site of the initial lesion (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.21). Compared to population incidence, the SIR of invasive melanoma was 4.6 (95% CI 4.3-4.9) for the primary invasive and 4 (95% CI 3.7-4.2) for the primary in situ melanoma cohorts. Conclusions: The risk of subsequent invasive melanoma is similar whether patients present with in situ or invasive melanoma. Thus follow-up surveillance for new lesions should be similar, although patients with invasive melanoma require more surveillance for recurrence.
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.