ReviewCancers2024
Clinical and Imaging Follow-Up for High-Risk Cutaneous Melanoma: Current Evidence and Guidelines.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Metastatic Melanoma Prognosis Prediction Using a TC Radiomic-Based Machine Learning Model: A Preliminary Study.Cancers · 2025Article
- The Imitation Game: Melanoma Metastasis Poses as a Primary Breast Tumor.Journal of investigative medicine high impact case reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The most recent (eighth) edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system divides invasive cutaneous melanoma into two broad groups: "low-risk" (stage IA-IIA) and "high-risk" (stage IIB-IV). While surveillance imaging for high-risk melanoma patients makes intuitive sense, supporting data are limited in that they are mostly respective and used varying methods, schedules, and endpoints. As a result, there is a lack of uniformity across different dermatologic and oncologic organizations regarding recommendations for follow-up, especially regarding imaging. That said, the bulk of retrospective and prospective data support imaging follow-up for high-risk patients. Currently, it seems that either positron emission tomography (PET) or whole-body computerized tomography (CT) are reasonable options for follow-up, with brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) preferred for the detection of brain metastases in patients who can undergo it. The current era of effective systemic therapies (ESTs), which can improve disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) beyond lead-time bias, has emphasized the role of imaging in detecting various patterns of EST response and treatment relapse, as well as the importance of radiologic tumor burden.
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.