Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39489491›Full record

ReviewJournal of cutaneous pathology2026

Melanoma Diagnosis in the Mihm Era-And Beyond.

David E Elder

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cutaneous pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Melanoma Diagnosis in the Mihm Era-And Beyond.Journal of cutaneous pathology · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

David E ElderHospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4575-2364

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the illustrious career of Martin C. Mihm Jr., MD, the diagnosis of melanoma underwent significant changes, to which he made many contributions. In early descriptions, melanomas were fungating tumor masses that were obviously malignant, and highly lethal. In seminal work by Dr. Mihm and his mentor, Wallace H. Clark, Jr., MD, the early phases of development of these neoplasms were recognized and distinguished from the more advanced disease. It was generally believed that the early stage of melanoma, termed radial growth phase (RGP) and characterized by absence of vertical growth phase (VGP) and by favorable microstaging attributes could be recognized, excised, and cured, thus preventing the development of advanced disease. However, strenuous efforts in this direction over several decades have resulted in little or no change in mortality, leading to the recognition that many of these neoplasms, at least, may not be true biological malignancies, and to the conclusion that overdiagnosis commonly occurs in this disease, which is defined as representing diagnosis as melanoma of a neoplasm that would not have had the capacity to cause death or symptoms in the lifetime of the host. Although there may be other subsets of neoplasms in this category, an important category of overdiagnosis in melanomas is concentrated in T1a melanomas that lack VGP. If these neoplasms can be recognized with sensitive and specific criteria, which may already be available, changes in terminology may be appropriate, recognizing that some of them may have low malignant potential, whereas others may have no capacity at all for metastasis and may not warrant the use of the term "melanoma."

Indexed as

MelanomaSkin NeoplasmsHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansOverdiagnosisdiagnosisdysplastic nevihistorymelanomaoverdiagnosisvertical growth phase

Identifiers

PMID39489491
PMCPMC12711329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.