SynthesisCurrent pharmaceutical design2026
Surgical Excision Margins in Skin Melanomas with Breslow Thickness Greater than 2 mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Current pharmaceutical design, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Narrow Excision Margins for Diverse Histological Subtypes of Cutaneous Melanoma in Children and Adults: A Systematic Review.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer Treatment: Standard of Care and Future Directions.Current pharmaceutical design · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/
backgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of narrow compared to wide surgical excision margins in the treatment of cutaneous malignant melanomas (MM) with Breslow thickness greater than 2 mm. All prior meta-analyses included studies analyzing patients with a variety of Breslow indexes. There is no prior meta-analysis analyzing the survival of the subgroup of MM patients with MMs > 2 mm in Breslow thickness. Hence, the aim of the present meta-analysis and systematic review was to examine the survival of the subgroup of MM patients with MMs > 2 mm in Breslow thickness.
methodsWe followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported our findings in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared narrow (1-2 cm) versus wide (3-4 cm) surgical excision margins for cutaneous melanomas thicker than 2 mm. Studies on non-cutaneous melanomas, observational studies, and non-randomized trials were excluded. Ten-year mortality rate and overall survival were the primary outcomes. Our searches were conducted in EMBASE and PUBMED databases.
resultsThree RCTs were included, with a total of 2,304 randomized patients. This meta-analysis showed no significant difference in 10-year all-cause mortality between narrow (2 cm) and wide (4 cm) margins (risk difference: 3.3%, 95% CI: -1.7% to 8.2%, p=0.202). Similarly, there was no significant difference in overall survival between narrow (1-2 cm) and wide (3-4 cm) margins (hazard ratio: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.974-1.214, p=0.3). Heterogeneity was low and non-significant.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis supports the non-inferiority of narrow (1-2 cm) surgical margins compared to wide (3-4 cm) margins for localized cutaneous melanomas with Breslow thickness greater than 2 mm. These findings suggest that narrow margins could be considered in surgical practice, although a 1 cm margin may be inadequate based on the results of individual studies. Further RCTs focusing on patients with localized MM thicker than 2 mm and taking into account modern adjuvant therapies and sentinel lymph node biopsies are recommended to refine surgical guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40108923What 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.