View Item 

Show simple item record

Melanoma staging: Evidence‐based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual

dc.contributor.authorGershenwald, Jeffrey E.
dc.contributor.authorScolyer, Richard A.
dc.contributor.authorHess, Kenneth R.
dc.contributor.authorSondak, Vernon K.
dc.contributor.authorLong, Georgina V.
dc.contributor.authorRoss, Merrick I.
dc.contributor.authorLazar, Alexander J.
dc.contributor.authorFaries, Mark B.
dc.contributor.authorKirkwood, John M.
dc.contributor.authorMcArthur, Grant A.
dc.contributor.authorHaydu, Lauren E.
dc.contributor.authorEggermont, Alexander M. M.
dc.contributor.authorFlaherty, Keith T.
dc.contributor.authorBalch, Charles M.
dc.contributor.authorThompson, John F.
dc.date.accessioned2017-12-15T16:48:07Z
dc.date.available2019-01-07T18:34:36Zen
dc.date.issued2017-11
dc.identifier.citationGershenwald, Jeffrey E.; Scolyer, Richard A.; Hess, Kenneth R.; Sondak, Vernon K.; Long, Georgina V.; Ross, Merrick I.; Lazar, Alexander J.; Faries, Mark B.; Kirkwood, John M.; McArthur, Grant A.; Haydu, Lauren E.; Eggermont, Alexander M. M.; Flaherty, Keith T.; Balch, Charles M.; Thompson, John F.; Gershenwald, Jeffrey E. (2017). "Melanoma staging: Evidence‐based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual." CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 67(6): 472-492.
dc.identifier.issn0007-9235
dc.identifier.issn1542-4863
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/139981
dc.description.abstractAnswer questions and earn CME/CNETo update the melanoma staging system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) a large database was assembled comprising >46,000 patients from 10 centers worldwide with stages I, II, and III melanoma diagnosed since 1998. Based on analyses of this new database, the existing seventh edition AJCC stage IV database, and contemporary clinical trial data, the AJCC Melanoma Expert Panel introduced several important changes to the Tumor, Nodes, Metastasis (TNM) classification and stage grouping criteria. Key changes in the eighth edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual include: 1) tumor thickness measurements to be recorded to the nearest 0.1 mm, not 0.01 mm; 2) definitions of T1a and T1b are revised (T1a, <0.8 mm without ulceration; T1b, 0.8‐1.0 mm with or without ulceration or <0.8 mm with ulceration), with mitotic rate no longer a T category criterion; 3) pathological (but not clinical) stage IA is revised to include T1b N0 M0 (formerly pathologic stage IB); 4) the N category descriptors “microscopic” and “macroscopic” for regional node metastasis are redefined as “clinically occult” and “clinically apparent”; 5) prognostic stage III groupings are based on N category criteria and T category criteria (ie, primary tumor thickness and ulceration) and increased from 3 to 4 subgroups (stages IIIA‐IIID); 6) definitions of N subcategories are revised, with the presence of microsatellites, satellites, or in‐transit metastases now categorized as N1c, N2c, or N3c based on the number of tumor‐involved regional lymph nodes, if any; 7) descriptors are added to each M1 subcategory designation for lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (LDH elevation no longer upstages to M1c); and 8) a new M1d designation is added for central nervous system metastases. This evidence‐based revision of the AJCC melanoma staging system will guide patient treatment, provide better prognostic estimates, and refine stratification of patients entering clinical trials. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:472‐492. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.publisherSpringer International Publishing
dc.subject.otherstaging
dc.subject.othersurvival
dc.subject.otherTNM classification
dc.subject.otherAmerican Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)
dc.subject.othermelanoma
dc.subject.othermetastasis
dc.subject.otherpathology
dc.subject.otherprognosis
dc.titleMelanoma staging: Evidence‐based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelHematology and Oncology
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139981/1/caac21409_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139981/2/caac21409-sup-0001-suppinfo01.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139981/3/caac21409.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.3322/caac.21409
dc.identifier.sourceCA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarrist TJ, Rigel DS, Day CL Jr, et al. “ Microscopic satellites” are more highly associated with regional lymph node metastases than is primary melanoma thickness. Cancer. 1984; 53: 2183 ‐ 2187.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThompson JF, Soong SJ, Balch CM, et al. Prognostic significance of mitotic rate in localized primary cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of patients in the multi‐institutional American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging database. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29: 2199 ‐ 2205.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWat H, Senthilselvan A, Salopek TG. A retrospective, multicenter analysis of the predictive value of mitotic rate for sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity in thin melanomas. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016; 74: 94 ‐ 101.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCrookes TR, Scolyer RA, Lo S, et al. Extranodal spread is associated with recurrence and poor survival in stage III cutaneous melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 4: 1378 ‐ 1385.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBalch CM, Soong S, Ross MI, et al. Long‐term results of a multi‐institutional randomized trial comparing prognostic factors and surgical results for intermediate thickness melanomas (1.0 to 4.0 mm). Intergroup Melanoma Surgical Trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000; 7: 87 ‐ 97.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCascinelli N, Belli F, Santinami M, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in cutaneous melanoma: the WHO Melanoma Program experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000; 7: 469 ‐ 474.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBalch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, et al. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors among 2,313 patients with stage III melanoma: comparison of nodal micrometastases versus macrometastases. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 2452 ‐ 2459.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBuzaid AC, Ross MI, Balch CM, et al. Critical analysis of the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma and proposal of a new staging system. J Clin Oncol. 1997; 15: 1039 ‐ 1051.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCascinelli N, Bufalino R, Marolda R, et al. Regional non‐nodal metastases of cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1986; 12: 175 ‐ 180.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDay CL Jr, Harrist TJ, Gorstein F, et al. Malignant melanoma. Prognostic significance of “microscopic satellites” in the reticular dermis and subcutaneous fat. Ann Surg. 1981; 194: 108 ‐ 112.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLeon P, Daly JM, Synnestvedt M, Schultz DJ, Elder DE, Clark WH Jr. The prognostic implications of microscopic satellites in patients with clinical stage I melanoma. Arch Surg. 1991; 126: 1461 ‐ 1468.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRead RL, Haydu L, Saw RP, et al. In‐transit melanoma metastases: incidence, prognosis, and the role of lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22: 475 ‐ 481.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRao UN, Ibrahim J, Flaherty LE, Richards J, Kirkwood JM. Implications of microscopic satellites of the primary and extracapsular lymph node spread in patients with high‐risk melanoma: pathologic corollary of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial E1690. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20: 2053 ‐ 2057.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCormier JN, Xing Y, Feng L, et al. Metastatic melanoma to lymph nodes in patients with unknown primary sites. Cancer. 2006; 106: 2012 ‐ 2020.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee CC, Faries MB, Wanek LA, Morton DL. Improved survival after lymphadenectomy for nodal metastasis from an unknown primary melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 535 ‐ 541.
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan der Ploeg AP, Haydu LE, Spillane AJ, et al. Melanoma patients with an unknown primary tumor site have a better outcome than those with a known primary following therapeutic lymph node dissection for macroscopic (clinically palpable) nodal disease. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014; 21: 3108 ‐ 3116.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldberg SB, Gettinger SN, Mahajan A, et al. Pembrolizumab for patients with melanoma or non‐small‐cell lung cancer and untreated brain metastases: early analysis of a non‐randomised, open‐label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17: 976 ‐ 983.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMargolin K, Ernstoff MS, Hamid O, et al. Ipilimumab in patients with melanoma and brain metastases: an open‐label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012; 13: 459 ‐ 465.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKelderman S, Heemskerk B, van Tinteren H, et al. Lactate dehydrogenase as a selection criterion for ipilimumab treatment in metastatic melanoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2014; 63: 449 ‐ 458.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLong GV, Grob JJ, Nathan P, et al. Factors predictive of response, disease progression, and overall survival after dabrafenib and trametinib combination treatment: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17: 1743 ‐ 1754.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNosrati A, Tsai KK, Goldinger SM, et al. Evaluation of clinicopathological factors in PD‐1 response: derivation and validation of a prediction scale for response to PD‐1 monotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2017; 116: 1141 ‐ 1147.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCochran AJ, Wen DR, Huang RR, Wang HJ, Elashoff R, Morton DL. Prediction of metastatic melanoma in nonsentinel nodes and clinical outcome based on the primary melanoma and the sentinel node. Mod Pathol. 2004; 17: 747 ‐ 755.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDewar DJ, Newell B, Green MA, Topping AP, Powell BW, Cook MG. The microanatomic location of metastatic melanoma in sentinel lymph nodes predicts nonsentinel lymph node involvement. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22: 3345 ‐ 3349.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEgger ME, Bower MR, Czyszczon IA, et al. Comparison of sentinel lymph node micrometastatic tumor burden measurements in melanoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2014; 218: 519 ‐ 528.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFink AM, Weihsengruber F, Duschek N, et al. Value of micromorphometric criteria of sentinel lymph node metastases in predicting further nonsentinel lymph node metastases in patients with melanoma. Melanoma Res. 2011; 21: 139 ‐ 143.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrancischetto T, Spector N, Neto Rezende JF, et al. Influence of sentinel lymph node tumor burden on survival in melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17: 1152 ‐ 1158.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrankel TL, Griffith KA, Lowe L, et al. Do micromorphometric features of metastatic deposits within sentinel nodes predict nonsentinel lymph node involvement in melanoma? Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15: 2403 ‐ 2411.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGershenwald JE, Andtbacka RH, Prieto VG, et al. Microscopic tumor burden in sentinel lymph nodes predicts synchronous nonsentinel lymph node involvement in patients with melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 4296 ‐ 4303.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRanieri JM, Wagner JD, Azuaje R, et al. Prognostic importance of lymph node tumor burden in melanoma patients staged by sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002; 9: 975 ‐ 981.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScolyer RA, Li LX, McCarthy SW, et al. Micromorphometric features of positive sentinel lymph nodes predict involvement of nonsentinel nodes in patients with melanoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004; 122: 532 ‐ 539.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStarz H, Balda BR, Kramer KU, et al. A micromorphometry‐based concept for routine classification of sentinel lymph node metastases and its clinical relevance for patients with melanoma. Cancer. 2001; 91: 2110 ‐ 2121.
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan Akkooi AC, Nowecki ZI, Voit C, et al. Sentinel node tumor burden according to the Rotterdam criteria is the most important prognostic factor for survival in melanoma patients: a multicenter study in 388 patients with positive sentinel nodes. Ann Surg. 2008; 248: 949 ‐ 955.
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan der Ploeg AP, van Akkooi AC, Haydu LE, et al. The prognostic significance of sentinel node tumour burden in melanoma patients: an international, multicenter study of 1539 sentinel node‐positive melanoma patients. Eur J Cancer. 2014; 50: 111 ‐ 120.
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan der Ploeg AP, van Akkooi AC, Rutkowski P, et al. Prognosis in patients with sentinel node‐positive melanoma is accurately defined by the combined Rotterdam tumor load and Dewar topography criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29: 2206 ‐ 2214.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBalch CM, Soong SJ, Murad TM, Ingalls AL, Maddox WA. A multifactorial analysis of melanoma: III. Prognostic factors in melanoma patients with lymph node metastases (stage II). Ann Surg. 1981; 193: 377 ‐ 388.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBarth A, Wanek LA, Morton DL. Prognostic factors in 1,521 melanoma patients with distant metastases. J Am Coll Surg. 1995; 181: 193 ‐ 201.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrand CU, Ellwanger U, Stroebel W, et al. Prolonged survival of 2 years or longer for patients with disseminated melanoma. An analysis of related prognostic factors. Cancer. 1997; 79: 2345 ‐ 2353.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSondak VK, Khushalani NI. Adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy in high‐risk stage III cutaneous melanoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017; 98: 16 ‐ 17.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg. 1992; 127: 392 ‐ 399.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGershenwald JE, Thompson W, Mansfield PF, et al. Multi‐institutional melanoma lymphatic mapping experience: the prognostic value of sentinel lymph node status in 612 stage I or II melanoma patients. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17: 976 ‐ 983.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGershenwald JE, Scolyer RA, Hess KR, et al. Melanoma of the skin. In: Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2017: 563 ‐ 585.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorton DL, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Final trial report of sentinel‐node biopsy versus nodal observation in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 599 ‐ 609.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364: 2507 ‐ 2516.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFalchook GS, Long GV, Kurzrock R, et al. Dabrafenib in patients with melanoma, untreated brain metastases, and other solid tumours: a phase 1 dose‐escalation trial. Lancet. 2012; 379: 1893 ‐ 1901.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFlaherty KT, Infante JR, Daud A, et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367: 1694 ‐ 1703.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFlaherty KT, Puzanov I, Kim KB, et al. Inhibition of mutated, activated BRAF in metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 809 ‐ 819.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHauschild A, Grob JJ, Demidov LV, et al. Dabrafenib in BRAF‐mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open‐label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012; 380: 358 ‐ 365.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 711 ‐ 723.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLarkin J, Ascierto PA, Dreno B, et al. Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF‐mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 1867 ‐ 1876.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLarkin J, Chiarion‐Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373: 23 ‐ 34.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLong GV, Stroyakovskiy D, Gogas H, et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition versus BRAF inhibition alone in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 1877 ‐ 1888.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLong GV, Stroyakovskiy D, Gogas H, et al. Dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib and placebo for Val600 BRAF‐mutant melanoma: a multicentre, double‐blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 386: 444 ‐ 451.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLong GV, Trefzer U, Davies MA, et al. Dabrafenib in patients with Val600Glu or Val600Lys BRAF‐mutant melanoma metastatic to the brain (BREAK‐MB): a multicentre, open‐label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012; 13: 1087 ‐ 1095.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRobert C, Karaszewska B, Schachter J, et al. Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 30 ‐ 39.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRobert C, Long GV, Brady B, et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 320 ‐ 330.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRobert C, Schachter J, Long GV, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 2521 ‐ 2532.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAndtbacka RH, Kaufman HL, Collichio F, et al. Talimogene laherparepvec improves durable response rate in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: 2780 ‐ 2788.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLong GV, Menzies AM, Nagrial AM, et al. Prognostic and clinicopathologic associations of oncogenic BRAF in metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29: 1239 ‐ 1246.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWeber J, Mandala M, Del Vecchio M, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III or IV melanoma [published online ahead of print September 10, 2017]. N Engl J Med. 2017. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709030.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEggermont AM, Chiarion‐Sileni V, Grob JJ, et al. Prolonged survival in stage III melanoma with ipilimumab adjuvant therapy. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1845 ‐ 1855.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLong GV, Hauschild A, Santinami M, et al. Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutated melanoma [published online ahead of print September 10, 2017]. N Engl J Med. 2017. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1708539.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBalch CM, Gershenwald JE, Atkins MB, Buzaid AC, Cascinelli N, Cochran AJ. Melanoma of the skin. In: Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th ed. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2010: 325 ‐ 346.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C, eds. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 8th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley‐Blackwell; 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmerican Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC). Implementation of AJCC 8th Edition Cancer Staging System. Chicago, IL: AJCC; 2017. cancerstaging.org/About/news/Pages/Implementation‐of‐AJCC‐8th‐Edition‐Cancer‐Staging‐System.aspx. Accessed May 28, 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGershenwald JE, Colome MI, Lee JE, et al. Patterns of recurrence following a negative sentinel lymph node biopsy in 243 patients with stage I or II melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 1998; 16: 2253 ‐ 2260.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScolyer RA, Murali R, McCarthy SW, Thompson JF. Pathologic examination of sentinel lymph nodes from melanoma patients. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2008; 25: 100 ‐ 111.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLi LX, Scolyer RA, Ka VS, et al. Pathologic review of negative sentinel lymph nodes in melanoma patients with regional recurrence: a clinicopathologic study of 1152 patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003; 27: 1197 ‐ 1202.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorton DL, Thompson JF, Essner R, et al. Validation of the accuracy of intraoperative lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for early‐stage melanoma: a multicenter trial. Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial Group. Ann Surg. 1999; 230: 453 ‐ 463; discussion 463‐465.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePrieto VG, Clark SH. Processing of sentinel lymph nodes for detection of metastatic melanoma. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2002; 6: 257 – 64.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMelanoma of the skin. In: Greene FL, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Shah JP, Winchester DP, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Atlas. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2006: 207 ‐ 216.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScolyer RA, Judge MJ, Evans A, et al. Data set for pathology reporting of cutaneous invasive melanoma: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Am J Surg Pathol. 2013; 37: 1797 ‐ 1814.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGe L, Vilain RE, Lo S, Aivazian K, Scolyer RA, Thompson JF. Breslow thickness measurements of melanomas around American Joint Committee on Cancer staging cut‐off points: imprecision and terminal digit bias have important implications for staging and patient management. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23: 2658 ‐ 2663.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePatrick RJ, Corey S, Glass LF. The use of sequential serial sectioning of thin melanomas in determining maximum Breslow depth. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007; 57: S127 ‐ S128.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBalch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 6199 ‐ 6206.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEdge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBreslow A. Thickness, cross‐sectional areas and depth of invasion in the prognosis of cutaneous melanoma. Ann Surg. 1970; 172: 902 ‐ 908.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGimotty PA, Elder DE, Fraker DL, et al. Identification of high‐risk patients among those diagnosed with thin cutaneous melanomas. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 1129 ‐ 1134.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBalch CM, Murad TM, Soong SJ, Ingalls AL, Halpern NB, Maddox WA. A multifactorial analysis of melanoma: prognostic histopathological features comparing Clark’s and Breslow’s staging methods. Ann Surg. 1978; 188: 732 ‐ 742.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreen AC, Baade P, Coory M, Aitken JF, Smithers M. Population‐based 20‐year survival among people diagnosed with thin melanomas in Queensland, Australia. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 1462 ‐ 1346.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAndtbacka RH, Gershenwald JE. Role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thin melanoma. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009; 7: 308 ‐ 317.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCordeiro E, Gervais MK, Shah PS, Look Hong NJ, Wright FC. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in thin cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23: 4178 ‐ 4188.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHan D, Zager JS, Shyr Y, et al. Clinicopathologic predictors of sentinel lymph node metastasis in thin melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 4387 ‐ 4393.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMurali R, Haydu LE, Quinn MJ, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thin primary cutaneous melanoma. Ann Surg. 2012; 255: 128 ‐ 133.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGershenwald JE, Coit DG, Sondak VK, Thompson JF. The challenge of defining guidelines for sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thin primary cutaneous melanomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19: 3301 ‐ 3303.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSondak VK, Wong SL, Gershenwald JE, Thompson JF. Evidence‐based clinical practice guidelines on the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in melanoma. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2013. doi: 10.1200/EdBook_AM.2013.33.e320.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWong SL, Balch CM, Hurley P, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology joint clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 2912 ‐ 2918.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMandala M, Galli F, Cattaneo L, et al. Mitotic rate correlates with sentinel lymph node status and outcome in cutaneous melanoma greater than 1 millimeter in thickness: a multi‐institutional study of 1524 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017; 76: 264 ‐ 273.e2.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGress DM, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al. Principles of cancer staging. In: Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2017: 3 ‐ 30.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBalch CM, Buzaid AC, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19: 3635 ‐ 3648.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRousseau DL Jr, Ross MI, Johnson MM, et al. Revised American Joint Committee on Cancer staging criteria accurately predict sentinel lymph node positivity in clinically node‐negative melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003; 10: 569 ‐ 574.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScolyer RA, Shaw HM, Thompson JF, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of histopathologic prognostic variables in primary cutaneous melanomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003; 27: 1571 ‐ 1576.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceIn ’t Hout FE, Haydu LE, Murali R, Bonenkamp JJ, Thompson JF, Scolyer RA. Prognostic importance of the extent of ulceration in patients with clinically localized cutaneous melanoma. Ann Surg. 2012; 255: 1165 ‐ 1170.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAzzola MF, Shaw HM, Thompson JF, et al. Tumor mitotic rate is a more powerful prognostic indicator than ulceration in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of 3661 patients from a single center. Cancer. 2003; 97: 1488 ‐ 1498.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
caac21409_am.pdf
Size:
3.706MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
caac21409-sup-0001-suppinfo01.pdf
Size:
99.37KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
caac21409.pdf
Size:
939.3KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.