Literature DB >> 12560444

Prospective evaluation of a follow-up schedule in cutaneous melanoma patients: recommendations for an effective follow-up strategy.

Claus Garbe1, Andrena Paul, Hanna Kohler-Späth, Ulf Ellwanger, Waltraud Stroebel, Monika Schwarz, Bettina Schlagenhauff, Friedegund Meier, Birgit Schittek, Hans-Juergen Blaheta, Andreas Blum, Gernot Rassner.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively examine and evaluate the results of follow-up procedures in a large cohort of cutaneous melanoma patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective study in 2,008 consecutive patients with stage I to IV cutaneous melanoma from 1996 to 1998 on the yield of stage-appropriate follow-up examinations according to the German guidelines. Documentation of patient and follow-up data comprised patient demography, primary tumor specifics, and any clinical and technical examinations performed. The detection of metastasis was classified as early or late, and the means of their detection and the resulting overall survival probabilities were examined.
RESULTS: A total of 3,800 clinical examinations and 12,398 imaging techniques were documented. Sixty-two second primary melanomas in 46 patients and 233 disease recurrences in 112 patients were detected during this time. In stage I to III disease, physical examination was responsible for the discovery of 50% of all recurrences. In the primary tumor stages, 21% of all recurrences were discovered by lymph node sonography, with the majority being classified as early detection. Forty-eight percent of the recurrences were classified as early detection, and these patients had a significant benefit of overall survival probability.
CONCLUSION: The results of our study suggest that an elaborated follow-up schedule in cutaneous melanoma is suitable for the early detection of second primary melanomas and early recurrences. The intensity of clinical and technical examinations can be reduced during follow-up of patients in the primary tumor stages and may be intensified in locoregional disease. Recommendations for an effective follow-up strategy are outlined.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12560444     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.01.091

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  41 in total

1.  Prognostic value of sentinel lymph node biopsy in 121 low-risk melanomas (tumour thickness <1.00 mm) on the basis of a long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Torsten Hinz; Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Anja Wierzbicki; Tobias Höller; Jörg Wenzel; Hans-Jürgen Biersack; Thomas Bieber; Monika-H Schmid-Wendtner
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Direct comparison of [18F]FDG PET/CT with PET alone and with side-by-side PET and CT in patients with malignant melanoma.

Authors:  Felix M Mottaghy; Cord Sunderkötter; Roland Schubert; Petra Wohlfart; Norbert M Blumstein; Bernd Neumaier; Gerhard Glatting; Cueneyt Ozdemir; Andreas K Buck; Karin Scharffetter-Kochanek; Sven N Reske
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2007-02-13       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Site and timing of first relapse in stage III melanoma patients: implications for follow-up guidelines.

Authors:  Emanuela Romano; Michael Scordo; Stephen W Dusza; Daniel G Coit; Paul B Chapman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 4.  Follow-up in patients with low-risk cutaneous melanoma: is it worth it?

Authors:  Ulrike Leiter; Thomas Eigentler; Claus Garbe
Journal:  Melanoma Manag       Date:  2014-12-04

5.  Future perspectives in melanoma research: meeting report from the "Melanoma Bridge", Napoli, December 5th-8th 2013.

Authors:  Paolo A Ascierto; Antonio M Grimaldi; Ana Carrizosa Anderson; Carlo Bifulco; Alistair Cochran; Claus Garbe; Alexander M Eggermont; Mark Faries; Soldano Ferrone; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Thomas F Gajewski; Ruth Halaban; F Stephen Hodi; Richard Kefford; John M Kirkwood; James Larkin; Sancy Leachman; Michele Maio; Richard Marais; Giuseppe Masucci; Ignacio Melero; Giuseppe Palmieri; Igor Puzanov; Antoni Ribas; Yvonne Saenger; Bastian Schilling; Barbara Seliger; David Stroncek; Ryan Sullivan; Alessandro Testori; Ena Wang; Gennaro Ciliberto; Nicola Mozzillo; Francesco M Marincola; Magdalena Thurin
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 5.531

6.  Sentinel lymph node status as most important prognostic factor in patients with high-risk cutaneous melanomas (tumour thickness >4.00 mm): outcome analysis from a single institution.

Authors:  Torsten Hinz; Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Anja Wierzbicki; Tobias Hoeller; Joerg Wenzel; Hans-J Biersack; Thomas Bieber; Monika-H Schmid-Wendtner
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 7.  Long-term follow-up for melanoma patients: is there any evidence of a benefit?

Authors:  Natasha M Rueth; Kate D Cromwell; Janice N Cormier
Journal:  Surg Oncol Clin N Am       Date:  2015-01-24       Impact factor: 3.495

8.  Sun protection and skin self-examination in melanoma survivors.

Authors:  Urvi J Mujumdar; Jennifer L Hay; Yvette C Monroe-Hinds; Amanda J Hummer; Colin B Begg; Homer B Wilcox; Susan A Oliveria; Marianne Berwick
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.894

9.  Is GP-led follow-up feasible?

Authors:  A B Francken; J W Hoekstra-Weebers; H J Hoekstra
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 10.  Variability in melanoma post-treatment surveillance practices by country and physician specialty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Kate D Cromwell; Merrick I Ross; Yan Xing; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Richard E Royal; Anthony Lucci; Jeffrey E Lee; Janice N Cormier
Journal:  Melanoma Res       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.