BACKGROUND: Shave biopsy of cutaneous lesions is simple, efficient, and commonly used clinically. However, this technique has been criticized for its potential to hamper accurate diagnosis and microstaging of melanoma, thereby complicating treatment decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed a consecutive series of patients referred to the University of Florida Shands Cancer Center or to the Moffitt Cancer Center for treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma, initially diagnosed on shave biopsy to have Breslow depth < 2 mm, to determine the accuracy of shave biopsy in T-staging and the potential impact on definitive surgical treatment and outcomes. RESULTS: Six hundred patients undergoing shave biopsy were diagnosed with melanoma from extremity (42%), trunk (37%), and head or neck (21%). Mean (± SEM) Breslow thickness was 0.73 ± 0.02 mm; 6.2% of lesions were ulcerated. At the time of wide excision, residual melanoma was found in 133 (22%), resulting in T-stage upstaging for 18 patients (3%). Recommendations for additional wide excision or sentinel lymph node biopsy changed in 12 of 600 (2%) and 8 of 600 patients (1.3%), respectively. Locoregional recurrence occurred in 10 (1.7%) patients and distant recurrence in 4 (0.7%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: These data challenge the surgical dogma that full-thickness excisional biopsy of suspicious cutaneous lesions is the only method that can lead to accurate diagnosis. Data obtained on shave biopsy of melanoma are reliable and accurate in the overwhelming majority of cases (97%). The use of shave biopsy does not complicate or compromise management of the overwhelming majority of patients with malignant melanoma.
BACKGROUND: Shave biopsy of cutaneous lesions is simple, efficient, and commonly used clinically. However, this technique has been criticized for its potential to hamper accurate diagnosis and microstaging of melanoma, thereby complicating treatment decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed a consecutive series of patients referred to the University of Florida Shands Cancer Center or to the Moffitt Cancer Center for treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma, initially diagnosed on shave biopsy to have Breslow depth < 2 mm, to determine the accuracy of shave biopsy in T-staging and the potential impact on definitive surgical treatment and outcomes. RESULTS: Six hundred patients undergoing shave biopsy were diagnosed with melanoma from extremity (42%), trunk (37%), and head or neck (21%). Mean (± SEM) Breslow thickness was 0.73 ± 0.02 mm; 6.2% of lesions were ulcerated. At the time of wide excision, residual melanoma was found in 133 (22%), resulting in T-stage upstaging for 18 patients (3%). Recommendations for additional wide excision or sentinel lymph node biopsy changed in 12 of 600 (2%) and 8 of 600 patients (1.3%), respectively. Locoregional recurrence occurred in 10 (1.7%) patients and distant recurrence in 4 (0.7%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: These data challenge the surgical dogma that full-thickness excisional biopsy of suspicious cutaneous lesions is the only method that can lead to accurate diagnosis. Data obtained on shave biopsy of melanoma are reliable and accurate in the overwhelming majority of cases (97%). The use of shave biopsy does not complicate or compromise management of the overwhelming majority of patients with malignant melanoma.
Authors: Virginia H Stell; H James Norton; Kevin S Smith; Jonathan C Salo; Richard L White Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-11-21 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Adam I Riker; Frank Glass; Iriana Perez; C Wayne Cruse; Jane Messina; Vernon K Sondak Journal: Dermatol Ther Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.851
Authors: Darius J Karimipour; Jennifer L Schwartz; Timothy S Wang; Christopher K Bichakjian; Jeffrey S Orringer; Anya L King; Conway C Huang; Timothy M Johnson Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Phillip Moore; Jon Hundley; Jennifer Hundley; Edward A Levine; Phillip Williford; Omar Sangueza; Thomas McCoy; Perry Shen Journal: Am Surg Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Barbara G Molenkamp; Berbel J R Sluijter; Benny Oosterhof; Sybren Meijer; Paul A M van Leeuwen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Garth Herbert; Giorgos C Karakousis; Edmund K Bartlett; Salman Zaheer; Danielle Graham; Brian J Czerniecki; Douglas L Fraker; Charlotte Ariyan; Daniel G Coit; Mary S Brady Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Evan S Weitman; Matthew C Perez; Daniel Lee; Youngchul Kim; William Fulp; Vernon K Sondak; Amod A Sarnaik; Ricardo J Gonzalez; Carl W Cruse; Jane L Messina; Jonathan S Zager Journal: Melanoma Manag Date: 2019-04-26
Authors: Jeremy Hay; Jeff Keir; Clara Jimenez Balcells; Nikita Rosendahl; Martelle Coetzer-Botha; Tobias Wilson; Simon Clark; Astrid Baade; Cath Becker; Luke Bookallil; Chris Clifopoulos; Tony Dicker; Martin Paul Denby; Douglas Duthie; Charles Elliott; Paul Fishburn; Mark Foley; Mark Franck; Irene Giam; Patricio Gordillo; Alister Lilleyman; Roger Macauley; James Maher; Ewen McPhee; Michael Reid; Bob Shirlaw; Graeme Siggs; Robert Spark; John Stretch; Keith van Den Heever; Thinus van Rensburg; Chris Watson; Harald Kittler; Cliff Rosendahl Journal: Australas J Dermatol Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 2.481