AIM OF THE STUDY: To describe the current management of patients diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma and melanoma in situ in Germany and assess for adherence with the existing German guideline in a first prospective population-based analysis. METHODS: Prospective and longitudinal population-based study using online questionnaires. Registration by practitioners and hospitals was open for all patients diagnosed with melanoma between April and June 2008 in Germany. For data analysis, patients with melanoma stages 0-III (AJCC 2002) were included. RESULTS: Data from 1081 patients registered by 106 different centres were available for analysis. Male patients were significantly older than female patients (61.4 years versus 55.8years, p<0.0001) and presented with thicker primary tumours (1.62 mm [median 0.9 mm] versus 1.48 mm [median 0.8 mm], p=0.01). Excessive safety margin excisions were most often applied in melanoma in situ and in small centres. Insufficient excision margins (6.9%) were associated with head and neck localisation, geographical region and implementation of further staging procedures. Decision on sentinel lymph node biopsy complied with the German guideline in >85% of cases and was dependent on age and tumour localisation. Only 60% of patients received a complete lymph node dissection (CLND) after a positive SLNB, the rate of CLND was lowest in older patients. Adjuvant treatments were initiated in only 34% of patients formally qualifying for adjuvant treatment based on guideline recommendations. Approximately half of all staging procedures were done in no-risk/low-risk tumour patients. CONCLUSIONS: Management of melanoma in Germany did not show great dependency on centre size, geographical area or treating physician but rather on patient and tumour characteristics. The low rate of adjuvant treatment initiations reflects the need of treatment options in this patient group. Excessive initial staging procedures generate significant costs.
AIM OF THE STUDY: To describe the current management of patients diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma and melanoma in situ in Germany and assess for adherence with the existing German guideline in a first prospective population-based analysis. METHODS: Prospective and longitudinal population-based study using online questionnaires. Registration by practitioners and hospitals was open for all patients diagnosed with melanoma between April and June 2008 in Germany. For data analysis, patients with melanoma stages 0-III (AJCC 2002) were included. RESULTS: Data from 1081 patients registered by 106 different centres were available for analysis. Male patients were significantly older than female patients (61.4 years versus 55.8years, p<0.0001) and presented with thicker primary tumours (1.62 mm [median 0.9 mm] versus 1.48 mm [median 0.8 mm], p=0.01). Excessive safety margin excisions were most often applied in melanoma in situ and in small centres. Insufficient excision margins (6.9%) were associated with head and neck localisation, geographical region and implementation of further staging procedures. Decision on sentinel lymph node biopsy complied with the German guideline in >85% of cases and was dependent on age and tumour localisation. Only 60% of patients received a complete lymph node dissection (CLND) after a positive SLNB, the rate of CLND was lowest in older patients. Adjuvant treatments were initiated in only 34% of patients formally qualifying for adjuvant treatment based on guideline recommendations. Approximately half of all staging procedures were done in no-risk/low-risk tumourpatients. CONCLUSIONS: Management of melanoma in Germany did not show great dependency on centre size, geographical area or treating physician but rather on patient and tumour characteristics. The low rate of adjuvant treatment initiations reflects the need of treatment options in this patient group. Excessive initial staging procedures generate significant costs.
Authors: Ingo Stoffels; Ken Herrmann; Jan Rekowski; Philipp Jansen; Dirk Schadendorf; Andreas Stang; Joachim Klode Journal: Trials Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Matthew P Doepker; Maki Yamamoto; Matthew A Applebaum; Nupur U Patel; M Jaime Montilla-Soler; Amod A Sarnaik; C Wayne Cruse; Vernon K Sondak; Jonathan S Zager Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Antoine Digonnet; Marc Hamoir; Guy Andry; Vincent Vander Poorten; Missak Haigentz; Johannes A Langendijk; Remco de Bree; Michael L Hinni; William M Mendenhall; Vinidh Paleri; Alessandra Rinaldo; Jochen A Werner; Robert P Takes; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Titus Josef Brinker; Marlene Heckl; Martina Gatzka; Markus V Heppt; Henrique Resende Rodrigues; Sven Schneider; Wiebke Sondermann; Carolina de Almeida E Silva; Michael C Kirchberger; Joachim Klode; Alexander H Enk; Sarah Knispel; Christof von Kalle; Ingo Stoffels; Dirk Schadendorf; Yasuhiro Nakamura; Stefan Esser; Aisllan Assis; Breno Bernardes-Souza Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Wiebke Sondermann; Lisa Zimmer; Dirk Schadendorf; Alexander Roesch; Joachim Klode; Joachim Dissemond Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.889