Literature DB >> 7149819

A comparison of prognostic factors and surgical results in 1,786 patients with localized (stage I) melanoma treated in Alabama, USA, and New South Wales, Australia.

C M Balch, S J Soong, G W Milton, H M Shaw, V J McGovern, T M Murad, W H McCarthy, W A Maddox.   

Abstract

Twelve clinical and pathologic parameters were compared in two series of Stage I melanoma patients treated at the University of Alabama in Birmingham, USA (676 patients) and at the University of Sydney in New South Wales, Australia (1,110 patients). Actuarial survival rates were virtually the same at the two institutions over a 25-year follow-up period. The incidence of thin melanomas (less than 0.76 mm) was also similar at both geographic locations (25% vs. 26%). Other similarities of these two patient populations included the following: 1) tumor thickness (Breslow Microstaging). 2) level of invasion (Clark Microstaging), 3) surgical results, 4) sex distribution, and 5) age distribution. The greatest differences between the two patient populations were their 1) anatomic distribution, 2) growth pattern, and 3) incidence of ulceration. The trunk was the most common site of melanoma, and occurred more frequently among Australian patients (37% vs. 28%). A multifactorial analysis (Cox's regression model) was then performed that included a comparison of the two institutions as a variable (Alabama vs. Australia). The dominant prognostic factors (p less than 0.0001) were 1) ulceration, 2) tumor thickness, 3) initial surgical management (wide excision +/- node dissection), 4) anatomic location, 5) pathologic stage (I vs. II), and 6) level of invasion. The benefit of elective lymph node dissection was demonstrated in both series for patients with intermediate thickness melanoma (0.76 to 3.99 mm.) For melanomas ranging from 0.76 to 1.5 mm in thickness, the benefit of node dissection was primarily in male patients. Survival rates for melanoma at the two institutions were not significantly different in the multifactorial analysis, even after adjusting for all other variable. Thus, the biologic behavior of melanoma in these two different parts of the world was virtually the same, with only minor differences that did not significantly influence survival rates. Long-term follow-up exceeding eight to ten years after surgery is critical in the interpretation of these prognostic factors and the surgical results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7149819      PMCID: PMC1352984          DOI: 10.1097/00000658-198212001-00011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  22 in total

1.  Inefficacy of immediate node dissection in stage 1 melanoma of the limbs.

Authors:  U Veronesi; J Adamus; D C Bandiera; I O Brennhovd; E Caceres; N Cascinelli; F Claudio; R L Ikonopisov; V V Javorskj; S Kirov; A Kulakowski; J Lacoub; F Lejeune; Z Mechl; A Morabito; I Rodé; S Sergeev; E van Slooten; K Szcygiel; N N Trapeznikov
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1977-09-22       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Tumor thickness as a guide to surgical management of clinical stage I melanoma patients.

Authors:  C M Balch; T M Murad; S J Soong; A L Ingalls; P C Richards; W A Maddox
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Tumor thickness, level of invasion and node dissection in stage I cutaneous melanoma.

Authors:  A Breslow
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1975-11       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Prognostic significance of the histological features of malignant melanoma.

Authors:  V J McGovern; H M Shaw; G W Milton; G A Farago
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  1979-09       Impact factor: 5.087

5.  Histologic features of tumors and the female superiority in survival from malignant melanoma.

Authors:  H M Shaw; V J McGovern; G W Milton; G A Farago; W H McCarthy
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1980-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Prognostic factors in cutaneous malignant melanoma in stage I. A clinical, morphological and multivariate analysis.

Authors:  J Eldh; B Boeryd; L E Peterson
Journal:  Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1978

7.  A multifactorial analysis of melanoma: prognostic histopathological features comparing Clark's and Breslow's staging methods.

Authors:  C M Balch; T M Murad; S J Soong; A L Ingalls; N B Halpern; W A Maddox
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1978-12       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  The prognostic significance of ulceration of cutaneous melanoma.

Authors:  C M Balch; J A Wilkerson; T M Murad; S J Soong; A L Ingalls; W A Maddox
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1980-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  A multifactorial analysis of melanoma. II. Prognostic factors in patients with stage I (localized) melanoma.

Authors:  C M Balch; S J Soong; T M Murad; A L Ingalls; W A Maddox
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1979-08       Impact factor: 3.982

10.  A prospective randomized study of the efficacy of routine elective lymphadenectomy in management of malignant melanoma. Preliminary results.

Authors:  F H Sim; W F Taylor; J C Ivins; D J Pritchard; E H Soule
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  39 in total

1.  Gender-related differences in outcome for melanoma patients.

Authors:  Charles R Scoggins; Merrick I Ross; Douglas S Reintgen; R Dirk Noyes; James S Goydos; Peter D Beitsch; Marshall M Urist; Stephan Ariyan; Jeffrey J Sussman; Michael J Edwards; Anees B Chagpar; Robert C G Martin; Arnold J Stromberg; Lee Hagendoorn; Kelly M McMasters
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 2.  [Sentinel node biopsy. What are the facts?].

Authors:  M Möhrle; H Breuninger
Journal:  Hautarzt       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 0.751

3.  Pattern and incidence of first site recurrences following sentinel node procedure in melanoma patients.

Authors:  Markwin G Statius Muller; Paul A M van Leeuwen; Paul J van Diest; Rik Pijpers; Robert J Nijveldt; Ronald J C L M Vuylsteke; Sybren Meijer
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2002-09-26       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Clinical stage-I malignant melanoma.

Authors:  R A Evans
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 4.553

5.  Efficacy of an elective regional lymph node dissection of 1 to 4 mm thick melanomas for patients 60 years of age and younger.

Authors:  C M Balch; S J Soong; A A Bartolucci; M M Urist; C P Karakousis; T J Smith; W J Temple; M I Ross; W R Jewell; M C Mihm; R L Barnhill; H J Wanebo
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Thin level IV malignant melanoma. A subset in which level is the major prognostic indicator.

Authors:  J W Kelly; R W Sagebiel; S Clyman; M S Blois
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Biopsy procedures, primary wide excisional surgery and long term prognosis in primary clinical stage I invasive cutaneous malignant melanoma.

Authors:  R W Griffiths; J C Briggs
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 1.891

8.  Efficacy of elective lymph node dissection in patients with intermediate thickness primary melanoma.

Authors:  D S Reintgen; E B Cox; K S McCarty; R T Vollmer; H F Seigler
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 9.  Potential uses of interferon alpha 2 as adjuvant therapy in cancer.

Authors:  S S Agarwala; J M Kirkwood
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Prognostic factors in patients with melanoma metastatic to axillary or inguinal lymph nodes. A multivariate analysis.

Authors:  D G Coit; A Rogatko; M F Brennan
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 12.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.