Surgical excision margins for localised cutaneous melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cutaneous melanoma accounts for 75% of skin cancer deaths. Standard treatment is surgical excision with a safety margin some distance from the borders of the primary tumour. The purpose of the safety margin is to remove both the complete primary tumour and any melanoma cells that might have spread into the surrounding skin.Excision margins are important because there could be trade-off between a better cosmetic result but poorer long-term survival if margins become too narrow. The optimal width of excision margins remains unclear. This uncertainty warrants systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: In August 2009 we searched for relevant randomised trials in the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2009), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and other databases including Ongoing Trials Registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical excision of melanoma comparing different width excision margins. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed trial quality, and extracted and analysed data on survival and recurrence. We collected adverse effects information from included trials. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five trials. There were 1633 participants in the narrow excision margin group and 1664 in the wide excision margin group. Narrow margin definition ranged from 1 to 2 cm; wide margins ranged from 3 to 5 cm. Median follow-up ranged from 5 to 16 years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review summarises the evidence regarding width of excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma. None of the five published trials, nor our meta-analysis, showed a statistically significant difference in overall survival between narrow or wide excision.The summary estimate for overall survival favoured wide excision by a small degree [Hazard Ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.15; P = 0.40], but the result was not significantly different. This result is compatible with both a 5% relative reduction in overall mortality favouring narrower excision and a 15% relative reduction in overall mortality favouring wider excision. Therefore, a small (but potentially important) difference in overall survival between wide and narrow excision margins cannot be confidently ruled out.The summary estimate for recurrence free survival favoured wide excision [Hazard Ratio 1.13; P = 0.06; 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.28] but again the result did not reach statistical significance (P < 0.05 level).Current randomised trial evidence is insufficient to address optimal excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".