Previous wide local excision of primary melanoma is not a contraindication for sentinel lymph node biopsy of the trunk and extremity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The role of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in patients with a previous wide local excision (WLE) was examined with case-control methodology. METHODS: A total of 168 consecutive cases of SLNB were performed in patients with truncal and extremity melanoma with tumor thickness of > or = 1 mm between October 1997 and June 2000 and were followed prospectively. For comparison, 65 of the 103 SLNB patients referred to us after their WLE (cases) were matched by tumor thickness to 65 patients who had SLNB with concurrent WLE (controls). Radiocolloid (technetium-99m sulfur colloid) was used in all cases; in addition, vital blue dye (patent blue) was used in the control group. The two groups were followed for a median of 15.4 months. RESULTS: SLNs were identified in all patients with an average of 2.1 (cases) and 2.0 (controls) SLNs excised per patient (P = 0.77). Twenty one (32.3%) of those having SLNB after previous WLE (cases) and 23 (35.4%) of those with concurrent WLE and SLNB (controls) were found to have metastatic disease in the SLN. The only false-negative in this group was detected in clinical follow-up in a patient whose truncal WLE was previously closed with a rotation flap (case). There was no significant difference in relapse-free survival (P = 0.209) and overall survival (P = 0.692) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: SLNB is feasible in patients with previous WLE for extremity and truncal melanoma. Similar rates of sentinel positivity are found when compared with those in whom their WLE was done concurrently.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".