Surgical margins in cutaneous melanoma (2 cm <i>versus</i> 5 cm for lesions measuring less than 2.1‐mm thick)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study addressed the question of whether limited surgery for primary malignant melanoma with a 2-cm margin is as good as a 5-cm margin. An update of a 16-year follow-up is provided. METHODS: Nine European Centers, over a period of 5 years, prospectively randomized 337 patients with melanoma measuring less than 2.1 mm in thickness to undergo a local excision with either a 2-cm or a 5-cm margin. Three hundred twenty-six patients were eligible for statistical analysis. Excluded from the trial were patients older than 70 years; those with melanomas from the toe, nail, or finger; and those with acral-lentiginous melanoma. A separate randomization was performed to independently test an adjuvant treatment with a nonspecific immunostimulant, isoprinosine, compared with observation. The median follow-up time was 192 months (16 years) for the estimation of survival and disease recurrences. RESULTS: There were 22 tumor recurrences in the 2-cm arm and 33 in the 5-cm arm. The median time to disease recurrence was 43 months and 37.6 months, respectively. The 10-year disease-free survival rates were 85% for the group with a 2-cm margin and 83% for the group with a 5-cm margin. There was no difference in the 10-year overall survival rates (87% vs. 86%). Isoprinosine did not demonstrate any activity in this setting. CONCLUSIONS: The authors concluded that for melanoma less than 2.1-mm thick, a margin of excision of 2 cm is sufficient. A larger margin of 5 cm does not appear to have any impact on either the rate or the time to disease recurrence or on survival.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".