MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341473062 · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2014.0172

Analysis of Recurrence Patterns in Acral Versus Nonacral Melanoma: Should Histologic Subtype Influence Treatment Guidelines?

2014· article· en· W2341473062 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesYork UniversityNational Cancer InstituteMelanoma Research Alliance
KeywordsMedicineMelanomaAcral lentiginous melanomaHazard ratioStage (stratigraphy)Overall survivalInternal medicineDermatologyOncologySurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current surgical treatment of primary melanoma is uniform for all histosubtypes, although certain types of melanoma, such as acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM), have a worse prognosis. No study has explored the effectiveness of standard melanoma treatment guidelines for managing ALM compared with nonacral melanoma (NAM). Study subjects were identified from a prospectively enrolled database of patients with primary melanoma at New York University. Patients with ALM were matched to those with NAM (1:3) by gender and melanoma stage, including substage (ALM, 61; NAM, 183). All patients received standard-of-care treatment. Recurrence and survival outcomes in both cohorts were compared. ALM histologic subtype was an independent negative predictor of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 2.24; P=.001) and melanoma-specific survival (HR, 2.58; P=.001) compared with NAM. Recurrence was significantly more common in patients with ALM than in those with NAM (49% vs 30%; P=.007). For tumors less than 2 mm in thickness, a significantly higher recurrence rate was seen with ALM versus NAM (P=.048). No significant difference was seen in recurrence for tumors greater than 2 mm (P=.12). Notably, the rate of locoregional recurrence was nearly double for ALM compared with NAM (P=.001). The data presented herein reveal a high rate of locoregional failure in ALM compared with NAM when controlling for AJCC stage. These results raise the question of whether ALM may require more aggressive surgical treatment than nonacral cutaneous melanomas of equal thickness, particularly in tumors less than 2 mm thick. Larger multicenter trials are necessary for further conclusions. (J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2014;12:1706-1712) Acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM), which occurs on the palms, soles, or nail apparatus, accounts for approximately 1% to 15% of melanomas in the United States, depending on the predominant ethnic background. 1 Although the incidence of ALM is similar across racial and ethnic groups, it represents a disproportionately high percentage of melanomas among patients with skin of color. 2 Despite its relatively low incidence, ALM is particularly important because it carries a worse prognosis than other main melanoma subtypes. ] Several more recent studies, however, have shown that ALM has worse survival outcomes than nonacral melanoma (NAM), even after controlling for melanoma stage. his suggests that inherent molecular/biologic differences

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it