Morbidity and Mortality of Melanoma on the Trunk and Extremities Treated With Mohs Surgery Versus Wide Excision: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recommendations for the approved use of Mohs surgery for cutaneous melanoma on the trunk and extremities remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To compare survival and recurrence between patients treated with Mohs surgery versus wide excision for melanoma on the trunk and extremities. METHODS: The databases Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and EMCare were searched from inception on January 11, 2021. Contemporary comparisons were included exclusively. Meta-analysis was conducted using generic inverse variance and a fixed effects model. RESULTS: Four studies were eligible for inclusion. The study population (n = 279,556) was 52.1% men and 97.2% White. There were no observed differences in 5-year overall survival (hazard ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.07, I2 = 0%), disease-free survival (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.12-6.47, I2 = 0), or local recurrence among patients treated with Mohs surgery relative to wide excision. Quality of the evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: This systematic review found survival and local recurrence were comparable among patients treated with Mohs surgery or wide excision for melanoma on the trunk and extremities. Future prospective contemporary studies with more diverse representation that report surgical complications and costs may facilitate more definitive recommendations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".