Surveillance evaluations in patients with stage I, II, III, or resectable IV melanoma who were treated with curative intent: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Appropriate surveillance of patients with melanoma treated with curative intent is vital to improve patient outcomes. A systematic review was conducted to capture locoregional recurrence and metastatic disease, and to evaluate the effectiveness of various surveillance strategies. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Database were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative studies reporting at least one patient-related outcome were included. Exclusion criteria included: published in non-English or recruited >20 % or an uncertain percentage of non-target patients without conducting a subgroup analysis for the target patients. This review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021246482). RESULTS: Among 17,978 publications from the literature search, one RCT and five non-randomized comparative studies were included and comprised 4016 patients. The aggregate evidence certainty was low for the RCT and very low for the comparative studies, as assessed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. For patients with stage IA-IIC melanoma, a reduced follow-up schedule with clinical follow-up strategies alone may be safe and cost-effective. For stage IIC-IIIC patients, at least two serial PET/CT or whole-body CT and brain MRI imaging within a median follow-up of 31.2 months may detect 50 % of recurrences that lead to additional management, such as surgery. PET/CT may have a higher positive predictive value and lower false positive rate compared with CT alone in detecting recurrence in stage I-III patients. CONCLUSION: Surveillance protocols should be based on individual risk of recurrence and established best practices when formulating follow-up strategies, as suggested by the studies reviewed. Future high-quality studies are needed to clarify the frequency of imaging follow-up strategies, especially in patients with high-risk stage II 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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".