Variations in management of stage I to stage III cutaneous melanoma: A population-based study of clinical practices in France

Archives of Dermatology

Volumn 144, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 629-636

  Grange, Florent ^a   Vitry, Fabien ^b   Granel Brocard, Florence ^c   Lipsker, Dan ^d   Aubin, Francois ^e   Hédelin, Guy ^f,g   Dalac, Sophie ^h   Truchetet, François ⁱ   Michel, Catherine ^j   Batard, Marie Laure ^k   Baury, Béatrice ^b   Halna, Jean Michel ^f,g   Schmutz, Jean Luc ^c   Delvincourt, Christian ^l   Reuter, Georges ^l   Dalle, Stéphane ^m   Bernard, Phillipe ^a   Danzon, Arlette ^g,n  

^a SERVICE DE DERMATOLOGIE   (France)

^b HÔPITAL MAISON BLANCHE   (France)

^c SERVICE DE DERMATOLOGIE   (France)

^d HÔPITAL CIVIL   (France)

^e HÔPITAL SAINT JACQUES   (France)

^f Registre des cancers du Bas Rhin   (France)

^g Réseau Français des Registres de Cancers FRANCIM ^*

^h HÔPITAL DU BOCAGE   (France)

ⁱ Hopital Beauregard   (France)

^j Hôpital du Moenschberg   (France)

^k Pasteur Hospital   (France)

^l Cabinet de Dermatologie   (France)

^m HÔTEL DIEU   (France)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF BESANÇON   (France)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALPHA2 INTERFERON; DACARBAZINE; FOTEMUSTINE; INTERFERON; TEMOZOLOMIDE; VINDESINE;

ADJUVANT THERAPY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LYMPHADENECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MELANOMA; METASTASIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENTINEL LYMPH NODE BIOPSY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CHEMOTHERAPY, ADJUVANT; DERMATOLOGY; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; FRANCE; HUMANS; INTERFERONS; MALE; MELANOMA; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENTINEL LYMPH NODE BIOPSY; SKIN NEOPLASMS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 44249092082     PISSN: 0003987X     EISSN: 0003987X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archderm.144.5.629     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Consensus conference: follow-up of patients surgically treated for stage I melanoma: Paris, France, 30 March 1995 [in French]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 1995;122(5):250-391.
2. Sober AJ, Chuang TY, Duvic M, et al. Guideline of care for primary cutaneous melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;45(4):579-586.
3. Roberts DL, Anstey AV, Barlow RJ, et al. U.K. guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 2002;146(1):7-17.
4. Dummer R, Panizzon R, Bloch PH, Burg G. Updated Swiss guidelines for the treatment and follow-up of cutaneous melanoma. Dermatology. 2005;210(1):39-44.
5. Kroon BB, Bergman W, Coebergh JW, Ruiter DJ; Dutch Melanoma Working Party. Consensus on the management of malignant melanoma of the skin in the Netherlands. Melanoma Res. 1999;9(3):207-212.
6. Garbe C, Hauschild A, Volkenandt M, et al. Brief guidelines: malignant melanoma of the skin. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2006;4(4):344-349.
7. Négrier S, Saiag P, Guillot B, et al. Clinical practice guideline: 2005 update of recommendations for the management of patients with cutaneous melanoma without distant metastases (summary report). Bull Cancer. 2006;93(4):371-384.
8. Cochran AJ, Balda BR, Starz H, et al. The Augsburg Consensus: techniques of lymphatic mapping, sentinel lymphadenectomy, and completion lymphadenectomy in cutaneous malignancies. Cancer. 2000;89(2):236-241.
9. Tsao H, Atkins MB, Sober AJ. Management of cutaneous melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(10):998-1012.
10. Thompson JF, Scolyer RA, Kefford RF. Cutaneous melanoma. Lancet. 2005;365(9460):687-701.
11. Morton DL, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Sentinel-node biopsy or nodal observation in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(13):1307-1317.
12. Balch CM, Cascinelli N. Sentinel-node biopsy in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(13):1370-1371.
13. Thomas JM. Time to re-evaluate sentinel node biopsy in melanoma post-multicenter selective lymphadenectomy trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9443-9444.
14. Kirkwood JM. Building upon the standard of care in adjuvant therapy of highrisk melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(34):8559-8563.
15. Wheatley K, Ives N, Hancock B, et al. Interferon as adjuvant therapy for melanoma. Lancet. 2002;360(9336):878.
16. Bafounta ML, Beauchet A, Chagnon S, Saiag P. Ultrasonography or palpation for detection of melanoma nodal invasion: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2004;5(11):673-680.
17. Friedman KP, Wahl RL. Clinical use of positron emission tomography in the management of cutaneous melanoma. Semin Nucl Med. 2004;34(4):242-253.
18. Haigh PI, Urbach DR. Underuse of wide excision for primary cutaneous melanoma in the United States. Am Surg. 2004;70(11):942-946.
19. Haniff J, de Vries E, Claassen ATPM, Looman CWN, Berlo C, Coebergh JWW. Non-compliance with re-excision guidelines for cutaneous melanoma in the Netherlands does not influence survival. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006;32(1):85-89.
20. Salopek TG, Slade J, Marghoob AA, et al. Management of cutaneous malignant melanoma by dermatologists of the American Academy of Dermatology, I: survey of biopsy practices of pigmented lesions suspected as melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;33(3):441-450.
21. Lens MB, Dawes M, Newton-Bishop JA, Goodacre T. Management of regional lymph nodes in patients with malignant melanoma: questionnaire survey of UK current practice. Br J Plast Surg. 2002;55(5):372-375.
22. Garreau JR, Nelson J, Cook D, et al. Geographic variation in sentinel node adaptation by practicing surgeons in Oregon. Am J Surg. 2005;189(5):616-619.
23. Cormier JN, Xing Y, Ding M, et al. Population-based assessment of surgical treatment trends for patients with melanoma in the era of sentinel lymph node biopsy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(25):6054-6062.
24. Barzilai DA, Cooper KD, Neuhauser D, Rimm AA, Cooper GS. Geographic and patient variation in receipt of surveillance procedures after local excision of cutaneous melanoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2004;122(2):246-255.
25. Margenthaler JA, Meier JD, Virgos KS, et al. Geographic variations in posttreatment surveillance intensity for patients with cutaneous melanoma. Am J Surg. 2003;186(2):194-200.
26. Grosshans E, Bafounta ML, Beauchet A, Poisson-Salomon AS, Saiag P. Impact of French consensus conference concerning the follow-up of patients surgically treated for stage I melanoma among French dermatologists and oncologists. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 1999;126(11):789-790.
27. Margenthaler JA, Johnson DY, Virgos KS, et al. Evaluation of patients with clinically suspected melanoma recurrence: current practice patterns of plastic surgeons. Int J Oncol. 2002;21(3):591-596.
28. Charles CA, Yee VSK, Dusza SW, et al. Variation in the diagnosis, treatment, and management of melanoma in situ. Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(6):723-729.
29. Agence Nationale pour le Développement de l'Evaluation Médicale, ed. Tumeurs Cutanées. Paris, France: ANDEM, Service des références médicales; 1994.
30. Grob JJ, Breno B, de la Salmonière P, et al. Randomised trial interferon alpha-2a as adjuvant therapy in resected primary melanoma thicker than 1.5 mm without clinically detectable node metastases. Lancet. 1998;351(9120):1905-1910.
31. Kirkwood JM, Strawderman ML, Ernstoff MS, et al. Interferon alfa-2b adjuvant therapy of high-risk resected cutaneous melanoma: the Eastern cooperative oncology group trial EST 1684. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14(1):7-17.
32. Grange F. Epidémiology of cutaneous melanoma: descriptive data in France and Europe. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2005;132(12, pt 1):975-982.
33. Freiman A, Rosen N, Sasseville D, Wang B, Carey W, Muhn CY. Dermatologic surgery practice and skin cancer treatment in Canada: results of a national survey. Dermatol Surg. 2005;31(1):27-32.
34. Salopek TG, Slade JM, Marghoob AA, et al. Management of cutaneous malignant melanoma by dermatologists of the American Academy of Dermatology, II: definitive surgery for malignant melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;33(3):451-461.
35. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N. Narrow excision (1 cm margin): a safe procedure for thin cutaneous melanoma. Arch Surg. 1991;126(4):438-441.
36. Balch CM, Soong SJ, Smith T, et al; Investigators from the Intergroup Melanoma Surgical Trial. Long-term results of a prospective surgical trial comparing 2 cm versus 4 cm excision margins for 740 patients with 1-4 mm melanomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8(2):101-108.
37. Thomas JM, Newton-Bishop J, Hern RA, et al. Excision margins in high-risk malignant melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(8):757-766.
38. Lasithiotakis KG, Leiter U, Eigentler T, et al. Improvement of overall survival of patients with cutaneous melanoma in Germany, 1976-2001: which factors contributed? Cancer. 2007;109(6):1174-1182.
39. Guillot B. Do the results of the Morton study affect the current melanoma management recommendations? Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2007;134(1):17-19.
40. Thomas JM. Sentinel node biopsy in melanoma [letter]. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(4):418.
41. Lipsker D. Sentinel node biopsy in melanoma [reply]. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(4):419-21.
42. Francken AB, Bastiaannet E, Hoekstra HJ, et al. Follow-up in patients with localised primary cutaneous melanoma. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(8):608-621.
43. Reinhardt MJ, Joe AY, Jaeger U, et al. Diagnostic performance of whole body dual modality 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for N- and M-staging of malignant melanoma: experience with 250 consecutive patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(7):1178-1187.
44. Garbe C, Eigentler C. Diagnosis and treatment of cutaneous melanoma: state of the art 2006. Melanoma Res. 2007;17(2):117-127.
45. Garbe C, Andrena P, Kohler-Späth H, et al. Prospective evaluation of a follow-up schedule in cutaneous melanoma patients: recommendations for an effective follow-up strategy. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(3):520-529.
46. Rosselli Del Turco M, Palli D, Cariddi A, Ciatto S, Pacini P, Distante V. Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1994;271(20):1593-1597.
47. Schoemaker D, Black R, Gilles L, Toouli J. Yearly colonoscopy, liver CT, and chest radiography do not influence 5-year survival of colorectal cancer patients. Gastroenterology. 1998;114(1):7-14.