In reply: Cost-effectiveness of sentinel node biopsy for melanoma

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 16, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 2962-2963

  Thompson, John F ^a,b   Morton, Rachael L ^c  

^a ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER SURVIVAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; LETTER; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MELANOMA; PROGNOSIS; SENTINEL LYMPH NODE BIOPSY;

EID: 79551593546     PISSN: 10689265     EISSN: 15344681     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-009-0589-z     Document Type: Letter

References (6)

1. Morton RL, Howard K, Thompson JF. The cost-effectiveness of sentinel node biopsy in patients with intermediate thickness primary cutaneous melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:929-40.
2. Thomas JM. Prognostic false-positivity of the sentinel node in melanoma. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2008;5:18-23.
3. Morton DL, Cochran AJ, Thompson JF. The rationale for sentinel-node biopsy in primary melanoma. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2008;5:510-1.
4. van Akkooi AC, de Wilt JH, Verhoef C, et al. Clinical relevance of melanoma micrometastases (<0.1 mm) in sentinel nodes: are these nodes to be considered negative? Ann Oncol. 2006;17:1578-85.
5. Ollila DW, Ashburn JH, Amos KD, et al. Metastatic melanoma cells in the sentinel node cannot be ignored. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:924-9.
6. Scolyer RA, Murali R, Satzger I, Thompson JF. The detection and significance of melanoma micrometastases in sentinel nodes. Surg Oncol. 2008;17:165-74.