Reproducibility of AJCC staging parameters in primary cutaneous melanoma: An analysis of 4,924 cases

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 20, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 3969-3975

  Niebling, Maarten G ^a   Haydu, Lauren E ^a,b   Karim, Rooshdiya Z ^a,b,c   Thompson, John F ^a,b,c   Scolyer, Richard A ^a,b,c  

^a MELANOMA INSTITUTE AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMERICAN JOINT COMMITTEE ON CANCER T STAGING; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CUTANEOUS MELANOMA; DESMOPLASTIC MELANOMA; FEMALE; HUMAN; LYMPH VESSEL METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MALIGNANT LENTIGO; MELANOMA; MITOSIS RATE; NEVUS; PATIENT CARE; PRIMARY TUMOR; REPRODUCIBILITY; SKINFOLD THICKNESS; ULCER;

EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MELANOMA; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; NEOPLASM STAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SKIN NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84886085153     PISSN: 10689265     EISSN: 15344681     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-013-3092-5     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Australian Cancer Network Melanoma Guidelines Revision Working Party. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of melanoma in Australia and New Zealand. Wellington: Cancer Council Australia and Australian Cancer Network, Sydney and New Zealand Guidelines Group; 2008.
2. Thompson JF, Scolyer RA, Kefford RF. Cutaneous melanoma. Lancet. 2005;365:687-701.
3. Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong S, et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:6199-206.
4. Hastrup N, Clemmensen OJ, Spaun E, Sondergaard K. Dysplastic naevus: histologic criteria and their inter-observer reproducibility. Histopathology. 1994;24:503-9.
5. Farmer ER, Gonin R, Hanna MP. Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma and melanocytic nevi between expert pathologists. Hum Pathol. 1996;27:528-31.
6. Shoo BA, Sagebriel RW, Kashani-Sabet M. Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma at a melanoma referral center. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:751-6.
7. Lodha S, Saggar S, Celebi JT, Silvers DN. Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of difficult melanocytic neoplasms in the clinical setting. J Cutan Pathol. 2008:35:349-52.
8. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
9. Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 4th ed. Belmont: Duxbury; 1995.
10. Suffin SC, Waisman J, Clark WH Jr, et al. Comparison of the classification by microscopic level (stage) of malignant melanoma by three independent groups of pathologists. Cancer. 1977;40:3112-4.
11. Larsen TE, Little JH, Orell SR, et al. International pathologists congruence survey on quantitation of malignant melanoma. Pathology. 1980;12:245-53.
12. Prade M, Sancho-Garnier H, Cesarini JP, et al. Difficulties encountered in the application of Clark classification and the Breslow thickness measurement in cutaneous malignant melanoma. Int J Cancer. 1980;26:159-63.
13. Holman CD, James IR, Heenan PJ, et al. An improved method of analysis of observer variation between pathologists. Histopathology. 1982;6:581-9.
14. Heenan PJ, Matz LR, Blackwell JB, et al. Inter-observer variation between pathologists in the classification of cutaneous malignant melanoma in Western Australia. Histopathology. 1984;8:717-29.
15. Colloby PS, West KP, Fletcher A. Observer variation in the measurement of Breslow depth and Clark's level in thin cutaneous malignant melanoma. J Pathol. 1991;163:245-50.
16. Krieger N, Hiatt RA, Sagebiel RW, et al. Inter-observer variability among pathologists' evaluation of malignant melanoma: effects upon an analytic study. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:897-902.
17. Lock-Andersen J, Hou-Jensen K, Hansen JP, et al. Observer variation in histological classification of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1995;29:141-8.
18. Corona R, Mele A, Amini M, et al. Interobserver variability on the histopathologic diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma and other pigmented skin lesions. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1218-23.
19. Cook MG, Clarke TJ, Humphreys S, et al. The evaluation of diagnostic and prognostic criteria and the terminology of thin cutaneous malignant melanoma by the CRC Melanoma Pathology Panel. Histopathology. 1996;28:497-512.
20. Brochez L, Verhaeghe E, Grosshans E, Haneke E, Pierard G, Ruiter D, Naeyaert JM. Inter-observer variation in the histopathological diagnosis of clinically suspicious pigmented skin lesions. J Pathol. 2002;196:459-66.
21. Scolyer RA, Shaw HM, Thompson JF, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of histopathologic prognostic variables in primary cutaneous melanomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:1571-6.
22. Murali R, Hughes MT, Fitzgerald P, Thompson JF, Scolyer RA. Interobserver variation in the histopathologic reporting of key prognostic parameters, particularly Clark level, affects pathologic staging of primary cutaneous melanoma. Ann Surg. 2009;249:641-7.
23. Harrist TJ, Rigel DS, Day CL Jr, et al. "Microscopic satellites" are more highly associated with regional lymph node metastases than is primary melanoma thickness. Cancer. 1984;53:2183-7.
24. Balch CM. Microscopic satellites around a primary melanoma: another piece of the puzzle in melanoma staging. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1092-4.
25. Kimsey TF, Cohen T, Patel A, et al. Microscopic satellitosis in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma: implications for nodal basin staging. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1176-83.
26. Rao UN, Ibrahim J, Flaherty LE, et al. Implications of microscopic satellites of the primary and extracapsular lymph node spread in patients with high-risk melanoma: pathologic corollary of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial E1690. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:2053-7.
27. Shaikh L, Sagebiel RW, Ferreira CM, et al. The role of microsatellites as a prognostic factor in primary malignant melanoma. Arch Dermatol. 2005;141:739-42.
28. Kaur MR, Colloby PS, Martin-Clavijo A, Marsden JR. Melanoma histopathology reporting: are we complying with the National Minimum Dataset? J Clin Pathol. 2007;60;1121-3.
29. Thompson B, Austin R, Coory M, et al. Completeness of histopathology reporting of melanoma in a high-incidence geographical region. Dermatology. 2009;218:7-14.
30. Haydu LE, Holt PE, Karim RZ, et al. Quality of histopathological reporting on melanoma and influence of use of a synoptic template. Histopathology. 2010;56:768-74.
31. Karim RZ, van den Berg KS, Colman MH, McCarthy SW, Thompson JF, Scolyer RA. The advantage of using a synoptic pathology report format for cutaneous melanoma. Histopathology. 2008;52;130-8.
32. Scolyer RA, Judge MJ, Evans A, et al. Data set for pathology reporting of cutaneous invasive melanoma: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013 (in press).