4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Shave Biopsy Is a Safe and Accurate Method for the Initial Evaluation of Melanoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS
卷 212, 期 4, 页码 454-460

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.12.021

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA076292] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Shave biopsy of cutaneous lesions is simple, efficient, and commonly used clinically. However, this technique has been criticized for its potential to hamper accurate diagnosis and microstaging of melanoma, thereby complicating treatment decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed a consecutive series of patients referred to the University of Florida Shands Cancer Center or to the Moffitt Cancer Center for treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma, initially diagnosed on shave biopsy to have Breslow depth < 2 mm, to determine the accuracy of shave biopsy in T-staging and the potential impact on definitive surgical treatment and outcomes. RESULTS: Six hundred patients undergoing shave biopsy were diagnosed with melanoma from extremity (42%), trunk (37%), and head or neck (21%). Mean (+/- SEM) Breslow thickness was 0.73 +/- 0.02 mm; 6.2% of lesions were ulcerated. At the time of wide excision, residual melanoma was found in 133 (22%), resulting in T-stage upstaging for 18 patients (3%). Recommendations for additional wide excision or sentinel lymph node biopsy changed in 12 of 600 (2%) and 8 of 600 patients (1.3%), respectively. Locoregional recurrence occurred in 10 (1.7%) patients and distant recurrence in 4 (0.7%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: These data challenge the surgical dogma that full-thickness excisional biopsy of suspicious cutaneous lesions is the only method that can lead to accurate diagnosis. Data obtained on shave biopsy of melanoma are reliable and accurate in the overwhelming majority of cases (97%). The use of shave biopsy does not complicate or compromise management of the overwhelming majority of patients with malignant melanoma. (J Am Coll Surg 2011;212:454-462. (C) 2011 by the American College of Surgeons)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据