| Title |
Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Management of Regional Lymph Nodes in Melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-017-6267-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sandra L. Wong, Mark B. Faries, Erin B. Kennedy, Sanjiv S. Agarwala, Timothy J. Akhurst, Charlotte Ariyan, Charles M. Balch, Barry S. Berman, Alistair Cochran, Keith A. Delman, Mark Gorman, John M. Kirkwood, Marc D. Moncrieff, Jonathan S. Zager, Gary H. Lyman |
| Abstract |
To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) guideline for sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in melanoma. An ASCO-SSO panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted regarding SLN biopsy and completion lymph node dissection (CLND) after a positive sentinel node in patients with melanoma. Nine new observational studies, two systematic reviews and an updated randomized controlled trial (RCT) of SLN biopsy, as well as two randomized controlled trials of CLND after positive SLN biopsy, were included. Routine SLN biopsy is not recommended for patients with thin melanomas that are T1a (non-ulcerated lesions < 0.8 mm in Breslow thickness). SLN biopsy may be considered for thin melanomas that are T1b (0.8 to 1.0 mm Breslow thickness or <0.8 mm Breslow thickness with ulceration) after a thorough discussion with the patient of the potential benefits and risk of harms associated with the procedure. SLN biopsy is recommended for patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas (T2 or T3; Breslow thickness of >1.0 to 4.0 mm). SLN biopsy may be recommended for patients with thick melanomas (T4; > 4.0 mm in Breslow thickness), after a discussion of the potential benefits and risks of harm. In the case of a positive SLN biopsy, CLND or careful observation are options for patients with low-risk micrometastatic disease, with due consideration of clinicopathological factors. For higher risk patients, careful observation may be considered only after a thorough discussion with patients about the potential risks and benefits of foregoing CLND. Important qualifying statements outlining relevant clinicopathological factors, and details of the reference patient populations are included within the guideline. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 77 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 32 | 42% |
| Mexico | 7 | 9% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Poland | 1 | 1% |
| Romania | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Singapore | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 23 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 36 | 47% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 19 | 25% |
| Scientists | 19 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 14 | 20% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 61% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 24 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2020.
All research outputs
#709,908
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#64
of 7,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,992
of 443,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 443,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.