Surgical Excision Margins in Skin Melanomas with Breslow Thickness Greater than 2 Mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Lucas S Floriano, Rafael V Picon, Camila Dagostim, Marcio F Chedid
{"title":"Surgical Excision Margins in Skin Melanomas with Breslow Thickness Greater than 2 Mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Lucas S Floriano, Rafael V Picon, Camila Dagostim, Marcio F Chedid","doi":"10.2174/0113816128341363250225095747","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective/background: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of narrow compared to wide surgical excision margins in the treatment of cutaneous malignant melanomas (MM) with Breslow thickness greater than 2 mm. All prior meta-analyses included studies analyzing patients with a variety of Breslow indexes. There is no prior meta-analysis analyzing the survival of the subgroup of MM patients with MMs > 2 mm in Breslow thickness. Hence, the aim of the present meta-analysis and systematic review was to examine the survival of the subgroup of MM patients with MMs > 2mm in Breslow thickness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported our findings in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared narrow (1-2 cm) versus wide (3-4 cm) surgical excision margins for cutaneous melanomas thicker than 2 mm. Studies on non-cutaneous melanomas, observational studies, and non-randomized trials were excluded. Ten-year mortality rate and overall survival were the primary outcomes. Our searches were conducted in EMBASE and PUBMED databases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three RCTs were included, with a total of 2,304 randomized patients. This meta-analysis showed no significant difference in 10-year all-cause mortality between narrow (2 cm) and wide (4 cm) margins (risk difference: 3.3%, 95% CI: -1.7% to 8.2%, p=0.202). Similarly, there was no significant difference in overall survival between narrow (1-2 cm) and wide (3-4 cm) margins (hazard ratio: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.974-1.214, p=0.3). Heterogeneity was low and non-significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This meta-analysis supports the non-inferiority of narrow (1-2 cm) surgical margins compared to wide (3-4 cm) margins for localized cutaneous melanomas with Breslow thickness greater than 2 mm. These findings suggest that narrow margins could be considered in surgical practice, although a 1 cm margin may be inadequate based on the results of individual studies. Further RCTs focusing on patients with localized MM thicker than 2 mm and taking into account modern adjuvant therapies and sentinel lymph node biopsies are recommended to refine surgical guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":10845,"journal":{"name":"Current pharmaceutical design","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current pharmaceutical design","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0113816128341363250225095747","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective/background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of narrow compared to wide surgical excision margins in the treatment of cutaneous malignant melanomas (MM) with Breslow thickness greater than 2 mm. All prior meta-analyses included studies analyzing patients with a variety of Breslow indexes. There is no prior meta-analysis analyzing the survival of the subgroup of MM patients with MMs > 2 mm in Breslow thickness. Hence, the aim of the present meta-analysis and systematic review was to examine the survival of the subgroup of MM patients with MMs > 2mm in Breslow thickness.

Methods: We followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported our findings in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared narrow (1-2 cm) versus wide (3-4 cm) surgical excision margins for cutaneous melanomas thicker than 2 mm. Studies on non-cutaneous melanomas, observational studies, and non-randomized trials were excluded. Ten-year mortality rate and overall survival were the primary outcomes. Our searches were conducted in EMBASE and PUBMED databases.

Results: Three RCTs were included, with a total of 2,304 randomized patients. This meta-analysis showed no significant difference in 10-year all-cause mortality between narrow (2 cm) and wide (4 cm) margins (risk difference: 3.3%, 95% CI: -1.7% to 8.2%, p=0.202). Similarly, there was no significant difference in overall survival between narrow (1-2 cm) and wide (3-4 cm) margins (hazard ratio: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.974-1.214, p=0.3). Heterogeneity was low and non-significant.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis supports the non-inferiority of narrow (1-2 cm) surgical margins compared to wide (3-4 cm) margins for localized cutaneous melanomas with Breslow thickness greater than 2 mm. These findings suggest that narrow margins could be considered in surgical practice, although a 1 cm margin may be inadequate based on the results of individual studies. Further RCTs focusing on patients with localized MM thicker than 2 mm and taking into account modern adjuvant therapies and sentinel lymph node biopsies are recommended to refine surgical guidelines.

手术切除乳腺厚度大于2mm的皮肤黑色素瘤:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的/背景:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评价窄切缘与宽切缘手术切除在治疗布雷斯洛厚度大于2mm的皮肤恶性黑色素瘤(MM)中的疗效。所有先前的荟萃分析都包括分析具有各种Breslow指数的患者的研究。目前还没有meta分析分析MM在Breslow厚度为bb0 ~ 2mm的MM亚组患者的生存率。因此,本荟萃分析和系统评价的目的是检查MM厚为Breslow MM的MM亚组患者的生存率。方法:我们遵循Cochrane干预措施系统评价手册,并按照PRISMA指南报告我们的发现。我们纳入了随机对照试验(rct),对厚度大于2mm的皮肤黑色素瘤进行窄(1-2 cm)和宽(3-4 cm)手术切除边缘的比较。非皮肤黑色素瘤的研究、观察性研究和非随机试验被排除在外。10年死亡率和总生存率是主要结局。我们的搜索在EMBASE和PUBMED数据库中进行。结果:纳入3项随机对照试验,共随机纳入2304例患者。该荟萃分析显示,窄切缘(2 cm)和宽切缘(4 cm) 10年全因死亡率无显著差异(风险差异:3.3%,95% CI: -1.7%至8.2%,p=0.202)。同样,窄切缘(1-2 cm)和宽切缘(3-4 cm)的总生存率无显著差异(风险比:1.09,95% CI: 0.974-1.214, p=0.3)。异质性低且不显著。结论:本荟萃分析支持窄(1-2厘米)手术切缘与宽(3-4厘米)手术切缘治疗布雷斯洛厚度大于2mm的局部皮肤黑色素瘤的非劣效性。这些发现提示在外科实践中可以考虑窄切缘,尽管根据个别研究结果,1厘米的切缘可能是不够的。建议进一步的随机对照试验关注局部MM厚度大于2mm的患者,并考虑现代辅助治疗和前哨淋巴结活检,以完善手术指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
302
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Current Pharmaceutical Design publishes timely in-depth reviews and research articles from leading pharmaceutical researchers in the field, covering all aspects of current research in rational drug design. Each issue is devoted to a single major therapeutic area guest edited by an acknowledged authority in the field. Each thematic issue of Current Pharmaceutical Design covers all subject areas of major importance to modern drug design including: medicinal chemistry, pharmacology, drug targets and disease mechanism.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信