An organizational framework for patient-reported outcome instruments in dermatologic surgery: a systematic review and qualitative analysis

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) describe measures of a patient's experience throughout medical care as reported by the patient (Mercieca-Bebber et al. in Patient Relat Outcome Meas, 2018). Various PRO instruments exist. It is challenging to select appropriate instruments given the absence of an organizational framework which describes all measurable PROs in dermatologic surgery and represents which instruments measure which outcomes. Our objective was to systematically review all validated PRO instruments in dermatologic surgery and use qualitative analysis to develop an organizational framework representing PRO measures and instruments. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases were searched to retrieve validated PRO instruments in the dermatologic surgery population. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis was used to develop an organizational framework representing all PROs in dermatologic surgery. All instruments were sorted into this framework. The search identified 3195 articles; 35 validated instruments were extracted and qualitatively analyzed. The organizational framework sorted all instruments into 36 PRO measures aligned with the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (Gershon RC, Rothrock N, Hanrahan R, et al (2010) The use of PROMIS and assessment center to deliver patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research). Measures were grouped into four categories (expectations, satisfaction, quality of life, needs) describing how patients experience these outcomes and lenses through which researchers can evaluate them. In conclusion, we have proposed an organizational framework for use in choosing validated instruments to develop and answer PRO research questions.

Role of sentinel lymph node biopsy as a staging procedure in patients with melanoma: A critical appraisal

Worldwide, sentinel node (SN) biopsy for accurate staging is now part of the standard work-up of patients with melanomas ≥1.0 mm Breslow thickness, as it is for staging patients with breast cancer. Nuclear medicine imaging and surgical techniques have evolved to such a degree that a SN can be identified and removed in virtually every patient. Nevertheless, some opposition to a routine SN biopsy remains, perhaps due to a failure to appreciate the serious implications of incomplete or inaccurate staging. Guided by a critical appraisal of the available evidence, this review elucidates the definition of an SN, discusses the sensitivity and specificity of the information it provides, emphasises that it is a minor staging procedure that can lead to improved survival when followed by appropriate therapy, and explains the necessarily unconventional and complex design of the only randomised trial that addresses this subject. It also describes other benefits and risks of an SN biopsy and outlines its role in current melanoma management.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy plus wide local excision vs. wide location excision alone for primary cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sentinel lymph node biopsy and wide local excision of the primary melanoma (SLNB) is now a standard staging procedure for patients with melanomas 1 mm or more in thickness, but its therapeutic benefit is not clear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there is an association between performance of SLNB and patient prognosis.

METHODS

Studies assessing the association between performance of SLNB and patient prognosis were pooled from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Google Scholar. From each study, first author's last name, publication year, origin country, type of study design, characteristics of participants and the Hazard risk (HR) for melanoma specific survival (MSS) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were collected. Methodological assessment of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the 'Risk of bias' tool detailed in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Meta-analyses for the global HR were performed. In addition, in order to explore the sources of heterogeneity among the studies, sensitivity analyses are also provided.

RESULTS

A total of six studies with 8764 patients who had undergone SLNB and 11054 patients who had undergone wide location excision alone (WLEA) were identified for the analysis. The indicators suggest that the heterogeneity is low: τ²  = 0; H = 1 [1; 1.74]; I²  = 0% [0%; 66.5%]. Evidence for publication bias was not found (Egger's test P = 0.4654). The pooled MSS HR from fixed effects analysis was determined to be 0.88 (95% CI = 0.80-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Although no significant survival difference was observed in four of the six series, the pooling summary data from all the studies that deal with this issue suggested that SLNB is associated with a significantly better outcome compared with WLEA for localized melanoma.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy followed by lymph node dissection for localised primary cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Melanoma is the leading cause of skin cancer-associated mortality. The vast majority of newly diagnosed melanomas are confined to the primary cutaneous site. Surgery represents the mainstay of melanoma treatment. Treatment strategies include wide excision of the primary tumour and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) to assess the status of the regional nodal basin(s). SLNB has become an important component of initial melanoma management providing accurate disease staging.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and safety of SLNB followed by completion lymph node dissection (CLND) for the treatment of localised primary cutaneous melanoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to February 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS ((Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, from 1982). We also searched the following from inception: African Index Medicus, IndMED of India, Index Medicus for the South-East Asia Region, and six trials registers. We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched ISI Web of Science Conference Proceedings from inception to February 2015, and we scanned the abstracts of major dermatology and oncology conference proceedings up to 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently assessed all RCTs comparing SLNB followed by CLND for the treatment of primary localised cutaneous melanoma for inclusion. Primary outcome measures were overall survival and rate of treatment complications and side effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and analysed data on survival and recurrence, assessed risk of bias, and collected adverse effect information from included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified and included a single eligible trial comparing SLNB with observation and published in eight different reports (from 2005 to 2014) with 2001 participants. This did not report on our first primary outcome of overall survival. The study did report on the rate of treatment complications. Our secondary outcomes of disease-specific and disease-free survival, local recurrence and distant metastases were reported. There were 1347 participants in the intermediate-thickness melanoma group and 314 in the thick melanoma group.With regard to treatment complications, short-term surgical morbidity (30 days) in 1735 participants showed no difference between SLNB and observation (risk ratio [RR] 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9 to 1.37) for wide excision of the tumour site but favoured observation for complications related to the regional nodal basin (RR 14.36; 95% CI 6.74 to 30.59).The study did not report the actual 10-year melanoma-specific survival rate for all included participants. Instead, melanoma-specific survival rates for each group of participants: intermediate-thickness melanoma (defined as 1.2 to 3.5 mm) and thick melanomas (defined as 3.50 mm or more) was reported.In the intermediate-thickness melanoma group there was no statistically significant difference in disease-specific survival between study groups at 10 years (81.4 ± 1.5% versus 78.3 ± 2.0%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.84; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.09). In the thick melanoma group, again there was no statistically significant difference in disease-specific survival between study groups at 10 years (58.9.3 ± 4.1% versus 64.4 ± 4.6%, HR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.64). Combining these groups there was some heterogeneity (I² = 34%) but the total HR was not statistically significant (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14). This study failed to show any difference for its stated primary outcome.The summary estimate for disease-free survival at 10 years favoured SLNB over observation in participants with intermediate-thickness and thick melanomas (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.89).With regard to the rate of local and regional recurrence as the site of first recurrence, a benefit of SLNB uniformly existed in both groups of participants with intermediate-thickness and thick melanomas (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.69). This is in contrast with a uniformly unfavourable effect of SLNB with regard to the rate of distant metastases as site of first recurrence, in both groups of participants with intermediate-thickness and thick melanomas (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.72).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We contacted the trial authors querying the lack of data on overall survival which was the primary outcome of their important study. They stated "there are numerous additional analyses that have yet to be reported for the trial". We expect that overall survival data will be available in a future update of this review.Disease-free survival and rate of local and regional recurrence favoured SLNB in both groups of participants with intermediate-thickness and thick melanomas but short-term surgical morbidity was higher in the SLNB group, especially with regard to complications in the nodal basin.The evidence for the outcomes of interest in this review is of low quality due to the risk of bias and imprecision of the estimated effects. Further research may have an important impact on our estimate of the effectiveness of SLNB in managing primary localised cutaneous melanoma. Currently this evidence is not sufficient to document a benefit of SLNB when compared to observation in individuals with primary localised cutaneous melanoma.

Overview and update of the phase III Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trials (MSLT-I and MSLT-II) in melanoma

This short review offers an update on the first and second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trials (MSLT-I and MSLT-II) for patients with melanoma, and briefly traces the development of intraoperative lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy.

Sentinel node biopsy in melanoma: technical considerations of the procedure as performed at the John Wayne Cancer Institute

Since its first description in 1990, sentinel node (SN) biopsy has become the standard for accurate staging of a melanoma-draining regional lymphatic basin. This minimally invasive, multidisciplinary technique can detect occult metastases by selective sampling and focused pathologic analysis of the first nodes on the afferent lymphatic pathway from a primary cutaneous melanoma. An understanding of preoperative lymphoscintigraphy, intraoperative lymphatic mapping, and the definition of SN are critical for surgical expertise with SN biopsy.