Welcome to NGC. Skip directly to: Search Box, Navigation, Content.


Brief Summary

GUIDELINE TITLE

Treatment of cutaneous melanoma.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCE(S)

  • American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline: treatment of cutaneous melanoma. Arlington Heights (IL): American Society of Plastic Surgeons; 2007 May. 14 p. [81 references]

GUIDELINE STATUS

This is the current release of the guideline.

BRIEF SUMMARY CONTENT

 
RECOMMENDATIONS
 EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS
 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY
 DISCLAIMER

 Go to the Complete Summary

RECOMMENDATIONS

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Definitions for the levels of evidence for diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic studies (I–V) and the strength of the recommendations (A–D) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Recommendations for Patient Assessment Supporting Evidence Grade
Patient History

Assess risk factors:
  • Skin type I or II
  • Presence of multiple common nevi (>30)
  • Presence of atypical nevi (>3)
  • Personal or family history of melanoma
  • Prior significant sun exposure (blistering sunburns)
(Carli et al., 2003; Naldi et al., 2005; Gandini et al., 2005) B
Physical Exam

Exam should include:
  • Thorough inspection of entire skin, including mucous membranes, for pigmented lesions
  • Focused exam of pigmented lesions (ABCDEF criteria*)
  • Careful palpation of major lymph node basins
(Hazen et al., 1999; Abbasi et al., 2004) B
Biopsy of the Primary Lesion

For pigmented lesions suspect for melanoma:
  • Excisional biopsy recommended when possible
  • Only when excisional biopsy is impractical, should incisional biopsy be considered
(Lorusso, Sarma, & Sarwar, 2005; Karimipour et al., 2005; Bong, Herd, & Hunter, 2002) B
Other Clinical and Diagnostic Assessments
For all patients, consider:
  • Blood work (serum lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase)
  • Chest x-ray
(Wang et al., 2004; Tsao et al., 2004; Hofmann et al., 2002) C
For patients with more advanced disease, consider:
  • Blood work (serum lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, S100B)
  • Radiologic exams (chest x-ray, chest and abdominal computed tomography [CT], positron emission tomography [PET] scan, brain magnetic resonance imaging [MRI])
  • Screening tests for molecular markers (reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR])
(Hoffmann et al., 2002; Deichmann et al., 2004; Banfalvi et al., 2002; Mohammed et al., 2001; Keilholz et al., 2004) C

*ABCDEF criteria include the following factors:

  • Asymmetry
  • Border irregularity
  • Color variegation or changes
  • Diameter greater than 6 mm,
  • Evolutionary changes in color, size, symmetry, surface characteristics, and symptoms
  • Funny-looking lesions
Recommendations for Treatment Supporting Evidence Grade
Surgical Excision of Primary Melanoma
  • In situ, 0.5 to 1 mm lesion: 0.5 cm margin
  • <1 mm lesion: 1 cm margin
  • 1 to 2 mm lesion: consider 1 to 2 cm margin
  • 1 to 4 mm lesion: 2 cm margin
  • >4 mm lesion: >2 cm margin
(Balch et al., 2001; Cohn-Cedermark et al., 2000; Haigh, DiFronzo, & McCready, 2003; Khayat et al., 2003; Thomas et al., 2004) A
Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SNLB)
SNLB should be considered for patients with:
  • Primary melanoma >1 mm
  • Primary melanoma <1 mm, but with negative prognostic features (i.e., ulceration, Clark level IV/V, vertical growth phase [VGP])
(Estourgie et al., 2003; Essner et al., 1999; Morton et al., 2006; Landi et al., 2000; Bedrosian et al., 2000; Wagner et al., 2000; Morton et al., 2005) B
Recommend use of multiple imaging techniques:
  • Blue vital dye
  • Radioactive colloid
  • Gamma probe
(Estourgie et al., 2003; Essner et al., 1999; Morton et al., 2006; Landi et al., 2000; Duprat et al., 2005; Cafiero et al., 1998; Rossi et al., 2006; Morton et al., 2005) B
Measures to minimize probability of missed sentinel node metastasis include:
  • Serial sectioning
  • Hematoxylin and eosin staining
  • Immunohistochemistry
  • RT-PCR
(Estourgie et al., 2003; Essner et al., 1999; Morton et al., 2006; Landi et al., 2000; Duprat et al., 2005; Cafiero et al., 1998; Rossi et al., 2006; Giese et al., 2005; Gradilone et al., 2004; Kammula et al., 2004; Morton et al., 2005) B
Complete Lymph Node Dissection (CLND)

CLND is recommended for patients with:
  • Positive sentinel lymph node (determined by biopsy)
  • Clinically obvious metastatic melanoma in regional lymph nodes, even when multiple basins are involved
  • Distant metastasis (as palliative treatment)
(Morton et al., 2006; Pu et al., 2003; Balch et al., 2000; Morton et al., 2005; Kretschmer et al., 2004) C
Systemic Treatment
  • Patients who cannot be successfully treated with surgery should be referred to an oncologist for further treatment options.
Expert Opinion D

 

Recommendations for Follow-up Supporting Evidence Grade
Physical Exam
Perform every 3 months for the first year; every 6 months for 5 years, then at least yearly thereafter:
  • Full skin assessment
  • Lymph node palpation
(DiFronzo et al., 1999; DiFronzo, Wanek, & Morton, 2001; Brobeil et al., 1997) B
For patients with the following high-risk features, more frequent visits may be necessary:
  • Greater tumor thickness
  • Multiple melanomas
  • Presence of clinically atypical nevi
  • Family history of melanoma
  • Sentinel lymph node metastasis
(DiFronzo et al., 1999; DiFronzo, Wanek, & Morton, 2001; Ferrone et al., 2005) B
Diagnostic Tests

For patients with at least stage II or III disease, or signs/symptoms of possible systemic involvement, consider:
  • Routine blood work (serum lactate dehydrogenase, serum alkaline phosphatase, serum albumin, plasma hemoglobin)
  • Radiology (chest x-ray, etc)
(Miranda et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2004; Tsao et al., 2004; Hofmann et al., 2002; Deichmann et al., 2004; Banfalvi et al., 2002; Mohammed et al., 2001; Keilholz et al., 2004) C

 

Recommendations for Surveillance Supporting Evidence Grade
Educational Intervention

Patients and family members should be educated about:
  • Self-examination of skin and lymph nodes
  • Signs and symptoms of recurrence
(DiFronzo, Wanek, & Morton, 2001; Uliasz & Lebwohl, 2007; Brady et al., 2000) B
Adequate Follow-up

Physicians should assess patients for symptoms of recurrence and risk factors associated with recurrence:
  • Sentinel lymph node metastasis
  • Metastasis to multiple sentinel lymph nodes
  • Greater Breslow thickness
  • Ulceration
  • Clark level IV/V
(Estourgie et al., 2003; DiFronzo et al., 1999; Brobeil et al., 1997; Cerovac et al., 2006; Chao et al., 2002) B

Definitions:

Scale for Grading Recommendations

Grade Descriptor Qualifying Evidence Implications for Practice
A Strong Recommendation Level I evidence or consistent findings from multiple studies of levels II, III, or IV Clinicians should follow a strong recommendation unless a clear and compelling rationale for an alternative approach is present.
B Recommendation Levels II, III, or IV evidence and findings are generally consistent Generally, clinicians should follow a recommendation but should remain alert to new information and sensitive to patient preference.
C Option Levels II, III, or IV evidence, but findings are inconsistent Clinicians should be flexible in their decision-making regarding appropriate practice, although they may set bounds on alternatives; patient preference should have a substantial influencing role.
D Option Level V; little or no systematic empirical evidence Clinicians should consider all options in their decision-making and be alert to new published evidence that clarifies the balance of benefit versus harm; patient preference should have a substantial influencing role.

Evidence Rating Scale for Diagnostic Studies

Level of Evidence Qualifying Studies
I High-quality, multi-centered or single-centered, cohort study validating a diagnostic test (with "gold" standard as reference) in a series of consecutive patients; or a systematic review of these studies
II Exploratory cohort study developing diagnostic criteria (with "gold" standard as reference) in a series of consecutive patients; or a systematic review of these studies
III Diagnostic study in nonconsecutive patients (without consistently applied "gold" standard as reference); or a systematic review of these studies
IV Case-control study; or any of the above diagnostic studies in the absence of a universally accepted "gold" standard
V Expert opinion; case report or clinical example; or evidence based on physiology, bench research, or "first principles"

Evidence Rating Scale for Prognostic Studies

Level of Evidence Qualifying Studies
I High-quality, multi-centered or single-centered, prospective cohort study with adequate power; or a systematic review of these studies
II Lesser-quality prospective cohort study; retrospective study; untreated controls from a randomized controlled trial; or a systematic review of these studies
III Case-control study; or a systematic review of these studies
IV Case series
V Expert opinion; case report or clinical example; or evidence based on physiology, bench research, or "first principles"

Evidence Rating Scale for Therapeutic Studies

Level of Evidence Qualifying Studies
I High-quality, multi-centered or single-centered, randomized controlled trial with adequate power; or a systematic review of these studies
II Lesser-quality, randomized controlled trial; prospective cohort study; or a systematic review of these studies
III Retrospective comparative study; case-control study; or a systematic review of these studies
IV Case series
V Expert opinion; case report or clinical example; or evidence based on physiology, bench research, or "first principles"

CLINICAL ALGORITHM(S)

None provided

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

TYPE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation.

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCE(S)

  • American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline: treatment of cutaneous melanoma. Arlington Heights (IL): American Society of Plastic Surgeons; 2007 May. 14 p. [81 references]

ADAPTATION

Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.

DATE RELEASED

2007 May

GUIDELINE DEVELOPER(S)

American Society of Plastic Surgeons - Medical Specialty Society

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING

American Society of Plastic Surgeons

GUIDELINE COMMITTEE

Health Policy Committee of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons

COMPOSITION OF GROUP THAT AUTHORED THE GUIDELINE

Not stated

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Not stated

GUIDELINE STATUS

This is the current release of the guideline.

GUIDELINE AVAILABILITY

Electronic copies: Available in Portable Document Format (PDF) from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Web site.

Print copies: Available from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 444 East Algonquin Road, Arlington Heights, IL 6005-4664

AVAILABILITY OF COMPANION DOCUMENTS

PATIENT RESOURCES

None available

NGC STATUS

This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on October 15, 2007. The information was verified by the guideline developer on October 23, 2007.

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

This NGC summary is based on the original guideline, which is subject to the guideline developer's copyright restrictions.

DISCLAIMER

NGC DISCLAIMER

The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.

All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.

Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion.aspx .

NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.

Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.


 

 

   
DHHS Logo