Skip to content
2000
Volume 32, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 1381-6128
  • E-ISSN: 1873-4286

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 > 2 mm 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) 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%, =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, =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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cpd/10.2174/0113816128341363250225095747
2025-03-19
2026-01-31
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. GarbeC. AmaralT. PerisK. European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for melanoma. Part 1: Diagnostics: Update 2022.Eur. J. Cancer202217023625510.1016/j.ejca.2022.03.008 35570085
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Surveillance, epidemiology and end resultsAvailable from: http://www.seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/
  3. AntoheM. ComanA. TurcuG. The prognostic significance of the clinical and histological parameters in primary cutaneous melanoma patients.Med. Pharm. Rep.202295322923510.15386/mpr‑2142 36060503
    [Google Scholar]
  4. CoitD.G. AndtbackaR. AnkerC.J. Melanoma, version 2.2013.J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw.201311439540710.6004/jnccn.2013.0055 23584343
    [Google Scholar]
  5. VeronesiU. CascinelliN. Narrow excision (1-cm margin). A safe procedure for thin cutaneous melanoma.Arch. Surg.1991126443844110.1001/archsurg.1991.01410280036004 2009058
    [Google Scholar]
  6. RossiA.J. VerbusE.A. FariesM.B. A phase III, multicenter, randomized controlled trial investigating 1-cm versus 2-cm surgical excision margins for stage II primary cutaneous melanoma (MelMarT-II).Ann. Surg. Oncol.20222974050405110.1245/s10434‑022‑11766‑z 35451728
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CascinelliN. Margin of resection in the management of primary melanoma.Semin Surg Oncol1998144272510.1002/(SICI)1098‑2388(199806)14:4<272::AID‑SSU2>3.0.CO;2‑# 9588719
    [Google Scholar]
  8. HannaS. LoS.N. SawR.P.M. Surgical excision margins in primary cutaneous melanoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur. J. Surg. Oncol.20214771558157410.1016/j.ejso.2021.02.025 33722422
    [Google Scholar]
  9. UtjésD. MalmstedtJ. TerasJ. 2-cm versus 4-cm surgical excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma thicker than 2 mm: Long-term follow-up of a multicentre, randomised trial.Lancet20193941019747147710.1016/S0140‑6736(19)31132‑8 31280965
    [Google Scholar]
  10. HayesA.J. MaynardL. CoombesG. Wide versus narrow excision margins for high-risk, primary cutaneous melanomas: Long-term follow-up of survival in a randomised trial.Lancet Oncol.201617218419210.1016/S1470‑2045(15)00482‑9 26790922
    [Google Scholar]
  11. BalchC.M. BuzaidA.C. SoongS.J. Final version of the American joint committee on cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma.J. Clin. Oncol.200119163635364810.1200/JCO.2001.19.16.3635 11504745
    [Google Scholar]
  12. MortonD.L. ThompsonJ.F. CochranA.J. Final trial report of sentinel-node biopsy versus nodal observation in melanoma.N. Engl. J. Med.2014370759960910.1056/NEJMoa1310460 24521106
    [Google Scholar]
  13. EggermontA.M.M. BlankC.U. MandalaM. Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma.N. Engl. J. Med.2018378191789180110.1056/NEJMoa1802357 29658430
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cpd/10.2174/0113816128341363250225095747
Loading
/content/journals/cpd/10.2174/0113816128341363250225095747
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

PRISMA checklist is available as supplementary material on the publisher’s website along with the published article.

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test