Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribers receive full online access to your subscription and archive of back issues up to and including 2002.
Content published before 2002 is available via pay-per-view purchase only.
Subscribe:Subscribe to Surgical Oncology Clinics
- Cutaneous Melanoma, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019; 17: 367-402
- The Landmark Series: Randomized Trials Examining Surgical Margins for Cutaneous Melanoma.Ann Surg Oncol. 2020; 27: 3-12
- Conservative surgical management of superficially invasive cutaneous melanoma.Cancer. 1984; 53: 1256-1259
- Tumor thickness as a guide to surgical management of clinical stage I melanoma patients.Cancer. 1979; 43: 883-888
- Narrower margins for clinical stage I malignant melanoma.N Engl J Med. 1982; 306: 479-482
- Thin stage I primary cutaneous malignant melanoma. Comparison of excision with margins of 1 or 3 cm.N Engl J Med. 1988; 318: 1159-1162
- Narrow excision (1-cm margin). A safe procedure for thin cutaneous melanoma.Arch Surg. 1991; 126: 438-441
- Long-term results of a multi-institutional randomized trial comparing prognostic factors and surgical results for intermediate thickness melanomas (1.0 to 4.0 mm). Intergroup Melanoma Surgical Trial.Ann Surg Oncol. 2000; 7: 87-97
- Local recurrence in malignant melanoma: long-term results of the multiinstitutional randomized surgical trial.Ann Surg Oncol. 1996; 3: 446-452
- Efficacy of 2-cm surgical margins for intermediate-thickness melanomas (1 to 4 mm). Results of a multi-institutional randomized surgical trial.Ann Surg. 1993; 218 ([discussion: 267–9]): 262-267
- Long term results of a randomized study by the Swedish Melanoma Study Group on 2-cm versus 5-cm resection margins for patients with cutaneous melanoma with a tumor thickness of 0.8-2.0 mm.Cancer. 2000; 89: 1495-1501
- Resection margins of 2 versus 5 cm for cutaneous malignant melanoma with a tumor thickness of 0.8 to 2.0 mm: randomized study by the Swedish Melanoma Study Group.Cancer. 1996; 77: 1809-1814
- 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.Lancet. 2019; 394: 471-477
- 2-cm versus 4-cm surgical excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma thicker than 2 mm: a randomised, multicentre trial.Lancet. 2011; 378: 1635-1642
- Surgical margins in cutaneous melanoma (2 cm versus 5 cm for lesions measuring less than 2.1-mm thick).Cancer. 2003; 97: 1941-1946
- Excision margins in high-risk malignant melanoma.N Engl J Med. 2004; 350: 757-766
- Wide versus narrow excision margins for high-risk, primary cutaneous melanomas: long-term follow-up of survival in a randomised trial.Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17: 184-192
- Immediate or delayed dissection of regional nodes in patients with melanoma of the trunk: a randomised trial. WHO Melanoma Programme.Lancet. 1998; 351: 793-796
- Efficacy of an elective regional lymph node dissection of 1 to 4 mm thick melanomas for patients 60 years of age and younger.Ann Surg. 1996; 224 ([discussion: 263–6]): 255-263
- Delayed regional lymph node dissection in stage I melanoma of the skin of the lower extremities.Cancer. 1982; 49: 2420-2430
- The Landmark Series: MSLT-1, MSLT-2 and DeCOG (Management of Lymph Nodes).Ann Surg Oncol. 2020; 27: 15-21
- Sentinel-node biopsy or nodal observation in melanoma.N Engl J Med. 2006; 355: 1307-1317
- Final trial report of sentinel-node biopsy versus nodal observation in melanoma.N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 599-609
- Complete lymph node dissection versus no dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node biopsy positive melanoma (DeCOG-SLT): a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17: 757-767
- Positive nonsentinel node status predicts mortality in patients with cutaneous melanoma.Ann Surg Oncol. 2009; 16: 186-190
- Completion Dissection or Observation for Sentinel-Node Metastasis in Melanoma.N Engl J Med. 2017; 376: 2211-2222
- Innovative approaches for cancer treatment: current perspectives and new challenges.Ecancermedicalscience. 2019; 13: 961
- The role of BRAF V600 mutation in melanoma.J Transl Med. 2012; 10: 85
- Impact of BRAF mutation status in the prognosis of cutaneous melanoma: an area of ongoing research.Ann Transl Med. 2015; 3: 24
- Role of Anti-PD-1 Antibodies in Advanced Melanoma: The Era of Immunotherapy.Cureus. 2018; 10: e3700
- Combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors for melanoma: latest evidence and place in therapy.Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2016; 8: 48-56
- Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation.N Engl J Med. 2011; 364: 2507-2516
- Phase II trial (BREAK-2) of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (GSK2118436) in patients with metastatic melanoma.J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 3205-3211
- Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2012; 380: 358-365
- Survival in BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma treated with vemurafenib.N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 707-714
- Adjuvant vemurafenib in resected, BRAF.Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19: 510-520
- Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III BRAF-Mutated Melanoma.N Engl J Med. 2017; 377: 1813-1823
- Adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16: 522-530
- Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): distant metastasis-free survival results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.Lancet Oncol. 2021; 22: 643-654
- Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III or IV Melanoma.N Engl J Med. 2017; 377: 1824-1835
- Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (KEYNOTE-716): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.Lancet. 2022; 399: 1718-1729
- Final analysis of overall survival (OS) and relapse-free-survival (RFS) in the intergroup S1404 phase III randomized trial comparing either high-dose interferon (HDI) or ipilimumab to pemnbrolizumab in patients with high-risk resected melanoma.J Clin Oncol. 2021; : 9501
- Adjuvant Pembrolizumab versus IFNα2b or Ipilimumab in Resected High-Risk Melanoma.Cancer Discov. 2022; 12: 644-653
- 1 Versus 2-cm Excision Margins for pT2-pT4 Primary Cutaneous Melanoma (MelMarT): A Feasibility Study.Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25: 2541-2549
- MelMART Trial: It's Now or Never.Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25: 2493-2495
Bristol Myers Squibb. Press release: Bristol-Myers Squibb announces update on CheckMate-915 for Opdivo (nivolumab) plus Yervoy (ipilimumab) versus Opdivo alone in patients with resected high-risk melanoma and PD-L1 <1%. November 20th 2019. Available at: https://news.bms.com/news/details/2019/Bristol-Myers-Squibb-Announces-Update-on-CheckMate--915-for-Opdivo-nivolumab-Plus-Yervoy-ipilimumab-Versus-Opdivo-Alone-in-Patients-with-Resected-High-Risk-Melanoma-and-PD-L1-1/default.aspx.
Neoadjuvant Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab Versus Standard Adjuvant Nivolumab in Macroscopic Stage III Melanoma (NADINA). 2021. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04949113.
A Study to Compare the Administration of Pembrolizumab After Surgery Versus Administration Both Before and After Surgery for High-Risk Melanoma. 2018. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03698019.
- Adjuvant nivolumab in high-risk stage IIb/IIc melanoma patients: Results from investigator initiated clinical trial.J Clin Oncol. 2021; 39