Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 159

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Primary staging and follow-up in melanoma patients – monocenter evaluation of methods, costs and patient survival

Open access
Hofmann, U, Szedlak, M, Rittgen, W, Jung, E G, Schadendorf, D·2002·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

In a German cohort of 661 melanoma patients the performance, costs and survival benefits of staging methods (history and physical examination; chest X-ray; ultrasonography of the abdomen; high resolution sonography of the peripheral lymph nodes) were assessed at initial staging and during follow-up of stage I/II+III disease. At initial staging, 74% (23 out of 31) of synchronous metastases were first detected by physical examination followed by sonography of the lymph nodes revealing 16% (5 out of 31). Other imaging methods were less efficient (Chest X-ray: one out of 31; sonography of abdomen: two out of 31). Nearly 24% of all 127 first recurrences and 18% of 73 second recurrences developed in patients not participating in the follow-up programme. In follow-up patients detection of first or second recurrence were attributed to history and physical examination on a routine visit in 47 and 52% recurrences, respectively, and to routine imaging procedures in 21 and 17% of cases, respectively. Lymph node sonography was the most successful technical staging procedure indicating 13% of first relapses, but comprised 24% of total costs of follow-up in stage I/II. Routine imaging comprised nearly 50% of total costs for follow-up in stage I/II and in stage III. The mode of detecting a relapse ('patient vs. doctor-diagnosed' or 'symptomatic vs asymptomatic') did not significantly influence patients overall survival. Taken together, imaging procedures for routine follow-up in stage I/II and stage III melanoma patients were inefficient and not cost-efficient.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600428

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 159

Metadata

Authors
Hofmann, U., Szedlak, M., Rittgen, W., Jung, E. G., & Schadendorf, D.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2002-07
Volume
87
Issue
2
Pages
151-157
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W1988375101
Cited by
159
References
0
FWCI
2.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Primary staging and follow-up in melanoma patients – monocenter evaluation of methods, costs and patient survival. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600428
The paper
Hofmann, U., Szedlak, M., Rittgen, W., Jung, E. G., & Schadendorf, D. (2002). Primary staging and follow-up in melanoma patients – monocenter evaluation of methods, costs and patient survival. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600428

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.