Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,414

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Completion Dissection or Observation for Sentinel-Node Metastasis in Melanoma

Open access
Faries, Mark B., Thompson, John F., Cochran, Alistair J., Andtbacka, Robert H., Mozzillo, Nicola, Zager, Jonathan S., Jahkola, Tiina, Bowles, Tawnya L., Testori, Alessandro, Beitsch, Peter D., Hoekstra, Harald J., Moncrieff, Marc, Ingvar, Christian, Wouters, Michel W.J.M., Sabel, Michael S., Levine, Edward A., Agnese, Doreen, Henderson, Michael, Dummer, Reinhard, Rossi, Carlo R., Neves, Rogerio I., Trocha, Steven D., Wright, Frances, Byrd, David R., Matter, Maurice, Hsueh, Eddy, MacKenzie-Ross, Alastair, Johnson, Douglas B., Terheyden, Patrick, Berger, Adam C., Huston, Tara L., Wayne, Jeffrey D., Smithers, B. Mark, Neuman, Heather B., Schneebaum, Schlomo, Gershenwald, Jeffrey E., Ariyan, Charlotte E., Desai, Darius C., Jacobs, Lisa, McMasters, Kelly M., Gesierich, Anja, Hersey, Peter, Bines, Steven D., Kane, John M., Barth, Richard J., McKinnon, Gregory, Farma, Jeffrey M., Schultz, Erwin, Vidal-Sicart, Sergi, Hoefer, Richard A., Lewis, James M., Scheri, Randall, Kelley, Mark C., Nieweg, Omgo E., Noyes, R. Dirk, Hoon, Dave S.B., Wang, He-Jing, Elashoff, David A., Elashoff, Robert M.·2017·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy is associated with increased melanoma-specific survival (i.e., survival until death from melanoma) among patients with node-positive intermediate-thickness melanomas (1.2 to 3.5 mm). The value of completion lymph-node dissection for patients with sentinel-node metastases is not clear. METHODS: In an international trial, we randomly assigned patients with sentinel-node metastases detected by means of standard pathological assessment or a multimarker molecular assay to immediate completion lymph-node dissection (dissection group) or nodal observation with ultrasonography (observation group). The primary end point was melanoma-specific survival. Secondary end points included disease-free survival and the cumulative rate of nonsentinel-node metastasis. RESULTS: Immediate completion lymph-node dissection was not associated with increased melanoma-specific survival among 1934 patients with data that could be evaluated in an intention-to-treat analysis or among 1755 patients in the per-protocol analysis. In the per-protocol analysis, the mean (±SE) 3-year rate of melanoma-specific survival was similar in the dissection group and the observation group (86±1.3% and 86±1.2%, respectively; P=0.42 by the log-rank test) at a median follow-up of 43 months. The rate of disease-free survival was slightly higher in the dissection group than in the observation group (68±1.7% and 63±1.7%, respectively; P=0.05 by the log-rank test) at 3 years, based on an increased rate of disease control in the regional nodes at 3 years (92±1.0% vs. 77±1.5%; P<0.001 by the log-rank test); these results must be interpreted with caution. Nonsentinel-node metastases, identified in 11.5% of the patients in the dissection group, were a strong, independent prognostic factor for recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.78; P=0.005). Lymphedema was observed in 24.1% of the patients in the dissection group and in 6.3% of those in the observation group. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate completion lymph-node dissection increased the rate of regional disease control and provided prognostic information but did not increase melanoma-specific survival among patients with melanoma and sentinel-node metastases. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; MSLT-II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00297895 .).

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa1613210

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 1,414

Metadata

Authors
Faries, M. B., Thompson, J. F., Cochran, A. J., Andtbacka, R. H., Mozzillo, N., Zager, J. S., Jahkola, T., Bowles, T. L., Testori, A., Beitsch, P. D., Hoekstra, H. J., Moncrieff, M., Ingvar, C., Wouters, M. W. J. M., Sabel, M. S., Levine, E. A., Agnese, D., Henderson, M., Dummer, R., Rossi, C. R., Neves, R. I., Trocha, S. D., Wright, F., Byrd, D. R., Matter, M., Hsueh, E., MacKenzie-Ross, A., Johnson, D. B., Terheyden, P., Berger, A. C., Huston, T. L., Wayne, J. D., Smithers, B. M., Neuman, H. B., Schneebaum, S., Gershenwald, J. E., Ariyan, C. E., Desai, D. C., Jacobs, L., McMasters, K. M., Gesierich, A., Hersey, P., Bines, S. D., Kane, J. M., Barth, R. J., McKinnon, G., Farma, J. M., Schultz, E., Vidal-Sicart, S., Hoefer, R. A., Lewis, J. M., Scheri, R., Kelley, M. C., Nieweg, O. E., Noyes, R. D., Hoon, D. S. B., Wang, H.-J., Elashoff, D. A., & Elashoff, R. M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2017-06-08
Volume
376
Issue
23
Pages
2211-2222
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2624147378
Cited by
1,414
References
0
FWCI
65.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Completion Dissection or Observation for Sentinel-Node Metastasis in Melanoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1613210
The paper
Faries, M. B., Thompson, J. F., Cochran, A. J., Andtbacka, R. H., Mozzillo, N., Zager, J. S., Jahkola, T., Bowles, T. L., Testori, A., Beitsch, P. D., Hoekstra, H. J., Moncrieff, M., Ingvar, C., Wouters, M. W. J. M., Sabel, M. S., Levine, E. A., Agnese, D., Henderson, M., Dummer, R., . . . Elashoff, R. M. (2017). Completion Dissection or Observation for Sentinel-Node Metastasis in Melanoma. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1613210

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.