Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 576

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Multifactorial Analysis of Melanoma: Prognostic Histopathological Features Comparing Clarkʼs and Breslowʼs Staging Methods

Open access
BALCH, CHARLES M., MURAD, TARIQ M., SOONG, SENG-JAW, INGALLS, ANNA LEE, HALPERN, NORMAN B., MADDOX, WILLIAM A.·1978·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

A multifactorial analysis was used to identify the dominant prognostic variables affecting survival from a computerized data base of 339 melanoma patients treated at this institution during the past 17 years. Five of the 13 parameters examined simultaneously were found to independently influence five year survival rates: 1) pathological stage (I vs II, p = 0.0014), 2) lesion ulceration (present vs absent, p = 0.006), 3) surgical treatment (wide excision vs wide excision plus lymphadenectomy, p = 0.024), 4) melanoma thickness (p = 0.032), and 5) location (upper extremity vs lower extremity vs trunk vs head and neck, p = 0.038). Additional factors considered that had either indirect or no influence on survival rates were clinical stage of disease, age, sex, level of invasion, pigmentation, lymphocyte infiltration, growth pattern, and regression. Most of these latter variables derived their prognostic value from correlation with melanoma thickness, except sex which correlated with location (extremity lesions were more frequent on females, trunk lesions on males). This statistical analysis enabled us to derive a mathematical equation for predicting an individual patient's probability of five year survival. Three categories of risk were delineated by measuring tumor thickness (Breslow microstaging) in Stage I patients: 1) thin melanomas (<0.76 mm) were associated with localized disease and a 100% cure rate: 2) intermediate thickness melanomas (0.76-4.00 mm) had an increasing risk (up to 80%) of harboring regional and/or distant metastases and 3) thick melanomas (>/=4.00 mm) had a 80% risk of occult distant metastases at the time of initial presentation. The level of invasion (Clark's microstaging) correlated with survival, but was less predictive than measuring tumor thickness. Within each of Clark's Level II, III and IV groups, there were gradations of thickness with statistically different survival rates. Both microstaging methods (Breslow and Clark) were less predictive factors in patients with lymph node or distant metastases. Clinical trials evaluating alternative surgical treatments or adjunctive therapy modalities for melanoma patients should incorporate these parameters into their assessment, especially in Stage I (localized) disease where tumor thickness and the anatomical site of the primary melanoma are dominant prognostic factors.

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 · 10.1097/00000658-197812000-00004

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 576

Metadata

Authors
BALCH, C. M., MURAD, T. M., SOONG, S.-J., INGALLS, A. L., HALPERN, N. B., & MADDOX, W. A.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
1978-12
Volume
188
Issue
6
Pages
732-742
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2049525098
Cited by
576
References
0
FWCI
11.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: A Multifactorial Analysis of Melanoma: Prognostic Histopathological Features Comparing Clarkʼs and Breslowʼs Staging Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000658-197812000-00004
The paper
BALCH, C. M., MURAD, T. M., SOONG, S.-J., INGALLS, A. L., HALPERN, N. B., & MADDOX, W. A. (1978). A Multifactorial Analysis of Melanoma: Prognostic Histopathological Features Comparing Clarkʼs and Breslowʼs Staging Methods. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-197812000-00004

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.