1985
DOI: 10.1002/mpo.2950130503
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adjuvant therapy of cutaneous malignant melanoma: A critical review

Abstract: The emergence of revised definitions for the high-risk patient with cutaneous malignant melanoma prompts us to re-examine the current status of adjuvant therapy in this disease. We wish to address the question, "once a cutaneous melanoma is surgically removed and the patient is currently free of disease but at high risk for metastases, what can be done to prevent recurrence"?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1987
1987
2002
2002

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 147 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Response rates to radiation therapy have been reported to be 70% with a variety of schedules [1][2][3], However, such responses have been Overshadowed by the development of widespread metastases. In addition, little attention has been given in the past to the role of adjuvant radiation therapy following nodal dissection [4]. Some reports have indicated a trend for radiation therapy to reduce the incidence of local relapse following dissection, although there has been no demonstrated improvement in survival.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Response rates to radiation therapy have been reported to be 70% with a variety of schedules [1][2][3], However, such responses have been Overshadowed by the development of widespread metastases. In addition, little attention has been given in the past to the role of adjuvant radiation therapy following nodal dissection [4]. Some reports have indicated a trend for radiation therapy to reduce the incidence of local relapse following dissection, although there has been no demonstrated improvement in survival.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Balch et al, 1979a; Balch et al, 1983; Balch and Milton, 1985; Blois et al, 1983b; Breslow, 1970, 1975; Breslow and Macht, 1978; Cohen, 1977; Day et al, 1981d, 1982c; Drzewiecki and Andersen, 1982; Dvir et al, 1980; Griffiths and Briggs, 1984; Hacene et al, 1983; Heenan, 1985; Heenan and Holman, 1983; Jeffrey et al, 1983; Johnson et al, 1985; Kelly et al, 1985b; Koh et al, 1985; Kuehnl‐Petzoldt et al, 1983a; Lemish et al, 1983; MacKie, 1985; Maize 1983; Martijn et al, 1986; McGovern et al, 1983b; Palangie et al, 1981; Roberts et al, 1981; Roses et al, 1979; Schmoeckel and Braun‐Falco, 1978; Sober et al, 1983a,b; Sober, 1984; Sondergaard, 1985a; Trau et al, 1983; Urist et al, 1984, 1985; van der Esch et al, 1981; Veronesi, 1983; Wanebo et al, 1985. …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%