Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 8/2016

01-08-2016 | Melanomas

Breslow Thickness Measurements of Melanomas Around American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Cut-Off Points: Imprecision and Terminal Digit Bias Have Important Implications for Staging and Patient Management

Authors: Ludi Ge, MBBS, Ricardo E. Vilain, MBBS, PhD, FRCPA, Serigne Lo, PhD, Karina Aivazian, MBBS, Richard A. Scolyer, MD, FRCPA, FRCPath, John F. Thompson, MD, FRACS, FACS

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 8/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Breslow thickness is the most important prognostic factor in patients with clinically localized primary cutaneous melanomas, and its accuracy has important implications for staging and management. A review of the Melanoma Institute Australia database and population-based data for the state of New South Wales, Australia, found an unexpectedly large number of melanomas reported as being exactly 1.0 mm thick. We sought to determine possible causes for this biologically implausible finding.

Methods

The tumor thickness of 125 invasive cutaneous melanomas with a recorded Breslow thickness of 0.9–1.1 mm was remeasured and recorded by two pathologists.

Results

Concordance of measurements between the two pathologists was high (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.816, 95 % CI 0.733–0.873). The original measurements showed clustering at 0.9, 1.0, and 1.1 mm, whereas the review measurements did not. The original measurements staged 84 cases (72 %) as T1 and 33 (28 %) as T2, while the reviewed measurements staged 58 cases (50 %) as T1 and 59 (50 %) as T2 (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated imprecision in Breslow thickness measurements and its significant impact on staging. Two potential sources of imprecision are failure to follow standardized thickness measurement guidelines and the phenomenon of terminal digit bias, not previously identified as a problem in this field. Educating pathologists about this phenomenon and the importance of utilizing ocular micrometers may improve the precision of melanoma thickness measurements around critical staging cut-off points. Clinicians must also be educated to appreciate that there is an inevitable margin of error with Breslow thickness measurements that should be considered when making management decisions.
Literature
1.
Scolyer RA, Shaw HM, Thompson JF, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of histopathologic prognostic variables in primary cutaneous melanomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:1571–76.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Lock-Andersen J, Hou-Jensen K, Hansen JP, et al. Observer variation in histological classification of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1995;29:141–48.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Colloby PS, West KP, Fletcher A. Observer variation in the measurement of Breslow depth and Clark’s level in thin cutaneous malignant melanoma. J Pathol. 1991;163:245–50.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Wong SL, Balch CM, Hurley P, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology joint clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2912–18.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Wong SL, Balch CM, Hurley P, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology joint clinical practice guideline. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3313–24.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Scolyer RA, Judge MJ, Evans A, et al. Data set for pathology reporting of cutaneous invasive melanoma: recommendations from the international collaboration on cancer reporting (ICCR). Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:1797–814.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
9.
Mitchell J. Clustering and psychological barriers: the importance of numbers. J Futures Mark. 2001;21:395.CrossRef
10.
Thavarajah S, White WB, Mansoor GA. Terminal digit bias in a specialty hypertension faculty practice. J Hum Hypertens. 2003;17:819–22.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Gershenwald JE, Coit DG, Sondak VK, Thompson JF. The challenge of defining guidelines for sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thin primary cutaneous melanomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3301–03.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. Primary cutaneous melanoma structured reporting protocol. Surry Hills (NSW): Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia; 2014.
13.
Marsden JR, Newton-Bishop JA, Burrows L, et al. Revised UK guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma 2010. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63:1401–19.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Frishberg DP, Balch C, Balzer BL, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with melanoma of the skin. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:1560–67.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Breslow Thickness Measurements of Melanomas Around American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Cut-Off Points: Imprecision and Terminal Digit Bias Have Important Implications for Staging and Patient Management
Authors
Ludi Ge, MBBS
Ricardo E. Vilain, MBBS, PhD, FRCPA
Serigne Lo, PhD
Karina Aivazian, MBBS
Richard A. Scolyer, MD, FRCPA, FRCPath
John F. Thompson, MD, FRACS, FACS
Publication date
01-08-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 8/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5196-1

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 8/2016 Go to the issue

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Is there a Benefit of Multidisciplinary Cancer Team Meetings for Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancies?

Breast Oncology

Genetic Determinants of Nipple Aspiration Fluid Yield

Colorectal Cancer

KRAS and Combined KRAS/TP53 Mutations in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer are Independently Associated with Decreased Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Robotic D2 Lymph Node Dissection During Distal Subtotal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Toward Procedural Standardization

Hepatobiliary Tumors

Program Death 1 Immune Checkpoint and Tumor Microenvironment: Implications for Patients With Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Endocrine Tumors

Family Screening in Familial Papillary Carcinoma: The Early Detection of Thyroid Disease