A protocol for developing reporting guidelines for laboratory studies in endodontology

Laboratory‐based research studies are the most common form of research endeavour and make up the majority of manuscripts that are submitted for publication in the field of Endodontology. The scientific information derived from laboratory studies can be used to design a wide range of subsequent studies and clinical trials and may have translational potential to benefit clinical practice. Unfortunately, the majority of laboratory‐based articles submitted for publication fail the peer‐review step, because unacceptable flaws or substantial limitations are identified. Even when apparently well‐conducted laboratory‐based articles are peer‐reviewed, they can often require substantial corrections prior to the publication. It is apparent that some authors and reviewers may lack the training and experience to have developed a systematic approach to evaluate the quality of laboratory studies. Occasionally, even accepted manuscripts contain limitations that may compromise interpretation of data. To help authors avoid manuscript rejection and correction pitfalls, and to aid editors/reviewers to evaluate manuscripts systematically, the purpose of this project is to establish and publish quality guidelines for authors to report laboratory studies in the field of Endodontology so that the highest standards are achieved. The new guidelines will be named–‘Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology’ (PRILE). A steering committee was assembled by the project leads to develop the guidelines through a five‐phase consensus process. The committee will identify new items as well as review and adapt items from existing guidelines. The items forming the draft guidelines will be reviewed and refined by a PRILE Delphi Group (PDG). The items will be evaluated by the PDG on a nine‐point Likert scale for relevance and inclusion. The agreed items will then be discussed by a PRILE face‐to‐face consensus meeting group (PFCMG) formed by 20 individuals to further refine the guidelines. This will be subject to final approval by the steering committee. The approved PRILE guidelines will be disseminated through publication in relevant journals, presented at congresses/meetings, and be freely available on a dedicated website. Feedback and comments will be solicited from researchers, editors and peer reviewers, who are invited to contact the steering committee with comments to help them update the guidelines periodically

Completion Dissection or Observation for Sentinel-Node Metastasis in Melanoma.

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. 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. 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. 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 .)

A multicentre study of naevus-associated melanoma vs. de novo melanoma, tumour thickness and body site differences*

Background: Whether melanoma in histological contiguity with a naevus [naevus-associated melanoma (NAM)] is distinctly different from melanoma arising de novo remains unclear. Objectives: To determine whether the characteristics of de novo melanoma differ from NAM and are not due to naevus obliteration in thicker tumours. Methods: We conducted a multicentre retrospective study of de novo melanoma and NAM in seven referral centres in Europe, Australia and the USA between 2006 and 2015. Results: In a total of 9474 localized melanomas, de novo melanoma was associated with thicker tumours and body site differences compared with NAM. In the subset of T1 melanomas (n = 5307), similar body site differences were found in multivariate analysis by body site. When compared with NAM, de novo melanoma was more likely to affect older individuals (≥ 70 years) when located on the head/neck [odds ratio (OR) 4·65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2·55–8·46], the trunk (OR 1·82, 95% CI 1·40–2·36) or the upper extremity (OR 1·69, 95% CI 1·14–2·50), was more likely to affect female patients when located on the lower extremities (OR 1·36, 95% CI 1·03–1·80), and was more likely to be of the nodular melanoma subtype (OR 2·23, 95% CI 1·14–4·35) when located on the trunk. De novo melanoma was less likely to have regression present compared with NAM. Conclusions: Clinicopathological and body site differences between de novo melanoma and NAM support the divergent pathway model of development. These differences were also found in thin melanomas, suggesting that de novo melanomas are different from NAM and their differences are not due to the obliteration of naevus remnants in thicker tumours. © 2021 British Association of Dermatologist

Therapeutic Value of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients With Melanoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is a standard staging procedure for cutaneous melanoma. Regional disease control is a clinically important therapeutic goal of surgical intervention, including nodal surgery. To determine how frequently SLN biopsy without completion lymph node dissection (CLND) results in long-term regional nodal disease control in patients with SLN metastases. The second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-II), a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial, randomized participants with SLN metastases to either CLND or nodal observation. The current analysis examines observation patients with regard to regional nodal recurrence. Trial patients were aged 18 to 75 years with melanoma metastatic to SLN(s). Data were collected from December 2004 to April 2019, and data were analyzed from July 2020 to January 2022. Nodal observation with ultrasonography rather than CLND. In-basin nodal recurrence. Of 823 included patients, 479 (58.2%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 52.8 (13.8) years. Among 855 observed basins, at 10 years, 80.2% (actuarial; 95% CI, 77-83) of basins were free of nodal recurrence. By univariable analysis, freedom from regional nodal recurrence was associated with age younger than 50 years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.70; P < .001), nonulcerated melanoma (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.36-0.49; P < .001), thinner primary melanoma (less than 1.5 mm; HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.78; P = .004), axillary basin (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.86; P = .005), fewer positive SLNs (1 vs 3 or more; HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.75; P = .008), and SLN tumor burden (measured by diameter less than 1 mm [HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.60; P = .001] or less than 5% area [HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.54; P < .001]). By multivariable analysis, younger age (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.84; P = .004), thinner primary melanoma (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.70; P = .002), axillary basin (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.96; P = .03), SLN metastasis diameter less than 1 mm (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.81; P = .007), and area less than 5% (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.88; P = .01) were associated with basin control. When looking at the identified risk factors of age (50 years or older), ulceration, Breslow thickness greater than 3.5 mm, nonaxillary basin, and tumor burden of maximum diameter of 1 mm or greater and/or metastasis area of 5% or greater and excluding missing value cases, basin disease-free rates at 5 years were 96% (95% CI, 88-100) for patients with 0 risk factors, 89% (95% CI, 82-96) for 1 risk factor, 86% (95% CI, 80-93) for 2 risk factors, 80% (95% CI, 71-89) for 3 risk factors, 61% (95% CI, 48-74) for 4 risk factors, and 54% (95% CI, 36-72) for 5 or 6 risk factors. This randomized clinical trial was the largest prospective evaluation of long-term regional basin control in patients with melanoma who had nodal observation after removal of a positive SLN. SLN biopsy without CLND cleared disease in the affected nodal basin in most patients, even those with multiple risk factors for in-basin recurrence. In addition to its well-validated value in staging, SLN biopsy may also be regarded as therapeutic in some patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00297895