Skin lesions suspicious for melanoma: New Zealand excision margin guidelines in practice
Tess Brian 1 , Michael B. Jameson 2 31 Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Waikato Hospital, Hamilton, New Zealand
2 Oncology Department, Waikato Hospital, Hamilton, New Zealand
3 Waikato Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Hamilton, New Zealand
Correspondence to: Tess Brian, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Waikato Hospital, Selwyn Street and Pembroke Street, Hamilton 3204, New Zealand. Email: tessbrian0@gmail.com
Journal of Primary Health Care 10(3) 210-214 https://doi.org/10.1071/HC17055
Published: 4 October 2018
Journal Compilation © Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners 2018.
This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: New Zealand guidelines for cutaneous melanoma management recommend excision biopsy specimens of suspected lesions have a 2 mm horizontal margin, and a deep margin into upper subcutis.
AIM: To assess guideline compliance of suspicious lesion biopsies taken in the community and in a hospital.
METHODS: Patients admitted to Waikato Hospital, Hamilton, for diagnostic or treatment melanoma surgery during the year ending February 2016 were retrospectively identified, and their demographic and biopsy characteristics examined.
RESULTS: In total, 140 patients had excision biopsies: 61.4% were performed outside the hospital. Biopsy data were available for 126 specimens. Mean horizontal margin was greater (P = 0.001) in hospital biopsies (4.8 mm, standard deviation (s.d.) 3.7 mm) than biopsies performed elsewhere (2.8 mm; s.d. 1.8 mm). Horizontal margins >2.0 mm occurred in 70.6% of specimens; 21.6% of ≤2.0 mm specimens had a tumour-positive margin. Subsequent wide local excision identified residual melanoma in 9.6% of specimens, which was not associated (P = 0.3) with primary horizontal margin ≤2.0 mm. Mean deep margin of hospital biopsies (6.5 mm; s.d. 2.7 mm) was greater (P < 0.001) than in other biopsies (4.1 mm; s.d. 2.7 mm). Horizontal margin >2.0 mm specimens had greater (P < 0.001) mean deep margin (5.9 mm; s.d. 2.7 mm) than specimens with horizontal margin ≤2.0 mm (mean deep margin 3.3 mm; s.d. 2.7 mm). Deep margin ≤2.0 mm (19.0%) was independently associated with the facility where biopsy was performed (P = 0.001) and horizontal margin (P < 0.001).
DISCUSSION: The New Zealand biopsy deep margin recommendation does not lend itself to meaningful audit. Compliance with the horizontal margin recommendation was low, but of uncertain clinical significance.
KEYWORDS: audit, clinical; biopsy, skin; guideline adherence; melanoma, cutaneous malignant; New Zealand
References
[1] New Zealand Ministry of Health. Cancer: New registrations and deaths 2013. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Health; 2016.[2] Australian Cancer Network Melanoma Guidelines Revision Working Party. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Melanoma in Australia and New Zealand. Wellington: The Cancer Council Australia and Australian Cancer Network, Sydney and New Zealand Guidelines Group; 2008.
[3] National Melanoma Tumour Standards Working Group. Standards of Service Provision for Melanoma Patients in New Zealand - Provisional. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Health; 2013.
[4] Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), Cancer Staging Manual. 7th edn. New York: Springer; 2010.
[5] Roberts DL, Anstey AV, Barlow RJ, et al. UK guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 2002; 146 7–17.
| UK guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[6] Coit DG, Thompson JA, Andtbacka R, et al. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Melanoma (Version 4.2014). Fort Washington: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2014.