Background: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy allows surgeons to identify patients with subclinical nodal involvement who may benefit from lymphadenectomy and, possibly, adjuvant therapy. Several factors have been variably, and sometimes discordantly, reported to have predictive value for SLN metastasis to best select which patients require SLN biopsy.Methods: We reviewed 419 patients who underwent SLN biopsy for melanoma from a prospectively collected melanoma database. To derive a probabilistic model for the occurrence of a positive SLN, a multivariate logistic model was fit by using a stepwise variable selection method. The accuracy of each model was evaluated by using receiver operator characteristic curves.Results: On univariate analysis, the number of mitoses per square millimeter, increasing Breslow depth, decreasing age, ulceration, and melanoma on the trunk showed a significant relationship to a positive SLN. Multivariate analysis revealed that once age, mitotic rate, and Breslow thickness were included, no other factor, including ulceration, was significantly associated with a positive SLN. The data suggest that younger patients with tumors Ͻ1 mm may still have a substantial risk for a positive SLN, especially if the mitotic rate is high.Conclusions: In addition to Breslow depth, mitoses per square millimeter and younger age were factors identified as independent predictors of a positive SLN. This model may identify patients with thin melanoma at sufficient risk for metastases to justify SLN biopsy.

Despite the study findings, the larger question (stated above) remains essentially unanswered in the literature. The authors propose a call to action by various professional groups and organizations to use rigorous and complex research efforts to seek answers to this very important question.

The observation of promoter methylation in the non-neoplastic cells of the prostate tumor microenvironment may advance our understanding of prostate cancer development and progression and lead to new diagnostic and prognostic markers and therapeutic targets.

Women represent approximately half of students entering medical schools and more than half of those entering PhD programs. When advancing through the academic and professional fields, however, women continually face barriers that men do not. In this Commentary, the authors offer ideas for coordinating the efforts of organizations, academic institutions, and leaders throughout the scientific and medical professions to reduce barriers that result in inequities and, instead, strive for gender parity. Specific areas of focus outlined by the authors include facilitating women’s access to formal and informal professional networks, acknowledging and addressing the gender pay gap as well as the lack of research funding awarded to women in the field, and updating workplace policies that have not evolved to accommodate women’s lifestyles. As academic institutions seek access to top talent and the means to develop those individuals capable of generating the change medicine and science needs, the authors urge leaders and change agents within academic medicine to address the systemic barriers to gender equity that impede us from achieving the mission to improve the health of all.