The aim of this meta-analysis was to answer the question as to whether performing CLND (complete lymph node dissection) is necessary in every case of the melanoma patient after the positive SNB (sentinel node biopsy). To resolve doubts the authors reanalyzed previous articles and systematized the knowledge about the concerning medical problem. The databases such as PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were screened to find articles that will be helpful to answer the controversial question if performing lymphadenectomy is crucial. The inclusion criteria consisted of randomized clinical trials, comparison of lymphadenectomy versus observation and positive sentinel node biopsy. After which, seven articles were examined. Authors analyzed parameters such as: recurrence, 3-year survival and 5-year survival. There was no relationship between the performance of CLND and melanoma recurrence (OR 1.04; 95% CI: 0.82–1.31; p = 0.75). However, no CLND group had higher 3-year survival (OR 1.22; 95% CI: 1.03–1.44; p = 0.02) and 5-year survival (OR 1.30; 95% CI: 1.19–1.85; p = 0.008). In conclusion, the observational approach to the melanoma patients with positive sentinel node biopsy is associated with comparable or slightly improved 3- and 5-year survival, then in case of routine lymphadenectomy. Although, in each melanoma patient a decision to perform or withhold lymphadenectomy should always be considered individually. Patients with low perioperative risk could be considered for surgical approach. The study was registered in PROSPERO and was assigned with the unique identifying number “CRD42021241272”.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and melanoma development in renal transplant recipients who receive calcineurin inhibitors to that of patients treated with other immunosuppressive agents, and investigate the possible association between the type of maintenance immunosuppression and the incidence of NSMC and melanoma in this group of patients. The authors searched databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles that would help establish the influence of calcineurin inhibitors on skin cancer development. The inclusion criteria for the study consisted of randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that compared patients who received kidney transplants and were treated with a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI), such as cyclosporine A (CsA) or tacrolimus (Tac), to those who received alternative immunosuppressants and did not receive a CNI. Seven articles were analyzed overall. The results revealed a correlation between CNI treatment in renal transplant recipients and increased total skin cancer risk (OR 1.28; 95% CI: 0.10–16.28; p < 0.01), melanoma risk (OR 1.09; 95% CI: 0.25–4.74; p < 0.01), and NMSC risk (OR 1.16; 95% CI: 0.41–3.26; p < 0.01). In conclusion, the calcineurin inhibitors used after kidney transplantation are associated with a higher risk of skin cancer—both non-melanoma and melanoma—when compared with other immunosuppressive therapies. This finding suggests that careful monitoring for skin lesions in post-transplant patients must be conducted. However, the decision on the kind of immunotherapy used should always be considered on an individual basis for each renal transplant recipient.

To date, there have been multiple studies and clinical guidelines or recommendations for complex management of melanoma patients. The most controversial subjects included the frequency of follow-up. This study provides a coherent and comprehensive comparison of conventional vs. reduced-frequency follow-up strategies for early-stage melanoma patients. The value of our study consists in the precise analysis of a large collection of articles and the selection of the most valuable works in relation to the topic according to rigorous criteria, which allowed for a thorough study of the topic. The search strategy was implemented using multiple databases. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trial or cohort studies that compared the outcomes of a conventional follow-up schedule versus a reduced-frequency follow-up schedule for patients diagnosed with melanoma. In this study, authors analyzed recurrence and 3-year survival. Meta-analysis of outcomes presented by Deckers et al. and Moncrieff et. al. did not reveal a significant difference favoring one of the groups (OR 1.14; 95%CI: 0.65–2.00; p = 0.64). The meta-analysis of 3-year overall survival included two studies. The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in favor of the conventional follow-up group. (OR 1.10; 95%CI: 0.57–2.11; p = 0.79). Our meta-analysis shows that there is no advantage in a conventional follow-up regimen over a reduced-frequency regimen in early-stage melanoma patients.