C

Charles M. Balch

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

ORCID: 0000-0002-0482-3157

Publishes on Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management, Melanoma and MAPK Pathways, Advances in Oncology and Radiotherapy. 572 papers and 45.3k citations.

572Publications
45.3kTotal Citations

Is this you? Claim your profile.

Add your photo, update your bio, and get notified when your ranking changes.

Top publicationsby citations

Final Version of 2009 AJCC Melanoma Staging and Classification
Charles M. Balch, Jeffrey E. Gershenwald, Seng-Jaw Soong et al.|Journal of Clinical Oncology|2009
Cited by 4.6kOpen Access

PURPOSE: To revise the staging system for cutaneous melanoma on the basis of data from an expanded American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Melanoma Staging Database. METHODS: The melanoma staging recommendations were made on the basis of a multivariate analysis of 30,946 patients with stages I, II, and III melanoma and 7,972 patients with stage IV melanoma to revise and clarify TNM classifications and stage grouping criteria. RESULTS: Findings and new definitions include the following: (1) in patients with localized melanoma, tumor thickness, mitotic rate (histologically defined as mitoses/mm(2)), and ulceration were the most dominant prognostic factors. (2) Mitotic rate replaces level of invasion as a primary criterion for defining T1b melanomas. (3) Among the 3,307 patients with regional metastases, components that defined the N category were the number of metastatic nodes, tumor burden, and ulceration of the primary melanoma. (4) For staging purposes, all patients with microscopic nodal metastases, regardless of extent of tumor burden, are classified as stage III. Micrometastases detected by immunohistochemistry are specifically included. (5) On the basis of a multivariate analysis of patients with distant metastases, the two dominant components in defining the M category continue to be the site of distant metastases (nonvisceral v lung v all other visceral metastatic sites) and an elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase level. CONCLUSION: Using an evidence-based approach, revisions to the AJCC melanoma staging system have been made that reflect our improved understanding of this disease. These revisions will be formally incorporated into the seventh edition (2009) of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual and implemented by early 2010.

Final Version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging System for Cutaneous Melanoma
Charles M. Balch, Antônio C. Buzaid, Seng‐Jaw Soong et al.|Journal of Clinical Oncology|2001
Cited by 2.7k

PURPOSE: To revise the staging system for cutaneous melanoma under the auspices of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prognostic factors analysis described in the companion publication (this issue), as well as evidence from the published literature, was used to assemble the tumor-node-metastasis criteria and stage grouping for the melanoma staging system. RESULTS: Major changes include (1) melanoma thickness and ulceration but not level of invasion to be used in the T category (except for T1 melanomas); (2) the number of metastatic lymph nodes rather than their gross dimensions and the delineation of clinically occult (ie, microscopic) versus clinically apparent (ie, macroscopic) nodal metastases to be used in the N category; (3) the site of distant metastases and the presence of elevated serum lactic dehydrogenase to be used in the M category; (4) an upstaging of all patients with stage I, II, and III disease when a primary melanoma is ulcerated; (5) a merging of satellite metastases around a primary melanoma and in-transit metastases into a single staging entity that is grouped into stage III disease; and (6) a new convention for defining clinical and pathologic staging so as to take into account the staging information gained from intraoperative lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy. CONCLUSION: This revision will become official with publication of the sixth edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual in the year 2002.

Prognostic Factors Analysis of 17,600 Melanoma Patients: Validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Melanoma Staging System
Charles M. Balch, Seng‐Jaw Soong, Jeffrey E. Gershenwald et al.|Journal of Clinical Oncology|2001
Cited by 2.4k

PURPOSE: The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) recently proposed major revisions of the tumor-node-metastases (TNM) categories and stage groupings for cutaneous melanoma. Thirteen cancer centers and cancer cooperative groups contributed staging and survival data from a total of 30,450 melanoma patients from their databases in order to validate this staging proposal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: There were 17,600 melanoma patients with complete clinical, pathologic, and follow-up information. Factors predicting melanoma-specific survival rates were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Follow-up survival data for 5 years or longer were available for 73% of the patients. RESULTS: This analysis demonstrated that (1) in the T category, tumor thickness and ulceration were the most powerful predictors of survival, and the level of invasion had a significant impact only within the subgroup of thin (< or = 1 mm) melanomas; (2) in the N category, the following three independent factors were identified: the number of metastatic nodes, whether nodal metastases were clinically occult or clinically apparent, and the presence or absence of primary tumor ulceration; and (3) in the M category, nonvisceral metastases was associated with a better survival compared with visceral metastases. A marked diversity in the natural history of pathologic stage III melanoma was demonstrated by five-fold differences in 5-year survival rates for defined subgroups. This analysis also demonstrated that large and complex data sets could be used effectively to examine prognosis and survival outcome in melanoma patients. CONCLUSION: The results of this evidence-based methodology were incorporated into the AJCC melanoma staging as described in the companion publication.

Melanoma staging: Evidence‐based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual
Jeffrey E. Gershenwald, Richard A. Scolyer, Kenneth R. Hess et al.|CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians|2017
Cited by 2.3kOpen Access

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE To update the melanoma staging system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) a large database was assembled comprising >46,000 patients from 10 centers worldwide with stages I, II, and III melanoma diagnosed since 1998. Based on analyses of this new database, the existing seventh edition AJCC stage IV database, and contemporary clinical trial data, the AJCC Melanoma Expert Panel introduced several important changes to the Tumor, Nodes, Metastasis (TNM) classification and stage grouping criteria. Key changes in the eighth edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual include: 1) tumor thickness measurements to be recorded to the nearest 0.1 mm, not 0.01 mm; 2) definitions of T1a and T1b are revised (T1a, <0.8 mm without ulceration; T1b, 0.8-1.0 mm with or without ulceration or <0.8 mm with ulceration), with mitotic rate no longer a T category criterion; 3) pathological (but not clinical) stage IA is revised to include T1b N0 M0 (formerly pathologic stage IB); 4) the N category descriptors "microscopic" and "macroscopic" for regional node metastasis are redefined as "clinically occult" and "clinically apparent"; 5) prognostic stage III groupings are based on N category criteria and T category criteria (ie, primary tumor thickness and ulceration) and increased from 3 to 4 subgroups (stages IIIA-IIID); 6) definitions of N subcategories are revised, with the presence of microsatellites, satellites, or in-transit metastases now categorized as N1c, N2c, or N3c based on the number of tumor-involved regional lymph nodes, if any; 7) descriptors are added to each M1 subcategory designation for lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (LDH elevation no longer upstages to M1c); and 8) a new M1d designation is added for central nervous system metastases. This evidence-based revision of the AJCC melanoma staging system will guide patient treatment, provide better prognostic estimates, and refine stratification of patients entering clinical trials. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:472-492. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Burnout and Medical Errors Among American Surgeons
Cited by 2.1k

In Brief Objective: To evaluate the relationship between burnout and perceived major medical errors among American surgeons. Background: Despite efforts to improve patient safety, medical errors by physicians remain a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Methods: Members of the American College of Surgeons were sent an anonymous, cross-sectional survey in June 2008. The survey included self-assessment of major medical errors, a validated depression screening tool, and standardized assessments of burnout and quality of life (QOL). Results: Of 7905 participating surgeons, 700 (8.9%) reported concern they had made a major medical error in the last 3 months. Over 70% of surgeons attributed the error to individual rather than system level factors. Reporting an error during the last 3 months had a large, statistically significant adverse relationship with mental QOL, all 3 domains of burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment) and symptoms of depression. Each one point increase in depersonalization (scale range, 0–33) was associated with an 11% increase in the likelihood of reporting an error while each one point increase in emotional exhaustion (scale range, 0–54) was associated with a 5% increase. Burnout and depression remained independent predictors of reporting a recent major medical error on multivariate analysis that controlled for other personal and professional factors. The frequency of overnight call, practice setting, method of compensation, and number of hours worked were not associated with errors on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Major medical errors reported by surgeons are strongly related to a surgeon's degree of burnout and their mental QOL. Studies are needed to determine how to reduce surgeon distress and how to support surgeons when medical errors occur. This study evaluated the relationship between surgeon burnout and perceived major medical errors in a national sample of American surgeons. Of 7905 participating surgeons, 700 (8.9%) reported having made a major medical error in the last 3 months. Burnout and depression remained independent predictors of reporting a recent major medical error on multivariate analysis that controlled for other personal and professional factors.