Bernard Mark Smithers

Dr. Bernard Mark Smithers


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

41Years (1986-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 July 2011 in The Lancet Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KSKatrin Marie Sjoquist
Katrin Marie Sjoquist
BBBryan H Burmeister
Bryan H Burmeister
BSBernard Mark Smithers
Bernard Mark Smithers
JZJohn R Zalcberg
John R Zalcberg
RSR John Simes
R John Simes
VGVal Gebski
Val Gebski

13 February 2014 in New England Journal of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DMDonald L. Morton
Donald L. Morton
JTJohn F. Thompson
John F. Thompson
ACAlistair J. Cochran
Alistair J. Cochran
NMNicola Mozzillo
Nicola Mozzillo
ONOmgo E. Nieweg
Omgo E. Nieweg
MFMark B. Faries
Mark B. Faries
Sentinel-node biopsy, a minimally invasive procedure for regional melanoma staging, was evaluated in a phase 3 trial. We evaluated outcomes in 2001 patients with primary cutaneous melanomas randomly assigned to undergo wide excision and nodal observation, with lymphadenectomy for nodal relapse (observation group), or wide excision and sentinel-node biopsy, with immediate lymphadenectomy for nodal metastases detected on biopsy (biopsy group). No significant treatment-related difference in the 10-year melanoma-specific survival rate was seen in the overall study population (20.8% with and 79.2% without nodal metastases). Mean (±SE) 10-year disease-free survival rates were significantly improved in the biopsy group, as compared with the observation group, among patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas, defined as 1.20 to 3.50 mm (71.3±1.8% vs. 64.7±2.3%; hazard ratio for recurrence or metastasis, 0.76; P=0.01), and those with thick melanomas, defined as >3.50 mm (50.7±4.0% vs. 40.5±4.7%; hazard ratio, 0.70; P=0.03). Among patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas, the 10-year melanoma-specific survival rate was 62.1±4.8% among those with metastasis versus 85.1±1.5% for those without metastasis (hazard ratio for death from melanoma, 3.09; P<0.001); among patients with thick melanomas, the respective rates were 48.0±7.0% and 64.6±4.9% (hazard ratio, 1.75; P=0.03). Biopsy-based management improved the 10-year rate of distant disease–free survival (hazard ratio for distant metastasis, 0.62; P=0.02) and the 10-year rate of melanoma-specific survival (hazard ratio for death from melanoma, 0.56; P=0.006) for patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas and nodal metastases. Accelerated-failure-time latent-subgroup analysis was performed to account for the fact that nodal status was initially known only in the biopsy group, and a significant treatment benefit persisted. Biopsy-based staging of intermediate-thickness or thick primary melanomas provides important prognostic information and identifies patients with nodal metastases who may benefit from immediate complete lymphadenectomy. Biopsy-based management prolongs disease-free survival for all patients and prolongs distant disease–free survival and melanoma-specific survival for patients with nodal metastases from intermediate-thickness melanomas. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and the Australia and New Zealand Melanoma Trials Group; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00275496.)

8 June 2017 in New England Journal of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MFMark B Faries
Mark B Faries
JTJohn F. Thompson
John F. Thompson
ACAlistair J. Cochran
Alistair J. Cochran
RARobert H. Andtbacka
Robert H. Andtbacka
NMNicola Mozzillo
Nicola Mozzillo
RERobert M. Elashoff
Robert M. Elashoff
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.)

1 August 2015 in Annals of Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
DLDonald E Low
Donald E Low
DADerek Alderson
Derek Alderson
ICIvan Cecconello
Ivan Cecconello
ACAndrew C. Chang
Andrew C. Chang
GDGail E. Darling
Gail E. Darling
JLJ. Jan B. van Lanschot
J. Jan B. van Lanschot
Perioperative complications influence long- and short-term outcomes after esophagectomy. The absence of a standardized system for defining and recording complications and quality measures after esophageal resection has meant that there is wide variation in evaluating their impact on these outcomes. The Esophageal Complications Consensus Group comprised 21 high-volume esophageal surgeons from 14 countries, supported by all the major thoracic and upper gastrointestinal professional societies. Delphi surveys and group meetings were used to achieve a consensus on standardized methods for defining complications and quality measures that could be collected in institutional databases and national audits. A standardized list of complications was created to provide a template for recording individual complications associated with esophagectomy. Where possible, these were linked to preexisting international definitions. A Delphi survey facilitated production of specific definitions for anastomotic leak, conduit necrosis, chyle leak, and recurrent nerve palsy. An additional Delphi survey documented consensus regarding critical quality parameters recommended for routine inclusion in databases. These quality parameters were documentation on mortality, comorbidities, completeness of data collection, blood transfusion, grading of complication severity, changes in level of care, discharge location, and readmission rates. The proposed system for defining and recording perioperative complications associated with esophagectomy provides an infrastructure to standardize international data collection and facilitate future comparative studies and quality improvement projects.

1 March 2007 in The Lancet Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
VGVal Gebski
Val Gebski
BBBryan Burmeister
Bryan Burmeister
BSBernard Mark Smithers
Bernard Mark Smithers
KFKerwyn Foo
Kerwyn Foo
JZJohn Zalcberg
John Zalcberg
JSJohn Simes
John Simes

1 September 2005 in The Lancet Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BBBryan H Burmeister
Bryan H Burmeister
BSBernard Mark Smithers
Bernard Mark Smithers
VGVal Gebski
Val Gebski
LFLara Fitzgerald
Lara Fitzgerald
RSR John Simes
R John Simes
JDJames W Denham
James W Denham