BACKGROUND: Sentinel node (SN) status is the most important prognostic indicator in patients with cutaneous melanoma without clinically evident metastatic spread, but the procedure is associated with considerable morbidity. The LYVE-1 lymphatic marker offers the possibility of studying lymphangiogenesis and tumour metastasis within the primary excision. AIMS: To establish whether lymphatic vessel numbers/distribution within the primary tumour correlated with SN status. To assess whether tumour cells were easily demonstrable within lymphatics and could be used as a surrogate for SN status. METHODS: Double immunostaining for LYVE-1 and S100 in cutaneous biopsies from 18 SN+ patients with no lymphatic/vascular involvement on routine histology and 18 SN- patients matched for tumour thickness and ulceration. RESULTS: Lymphatic vessels were detected in all cases. Vessels within the tumour mass were suggestive of active lymphangiogenesis; those outside were mainly mature vessels with well defined walls. Tumour cells within lymphatics were detected in one of 18 SN- and five of 18 SN+ patients. Lymphatics containing tumour cells were all outside the tumour mass in well formed vessels, suggesting melanoma cell invasion into preformed lymphatics. There was no significant difference in lymphatic counts between SN+ and SN- patients. Although peritumorous lymphatic counts were higher in ulcerated than non-ulcerated melanomas, they did not vary with Breslow thickness. CONCLUSION: LYVE-1 staining can reliably demonstrate lymphatic vessel distribution, but lymphatic counts cannot predict melanoma metastatic potential and cannot substitute for SN biopsy. LYVE-1 immunostaining can detect melanoma cells within lymphatics, but is unreliable in predicting melanoma metastasis, failing to detect metastatic spread in more than two thirds of patients with regional node metastasis.
BACKGROUND: Sentinel node (SN) status is the most important prognostic indicator in patients with cutaneous melanoma without clinically evident metastatic spread, but the procedure is associated with considerable morbidity. The LYVE-1 lymphatic marker offers the possibility of studying lymphangiogenesis and tumour metastasis within the primary excision. AIMS: To establish whether lymphatic vessel numbers/distribution within the primary tumour correlated with SN status. To assess whether tumour cells were easily demonstrable within lymphatics and could be used as a surrogate for SN status. METHODS: Double immunostaining for LYVE-1 and S100 in cutaneous biopsies from 18 SN+ patients with no lymphatic/vascular involvement on routine histology and 18 SN- patients matched for tumour thickness and ulceration. RESULTS: Lymphatic vessels were detected in all cases. Vessels within the tumour mass were suggestive of active lymphangiogenesis; those outside were mainly mature vessels with well defined walls. Tumour cells within lymphatics were detected in one of 18 SN- and five of 18 SN+ patients. Lymphatics containing tumour cells were all outside the tumour mass in well formed vessels, suggesting melanoma cell invasion into preformed lymphatics. There was no significant difference in lymphatic counts between SN+ and SN- patients. Although peritumorous lymphatic counts were higher in ulcerated than non-ulcerated melanomas, they did not vary with Breslow thickness. CONCLUSION:LYVE-1 staining can reliably demonstrate lymphatic vessel distribution, but lymphatic counts cannot predict melanoma metastatic potential and cannot substitute for SN biopsy. LYVE-1 immunostaining can detect melanoma cells within lymphatics, but is unreliable in predicting melanoma metastasis, failing to detect metastatic spread in more than two thirds of patients with regional node metastasis.
Authors: H J Blaheta; U Ellwanger; B Schittek; K Sotlar; E MacZey; H Breuninger; M H Thelen; B Bueltmann; G Rassner; C Garbe Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: W Li; A Stall; S C Shivers; J Lin; F Haddad; J Messina; L F Glass; G Lyman; D S Reintgen Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: R F Uren; R Howman-Giles; J F Thompson; H M Shaw; M J Quinn; C J O'Brien; W H McCarthy Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: K J Busam; M Berwick; K Blessing; K Fandrey; S Kang; T Karaoli; J Fine; A J Cochran; W L White; J Rivers Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: D Reintgen; C W Cruse; K Wells; C Berman; N Fenske; F Glass; K Schroer; R Heller; M Ross; G Lyman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: X Wang; R Heller; N VanVoorhis; C W Cruse; F Glass; N Fenske; C Berman; J Leo-Messina; D Rappaport; K Wells Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Amy E Rose; Paul J Christos; Dan Lackaye; Richard L Shapiro; Russell Berman; Madhu Mazumdar; Hideko Kamino; Iman Osman; Farbod Darvishian Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Xiaowei Xu; Phyllis A Gimotty; Dupont Guerry; Giorgos Karakousis; Patricia Van Belle; Haohai Liang; Katharine Montone; Terry Pasha; Michael E Ming; Geza Acs; Michael Feldman; Stephen Barth; Rachel Hammond; Rosalie Elenitsas; Paul J Zhang; David E Elder Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2008-04-28 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Sarah J Storr; Sabreena Safuan; Angana Mitra; Faye Elliott; Christopher Walker; Mark J Vasko; Bernard Ho; Martin Cook; Rabab A A Mohammed; Poulam M Patel; Ian O Ellis; Julia A Newton-Bishop; Stewart G Martin Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 7.842