BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sentinel lymph node biopsy is widely accepted as standard care in melanoma despite lack of pertinent randomized trials results. A possible pitfall of this procedure is the inaccurate identification of the sentinel lymph node leading to biopsy and analysis of a nonsentinel node. Such a technical failure may yield a different prognosis. The purpose of this study is to analyze the incidence of false negativity and its impact on clinical outcome and to try to understand its causes. METHODS: The Melanoma Data Base at National Cancer Institute of Naples was analyzed comparing results between false-negative and tumor-positive sentinel node patients focusing on overall survival and prognostic factors influencing the clinical outcome. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-one cases were diagnosed to be tumor-positive after sentinel lymph node biopsy and were subjected to complete lymph node dissection. Thirty-four (18.4%)patients with tumor-negative sentinel node subsequently developed lymph node metastases in the basin site of the sentinel procedure. With a median follow-up of 42.8 months the 5-year overall survival was 48.4% and 66.3% for false-negative and tumor-positive group respectively with significant statistical differences (P < .03). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of sentinel lymph node biopsy was 81.6%, and a regional nodal basin recurrence after negative-sentinel node biopsy means a worse prognosis, compared with patients submitted to complete lymph node dissection after a positive sentinel biopsy. The evidence of higher number of tumor-positive nodes after delayed lymphadenectomy in false-negative group compared with tumor-positive sentinel node cases, confirmed the importance of an early staging of lymph nodal involvement. Further data will better clarify the role of prognostic factors to identify cases with a more aggressive biological behavior of the disease.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sentinel lymph node biopsy is widely accepted as standard care in melanoma despite lack of pertinent randomized trials results. A possible pitfall of this procedure is the inaccurate identification of the sentinel lymph node leading to biopsy and analysis of a nonsentinel node. Such a technical failure may yield a different prognosis. The purpose of this study is to analyze the incidence of false negativity and its impact on clinical outcome and to try to understand its causes. METHODS: The Melanoma Data Base at National Cancer Institute of Naples was analyzed comparing results between false-negative and tumor-positive sentinel node patients focusing on overall survival and prognostic factors influencing the clinical outcome. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-one cases were diagnosed to be tumor-positive after sentinel lymph node biopsy and were subjected to complete lymph node dissection. Thirty-four (18.4%)patients with tumor-negative sentinel node subsequently developed lymph node metastases in the basin site of the sentinel procedure. With a median follow-up of 42.8 months the 5-year overall survival was 48.4% and 66.3% for false-negative and tumor-positive group respectively with significant statistical differences (P < .03). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of sentinel lymph node biopsy was 81.6%, and a regional nodal basin recurrence after negative-sentinel node biopsy means a worse prognosis, compared with patients submitted to complete lymph node dissection after a positive sentinel biopsy. The evidence of higher number of tumor-positive nodes after delayed lymphadenectomy in false-negative group compared with tumor-positive sentinel node cases, confirmed the importance of an early staging of lymph nodal involvement. Further data will better clarify the role of prognostic factors to identify cases with a more aggressive biological behavior of the disease.
Authors: Annette H Chakera; Birger Hesse; Zeynep Burak; James R Ballinger; Allan Britten; Corrado Caracò; Alistair J Cochran; Martin G Cook; Krzysztof T Drzewiecki; Richard Essner; Einat Even-Sapir; Alexander M M Eggermont; Tanja Gmeiner Stopar; Christian Ingvar; Martin C Mihm; Stanley W McCarthy; Nicola Mozzillo; Omgo E Nieweg; Richard A Scolyer; Hans Starz; John F Thompson; Giuseppe Trifirò; Giuseppe Viale; Sergi Vidal-Sicart; Roger Uren; Wendy Waddington; Arturo Chiti; Alain Spatz; Alessandro Testori Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lynn T Dengel; Mitali J More; Patricia G Judy; Gina R Petroni; Mark E Smolkin; Patrice K Rehm; Stan Majewski; Mark B Williams; Craig L Slingluff Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Maxine S Emmett; Kirsty E Symonds; Howard Rigby; Martin G Cook; Rebecca Price; Chris Metcalfe; Antonio Orlando; David O Bates Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: David Y Lee; Kelly T Huynh; Annabelle Teng; Briana J Lau; Sarah Vitug; Ji-Hey Lee; Stacey L Stern; Leland J Foshag; Mark B Faries Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Daniel Eiger; Daniel Arcuschin de Oliveira; Renato Leão de Oliveira; Murilo Costa Sousa; Mireille Darc Cavalcante Brandão; Renato Santos de Oliveira Filho Journal: An Bras Dermatol Date: 2018 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.896
Authors: Lutz Kretschmer; Hans Peter Bertsch; Antonia Zapf; Christina Mitteldorf; Imke Satzger; Kai-Martin Thoms; Bernward Völker; Michael Peter Schön; Ralf Gutzmer; Hans Starz Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 1.817