PURPOSE: We and others have demonstrated that additional positive lymph nodes (LNs) are identified in only 8% to 33% of patients with melanoma who have positive sentinel LNs (SLNs) and undergo complete therapeutic LN dissection (cTLND). We sought to determine predictors of additional regional LN involvement in patients with positive SLNs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinically node-negative melanoma who underwent SLN biopsy (1991 to 2003) and had positive SLNs were identified. Clinicopathologic factors, including extent of microscopic disease within SLNs, were evaluated as potential predictors of positive non-SLNs. RESULTS: Overall, 359 (16.3%) of the 2,203 patients identified had a positive SLN. Positive non-SLNs were identified in 48 (14.0%) of the 343 patients with positive SLNs who underwent cTLND. On univariate analysis, several measures of SLN microscopic tumor burden, one versus three or more SLNs harvested, tumor thickness more than 2 mm, age older than 50 years, and Clark level higher than III were predictive of positive non-SLNs; primary tumor ulceration and number of positive SLNs had no apparent impact. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, measures of SLN microscopic tumor burden were the most significant independent predictors of positive non-SLNs; tumor thickness more than 2 mm and number of SLNs harvested also predicted additional disease. A model was developed that stratified patients according to their risk for non-SLN involvement. CONCLUSION: In melanoma patients with positive SLNs, SLN tumor burden, primary tumor thickness, and number of SLNs harvested may be useful in identifying a group at low risk for positive non-SLNs and be spared the potential morbidity of a cTLND.
PURPOSE: We and others have demonstrated that additional positive lymph nodes (LNs) are identified in only 8% to 33% of patients with melanoma who have positive sentinel LNs (SLNs) and undergo complete therapeutic LN dissection (cTLND). We sought to determine predictors of additional regional LN involvement in patients with positive SLNs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinically node-negative melanoma who underwent SLN biopsy (1991 to 2003) and had positive SLNs were identified. Clinicopathologic factors, including extent of microscopic disease within SLNs, were evaluated as potential predictors of positive non-SLNs. RESULTS: Overall, 359 (16.3%) of the 2,203 patients identified had a positive SLN. Positive non-SLNs were identified in 48 (14.0%) of the 343 patients with positive SLNs who underwent cTLND. On univariate analysis, several measures of SLN microscopic tumor burden, one versus three or more SLNs harvested, tumor thickness more than 2 mm, age older than 50 years, and Clark level higher than III were predictive of positive non-SLNs; primary tumor ulceration and number of positive SLNs had no apparent impact. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, measures of SLN microscopic tumor burden were the most significant independent predictors of positive non-SLNs; tumor thickness more than 2 mm and number of SLNs harvested also predicted additional disease. A model was developed that stratified patients according to their risk for non-SLN involvement. CONCLUSION: In melanomapatients with positive SLNs, SLN tumor burden, primary tumor thickness, and number of SLNs harvested may be useful in identifying a group at low risk for positive non-SLNs and be spared the potential morbidity of a cTLND.
Authors: Jaime M Ranieri; Jeffrey D Wagner; Rafael Azuaje; D Davidson; Stacie Wenck; Joanne Fyffe; John J Coleman Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Kelly M McMasters; Sandra L Wong; Michael J Edwards; Celia Chao; Merrick I Ross; R Dirk Noyes; Vicki Viar; Patricia B Cerrito; Douglas S Reintgen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: C M Balch; S J Soong; J E Gershenwald; J F Thompson; D S Reintgen; N Cascinelli; M Urist; K M McMasters; M I Ross; J M Kirkwood; M B Atkins; J A Thompson; D G Coit; D Byrd; R Desmond; Y Zhang; P Y Liu; G H Lyman; A Morabito Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-08-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C M Balch; A C Buzaid; S J Soong; M B Atkins; N Cascinelli; D G Coit; I D Fleming; J E Gershenwald; A Houghton; J M Kirkwood; K M McMasters; M F Mihm; D L Morton; D S Reintgen; M I Ross; A Sober; J A Thompson; J F Thompson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-08-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Dessureault; S J Soong; M I Ross; J F Thompson; J M Kirkwood; J E Gershenwald; D G Coit; K M McMasters; C M Balch; D Reintgen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: M P Schijven; A J J M Vingerhoets; H J T Rutten; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; R M H Roumen; M E van Bussel; A C Voogd Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Christina Bluemel; Ken Herrmann; Francesco Giammarile; Omgo E Nieweg; Julien Dubreuil; Alessandro Testori; Riccardo A Audisio; Odysseas Zoras; Michael Lassmann; Annette H Chakera; Roger Uren; Sotirios Chondrogiannis; Patrick M Colletti; Domenico Rubello Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sabran J Masoud; Jennifer A Perone; Norma E Farrow; Paul J Mosca; Douglas S Tyler; Georgia M Beasley Journal: Curr Treat Options Oncol Date: 2018-09-19
Authors: Charles M Balch; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Seng-Jaw Soong; John F Thompson; Shouluan Ding; David R Byrd; Natale Cascinelli; Alistair J Cochran; Daniel G Coit; Alexander M Eggermont; Timothy Johnson; John M Kirkwood; Stanley P Leong; Kelly M McMasters; Martin C Mihm; Donald L Morton; Merrick I Ross; Vernon K Sondak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Piotr Rutkowski; Zbigniew I Nowecki; Alexander C J van Akkooi; Jadwiga Kulik; Michej Wanda; Janusz A Siedlecki; Alexander M M Eggermont; Wlodzimierz Ruka Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-07-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: T Peter Kingham; Katherine S Panageas; Charlotte E Ariyan; Klaus J Busam; Mary Sue Brady; Daniel G Coit Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 5.344