HYPOTHESIS: The number of nodal basins draining a primary cutaneous melanoma is not an independent predictor of outcome. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of patients entered into a randomized, prospective study. SETTING: Multi-institutional academic and community medical centers. PATIENTS: Patients aged 18 to 70 years with melanoma 1.0 mm or greater Breslow thickness. INTERVENTIONS: Wide local excision and sentinel lymph node biopsy were performed on all patients; patients with sentinel lymph node metastases underwent completion lymphadenectomy. Patients with multiple-nodal basin drainage were compared with those with single-nodal basin drainage. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sentinel lymph node status, locoregional recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 2060 patients with single-nodal basin drainage (n = 1709 [83% of cohort]) were included in the analysis, with a median follow-up of 50 months. On univariate analysis, the group with multiple-nodal basin drainage (n = 351) was associated with female sex and primary tumor regression (P < .001). In addition, multiple-nodal basin drainage was associated with truncal primary tumor location (73.2%), while single-nodal basin drainage was more common for extremity tumors (50.9%; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, there were no differences in the rate of sentinel lymph node metastasis, disease-free survival, or overall survival between the groups. Interestingly, locoregional recurrence was significantly worse in the single-nodal basin drainage group (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS:Multiple-nodal basin drainage does not confer a worse prognosis for patients with cutaneous melanoma. In fact, single-nodal basin drainage appears to be associated with a greater risk of locoregional recurrence.
RCT Entities:
HYPOTHESIS: The number of nodal basins draining a primary cutaneous melanoma is not an independent predictor of outcome. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of patients entered into a randomized, prospective study. SETTING: Multi-institutional academic and community medical centers. PATIENTS: Patients aged 18 to 70 years with melanoma 1.0 mm or greater Breslow thickness. INTERVENTIONS: Wide local excision and sentinel lymph node biopsy were performed on all patients; patients with sentinel lymph node metastases underwent completion lymphadenectomy. Patients with multiple-nodal basin drainage were compared with those with single-nodal basin drainage. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sentinel lymph node status, locoregional recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 2060 patients with single-nodal basin drainage (n = 1709 [83% of cohort]) were included in the analysis, with a median follow-up of 50 months. On univariate analysis, the group with multiple-nodal basin drainage (n = 351) was associated with female sex and primary tumor regression (P < .001). In addition, multiple-nodal basin drainage was associated with truncal primary tumor location (73.2%), while single-nodal basin drainage was more common for extremity tumors (50.9%; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, there were no differences in the rate of sentinel lymph node metastasis, disease-free survival, or overall survival between the groups. Interestingly, locoregional recurrence was significantly worse in the single-nodal basin drainage group (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple-nodal basin drainage does not confer a worse prognosis for patients with cutaneous melanoma. In fact, single-nodal basin drainage appears to be associated with a greater risk of locoregional recurrence.
Authors: Antonio Piñero; Carlos de Torre; Jorge Martínez-Escribano; Juana Campillo; Manuel Canteras; Francisco Nicolás Journal: World J Surg Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Richard L White; Gregory D Ayers; Virginia H Stell; Shouluan Ding; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Jonathan C Salo; Barbara A Pockaj; Richard Essner; Mark Faries; Kim James Charney; Eli Avisar; Axel Hauschild; Friederike Egberts; Bruce J Averbook; Carlos A Garberoglio; John T Vetto; Merrick I Ross; David Chu; Vijay Trisal; Harald Hoekstra; Eric Whitman; Harold J Wanebo; Daniel Debonis; Michael Vezeridis; Aaron Chevinsky; Mohammed Kashani-Sabet; Yu Shyr; Lynne Berry; Zhiguo Zhao; Seng-Jaw Soong; Stanley P L Leong Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Stephen P Povoski; Ryan L Neff; Cathy M Mojzisik; David M O'Malley; George H Hinkle; Nathan C Hall; Douglas A Murrey; Michael V Knopp; Edward W Martin Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Francisca Jácome Morgado; Paula Soeiro; Ana Brinca; André Pinho; Ricardo Vieira Journal: An Bras Dermatol Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 1.896
Authors: Lutz Kretschmer; Carsten-Oliver Sahlmann; Pavel Bardzik; Christina Mitteldorf; Hans-Joachim Helms; Johannes Meller; Michael Peter Schön; Hans Peter Bertsch Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-01-12 Impact factor: 5.344