HYPOTHESIS: The status of the sentinel node (SN) confers important prognostic information for patients with thin melanoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We queried our melanoma database to identify patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy for thin (< or =1.00-mm) cutaneous melanoma at a tertiary care cancer institute. Slides of tumor-positive SNs were reviewed by a melanoma pathologist to confirm nodal status and intranodal tumor burden, defined as isolated tumor cells, micrometastasis, or macrometastasis (< or =0.20, 0.21-2.00, or >2.00 mm, respectively). Nodal status was correlated with patient age and primary tumor depth (< or = 0.25, 0.26-0.50, 0.51-0.75, or 0.76-1.00 mm). Survival was determined by log-rank test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease-free and melanoma-specific survival. RESULTS: Of 1592 patients who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy from 1991 to 2004, 631 (40%) had thin melanomas; 31 of the 631 patients (5%) had a tumor-positive SN. At a median follow-up of 57 months for the 631 patients, the mean (SD) 10-year rate of disease-free survival was 96% (1%) vs 54% (10%) for patients with tumor-negative vs tumor-positive SNs, respectively (P < .001); the mean (SD) 10-year rate of melanoma-specific survival was 98% (1%) vs 83% (8%), respectively (P < .001). Tumor-positive SNs were more common in patients aged 50 years and younger (P = .04). The SN status maintained importance on multivariate analysis for both disease-free survival (P < .001) and melanoma-specific survival (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The status of the SN is significantly linked to survival in patients with thin melanoma. Therefore, sentinel lymph node biopsy should be considered to obtain complete prognostic information.
HYPOTHESIS: The status of the sentinel node (SN) confers important prognostic information for patients with thin melanoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We queried our melanoma database to identify patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy for thin (< or =1.00-mm) cutaneous melanoma at a tertiary care cancer institute. Slides of tumor-positive SNs were reviewed by a melanoma pathologist to confirm nodal status and intranodal tumor burden, defined as isolated tumor cells, micrometastasis, or macrometastasis (< or =0.20, 0.21-2.00, or >2.00 mm, respectively). Nodal status was correlated with patient age and primary tumor depth (< or = 0.25, 0.26-0.50, 0.51-0.75, or 0.76-1.00 mm). Survival was determined by log-rank test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease-free and melanoma-specific survival. RESULTS: Of 1592 patients who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy from 1991 to 2004, 631 (40%) had thin melanomas; 31 of the 631 patients (5%) had a tumor-positive SN. At a median follow-up of 57 months for the 631 patients, the mean (SD) 10-year rate of disease-free survival was 96% (1%) vs 54% (10%) for patients with tumor-negative vs tumor-positive SNs, respectively (P < .001); the mean (SD) 10-year rate of melanoma-specific survival was 98% (1%) vs 83% (8%), respectively (P < .001). Tumor-positive SNs were more common in patients aged 50 years and younger (P = .04). The SN status maintained importance on multivariate analysis for both disease-free survival (P < .001) and melanoma-specific survival (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The status of the SN is significantly linked to survival in patients with thin melanoma. Therefore, sentinel lymph node biopsy should be considered to obtain complete prognostic information.
Authors: Richard J Bleicher; Richard Essner; Leland J Foshag; Leslie A Wanek; Donald L Morton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C M Balch; S Soong; M I Ross; M M Urist; C P Karakousis; W J Temple; M C Mihm; R L Barnhill; W R Jewell; H J Wanebo; R Harrison Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Matthew F Kalady; Rebekah R White; Jeffrey L Johnson; Douglas S Tyler; Hilliard F Seigler Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Douglas S Reintgen; James W Jakub; Solange Pendas; Gray Swor; Rosemary Giuliano; Steve Shivers Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Roderick R Turner; Donald L Weaver; Gabor Cserni; Susan C Lester; Karen Hirsch; David A Elashoff; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Giuseppe Viale; Giovanni Mazzarol; Julio A Ibarra; Stuart J Schnitt; Armando E Giuliano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K M Joyce; N M McInerney; C W Joyce; D M Jones; A J Hussey; P Donnellan; M J Kerin; J L Kelly; P J Regan Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 1.568
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: Edmund K Bartlett; Phyllis A Gimotty; Andrew J Sinnamon; Heather Wachtel; Robert E Roses; Lynn Schuchter; Xiaowei Xu; David E Elder; Michael Ming; Rosalie Elenitsas; DuPont Guerry; Rachel R Kelz; Brian J Czerniecki; Douglas L Fraker; Giorgos C Karakousis Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-10-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Andrew J Sinnamon; Madalyn G Neuwirth; Pratyusha Yalamanchi; Phyllis Gimotty; David E Elder; Xiaowei Xu; Rachel R Kelz; Robert E Roses; Emily Y Chu; Michael E Ming; Douglas L Fraker; Giorgos C Karakousis Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 10.282