BACKGROUND: Despite the lack of an established survival benefit of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy, this technique has been increasingly applied in the staging of thin (<or=1 mm) melanoma patients, without clear evidence to support this recommendation. The authors performed a meta-analysis to estimate the risk, potential predictors, and outcome of SLN positivity in this group of patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for rates of SLN positivity in patients with thin melanoma. The methodologic quality of included studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q statistic, and publication bias was examined through funnel plot and the Begg and Mazumdar method. Overall SLN positivity in thin melanoma patients was estimated using the DerSimonial-Laird random effect method. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies comprising 3651 patients met inclusion criteria. The pooled SLN positivity rate was 5.6%. Significant heterogeneity among studies was detected (P = .005). There was no statistical evidence of publication bias (P = .21). Eighteen studies reported select clinical and histopathologic data limited to SLN-positive patients (n = 113). Among the tumors from these patients, 6.1% were ulcerated, 31.5% demonstrated regression, and 47.5% were Clark level IV/V. Only 4 melanoma-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively few patients with thin melanoma have a positive SLN. To the authors' knowledge, there are no clinical or histopathologic criteria that can reliably identify thin melanoma patients who might benefit from this intervention. Given the increasing diagnosis of thin melanoma, in addition to the cost and potential morbidity of this procedure, alternative strategies to identify patients at risk for lymph node disease are needed. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Despite the lack of an established survival benefit of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy, this technique has been increasingly applied in the staging of thin (<or=1 mm) melanomapatients, without clear evidence to support this recommendation. The authors performed a meta-analysis to estimate the risk, potential predictors, and outcome of SLN positivity in this group of patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for rates of SLN positivity in patients with thin melanoma. The methodologic quality of included studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q statistic, and publication bias was examined through funnel plot and the Begg and Mazumdar method. Overall SLN positivity in thin melanomapatients was estimated using the DerSimonial-Laird random effect method. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies comprising 3651 patients met inclusion criteria. The pooled SLN positivity rate was 5.6%. Significant heterogeneity among studies was detected (P = .005). There was no statistical evidence of publication bias (P = .21). Eighteen studies reported select clinical and histopathologic data limited to SLN-positive patients (n = 113). Among the tumors from these patients, 6.1% were ulcerated, 31.5% demonstrated regression, and 47.5% were Clark level IV/V. Only 4 melanoma-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively few patients with thin melanoma have a positive SLN. To the authors' knowledge, there are no clinical or histopathologic criteria that can reliably identify thin melanomapatients who might benefit from this intervention. Given the increasing diagnosis of thin melanoma, in addition to the cost and potential morbidity of this procedure, alternative strategies to identify patients at risk for lymph node disease are needed. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
Authors: M G Statius Muller; P J Borgstein; R Pijpers; P A van Leeuwen; P J van Diest; A Gupta; S Meijer Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: C L Nguyen; E F McClay; D J Cole; P H O'Brien; W E Gillanders; J S Metcalf; J C Maize; P L Baron Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: M G Statius Muller; P A van Leeuwen; P J van Diest; R J Vuylsteke; R Pijpers; S Meijer Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 3.599
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: Joan Guitart; Lori Lowe; Michael Piepkorn; Victor G Prieto; Michael S Rabkin; Salve G Ronan; Christopher R Shea; Victor A Tron; Wain White; Raymond L Barnhill Journal: Arch Dermatol Date: 2002-05
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: 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: Michelle W Ma; Ratna C Medicherla; Meng Qian; Eleazar Vega-Saenz de Miera; Erica B Friedman; Russell S Berman; Richard L Shapiro; Anna C Pavlick; Patrick A Ott; Nina Bhardwaj; Yongzhao Shao; Iman Osman; Farbod Darvishian Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: D Evrard; E Routier; C Mateus; G Tomasic; J Lombroso; F Kolb; C Robert; A Moya-Plana Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 2.503
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
Authors: Lindsay G Wich; Heather K Hamilton; Richard L Shapiro; Anna Pavlick; Russell S Berman; David Polsky; Judith D Goldberg; Eva Hernando; Prashiela Manga; Michelle Krogsgaard; Hideko Kamino; Farbod Darvishian; Peng Lee; Seth J Orlow; Harry Ostrer; Nina Bhardwaj; Iman Osman Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2009-01-01 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Edmund K Bartlett; Madalyn G Peters; Anne Blair; Mark S Etherington; David E Elder; Xiaowei G Xu; DuPont Guerry; Michael E Ming; Douglas L Fraker; Brian J Czerniecki; Phyllis A Gimotty; Giorgos C Karakousis Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 5.344