PURPOSE: Vulvar melanoma is a rare malignant tumour. Its surgical excision is the mainstay of treatment whilst the surgical management of regional lymph nodes remains controversial; on the contrary elective inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy causes considerable morbidity. Lymphoscintigraphy (LS) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) are accurate staging procedures of lymph node status in breast cancer and cutaneous melanoma patients. In this retrospective paper we report our experience of LS and SLNB in vulvar melanoma patients. METHODS: Twenty-two consecutive patients with a diagnosis of vulvar melanoma were treated at our institute: patients with clinically positive groin nodes or with previous surgery on the primary tumour were excluded. Twelve were selected for our analysis. All patients underwent sentinel lymph node localization with LS the day before surgery and the surgical procedure of SLNB associated with radical surgery. RESULTS: Six patients had metastatic SLNB and in five of six (83.3%) it was the only positive node. In the other six patients SLNB was negative for metastatic disease. No skip metastases were observed. In SLNB negative patients the mean Breslow thickness was 2.06 mm (range: 0.60-7.10) and only one patient showed a high Breslow thickness (patient 8). In SLNB positive patients the mean Breslow thickness was 4.33 mm (1.8-6.0). CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that, even in vulvar melanoma, the sentinel lymph node pathological status predicts the pathological status of the remaining groin nodes and suggests that elective groin dissection can be spared in cases of a negative SLNB. Breslow thickness (<1 mm) was not predictive of negative nodes.
PURPOSE:Vulvar melanoma is a rare malignant tumour. Its surgical excision is the mainstay of treatment whilst the surgical management of regional lymph nodes remains controversial; on the contrary elective inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy causes considerable morbidity. Lymphoscintigraphy (LS) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) are accurate staging procedures of lymph node status in breast cancer and cutaneous melanomapatients. In this retrospective paper we report our experience of LS and SLNB in vulvar melanomapatients. METHODS: Twenty-two consecutive patients with a diagnosis of vulvar melanoma were treated at our institute: patients with clinically positive groin nodes or with previous surgery on the primary tumour were excluded. Twelve were selected for our analysis. All patients underwent sentinel lymph node localization with LS the day before surgery and the surgical procedure of SLNB associated with radical surgery. RESULTS: Six patients had metastatic SLNB and in five of six (83.3%) it was the only positive node. In the other six patients SLNB was negative for metastatic disease. No skip metastases were observed. In SLNB negative patients the mean Breslow thickness was 2.06 mm (range: 0.60-7.10) and only one patient showed a high Breslow thickness (patient 8). In SLNB positive patients the mean Breslow thickness was 4.33 mm (1.8-6.0). CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that, even in vulvar melanoma, the sentinel lymph node pathological status predicts the pathological status of the remaining groin nodes and suggests that elective groin dissection can be spared in cases of a negative SLNB. Breslow thickness (<1 mm) was not predictive of negative nodes.
Authors: Joanne A de Hullu; Harry Hollema; Harald J Hoekstra; Do A Piers; Marian J E Mourits; Jan G Aalders; Ate G J van der Zee Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Liana Abramova; Jaysheree Parekh; William P Irvin; Laurel W Rice; Peyton T Taylor; Willie A Anderson; Craig L Slingluff Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Bin K Kroon; Simon Horenblas; Willem Meinhardt; Henk G van der Poel; Axel Bex; Harm van Tinteren; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Omgo E Nieweg Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2005-01-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: P Pelin Kara; Ali Ayhan; Biray Caner; Murat Gültekin; Omer Ugur; M Fani Bozkurt; Alp Usubutun Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: C De Cicco; M Sideri; M Bartolomei; C Grana; M Cremonesi; M Fiorenza; A Maggioni; L Bocciolone; C Mangioni; N Colombo; G Paganelli Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Anastasiya Atanasova Chokoeva; Georgi Tchernev; Elena Castelli; Elisabetta Orlando; Shyam B Verma; Markus Grebe; Uwe Wollina Journal: Wien Med Wochenschr Date: 2015-05-01
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: Lisa A Kottschade; Travis E Grotz; Roxana S Dronca; Diva R Salomao; Jose S Pulido; Nabil Wasif; James W Jakub; Sanjay P Bagaria; Riten Kumar; Judith S Kaur; Shane Y Morita; Steven L Moran; Jesse T Nguyen; Emily C Nguyen; Jennifer L Hand; Lori A Erickson; Jerry D Brewer; Christian L Baum; Robert C Miller; David L Swanson; Val Lowe; Svetomir N Markovic Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Viola A Heinzelmann-Schwarz; Sheri Nixdorf; Mehrnaz Valadan; Monica Diczbalis; Jake Olivier; Geoff Otton; André Fedier; Neville F Hacker; James P Scurry Journal: Int J Mol Med Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 4.101