BACKGROUND: The treatment of thin melanoma (Breslow thickness <1.0 mm) may include sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy (SLNB). The validity of SLNB for thin melanoma remains widely debated. The purpose of this study was to elucidate pathologic factors that are predictive of SLN positivity. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospective database revealed 1,199 patients diagnosed with primary cutaneous melanoma. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine an association between pathologic factors and SLN positivity. RESULTS: Thin melanomas were identified in 469 patients (39%). Of these, 147 patients (31%) underwent SLNB. Positive SLNs were found in 16 patients (11%). Multiple logistic regression demonstrated that both ulceration (odds ratio, 5.27; P = .047) and thickness (odds ratio, 46.69; P = .022) were associated with SLN positivity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with thin melanomas >.75 mm and/or ulceration should be considered for SLNB.
BACKGROUND: The treatment of thin melanoma (Breslow thickness <1.0 mm) may include sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy (SLNB). The validity of SLNB for thin melanoma remains widely debated. The purpose of this study was to elucidate pathologic factors that are predictive of SLN positivity. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospective database revealed 1,199 patients diagnosed with primary cutaneous melanoma. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine an association between pathologic factors and SLN positivity. RESULTS: Thin melanomas were identified in 469 patients (39%). Of these, 147 patients (31%) underwent SLNB. Positive SLNs were found in 16 patients (11%). Multiple logistic regression demonstrated that both ulceration (odds ratio, 5.27; P = .047) and thickness (odds ratio, 46.69; P = .022) were associated with SLN positivity. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with thin melanomas >.75 mm and/or ulceration should be considered for SLNB.
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: K M Joyce; N M McInerney; R P Piggott; F Martin; D M Jones; A J Hussey; M J Kerin; J L Kelly; P J Regan Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2017-01-28 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Dale Han; Daohai Yu; Xiuhua Zhao; Suroosh S Marzban; Jane L Messina; Ricardo J Gonzalez; C Wayne Cruse; Amod A Sarnaik; Christopher Puleo; Vernon K Sondak; Jonathan S Zager Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Alexander Meves; Ekaterina Nikolova; Joel B Heim; Edwin J Squirewell; Mark A Cappel; Mark R Pittelkow; Clark C Otley; Nille Behrendt; Ditte M Saunte; Jorgen Lock-Andersen; Louis A Schenck; Amy L Weaver; Vera J Suman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Vicki H Chu; Michael T Tetzlaff; Carlos A Torres-Cabala; Victor G Prieto; Roland Bassett; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Michael S McLemore; Doina Ivan; Wei-Lien Billy Wang; Merrick I Ross; Jonathan L Curry Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Jill C Rubinstein; Gang Han; Laura Jackson; Kaleigh Bulloch; Stephan Ariyan; Deepak Narayan; Bonnie G Rothberg; Dale Han Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 4.452