PURPOSE: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a widely accepted procedure to accurately stage melanomas with a thickness ≥1 mm. The value of SLNB in thin melanomas is still controversial, especially because long-term observations of these patients are rare. The purpose of the current study was to identify the positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) ratio in low-risk patients with cutaneous melanoma (CM) of thickness less than 1 mm and its possible prognostic value, focusing on long-term follow-up data. METHODS: In a retrospective single-centre study performed at the Department of Dermatology and Allergy, University of Bonn, 121 patients who had received SLNB were identified out of 621 patients with a diagnosis of CM of <1.00 mm thickness presenting between September 2000 and February 2009 (mean follow-up time, 50.9 months). RESULTS: Of the 121 patients, 5 (4.1%) had a positive SLN. All positive SLNs were found in patients with a tumour thickness between 0.90 mm and 1.00 mm. There were no significant differences in the presence of positive SLNs according to Clark level and ulceration status (Clark levels II and III and no ulceration vs. Clark levels IV and V or ulceration), regression, gender or age. Disease-free survival was 100% in the SLN-positive patients. On the other hand, five SLN-negative patients (4.1%) developed disease progression. One of these five progressive patients showed recurrence in the former negative SLN basin (16.7% false-negative rate). CONCLUSION: A positive SLN in thin melanomas is uncommon with a prevalence of 4.1% in our study population. We could not identify reliable clinicopathological risk factors which could predict results of SLNB in thin melanomas. Based on our results, SLNB may be considered in patients with a melanoma of thickness in the range 0.90-0.99 mm, because all SLN-positive patients belonged to this subgroup.
PURPOSE: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a widely accepted procedure to accurately stage melanomas with a thickness ≥1 mm. The value of SLNB in thin melanomas is still controversial, especially because long-term observations of these patients are rare. The purpose of the current study was to identify the positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) ratio in low-risk patients with cutaneous melanoma (CM) of thickness less than 1 mm and its possible prognostic value, focusing on long-term follow-up data. METHODS: In a retrospective single-centre study performed at the Department of Dermatology and Allergy, University of Bonn, 121 patients who had received SLNB were identified out of 621 patients with a diagnosis of CM of <1.00 mm thickness presenting between September 2000 and February 2009 (mean follow-up time, 50.9 months). RESULTS: Of the 121 patients, 5 (4.1%) had a positive SLN. All positive SLNs were found in patients with a tumour thickness between 0.90 mm and 1.00 mm. There were no significant differences in the presence of positive SLNs according to Clark level and ulceration status (Clark levels II and III and no ulceration vs. Clark levels IV and V or ulceration), regression, gender or age. Disease-free survival was 100% in the SLN-positive patients. On the other hand, five SLN-negative patients (4.1%) developed disease progression. One of these five progressive patients showed recurrence in the former negative SLN basin (16.7% false-negative rate). CONCLUSION: A positive SLN in thin melanomas is uncommon with a prevalence of 4.1% in our study population. We could not identify reliable clinicopathological risk factors which could predict results of SLNB in thin melanomas. Based on our results, SLNB may be considered in patients with a melanoma of thickness in the range 0.90-0.99 mm, because all SLN-positive patients belonged to this subgroup.
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: Kathryn Spanknebel; Daniel G Coit; Samuel C Bieligk; Mithat Gonen; Juan Rosai; David S Klimstra Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Matthew W Miller; John T Vetto; Marcus M Monroe; Roshanthi Weerasinghe; Peter E Andersen; Neil D Gross Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: M A Gadd; A B Cosimi; J Yu; L M Duncan; L Yu; T J Flotte; W W Souba; M J Ott; L S Wong; A J Sober; M C Mihm; F G Haluska; K K Tanabe Journal: Arch Surg Date: 1999-04
Authors: R S Oliveira Filho; L M Ferreira; L J Biasi; M M S S Enokihara; G R Paiva; J Wagner Journal: Braz J Med Biol Res Date: 2003-03-07 Impact factor: 2.590
Authors: Karyn B Stitzenberg; Pamela A Groben; Stacey L Stern; Nancy E Thomas; Thomas A Hensing; Leah B Sansbury; David W Ollila Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2004-09-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: J E Gershenwald; M I Colome; J E Lee; P F Mansfield; C Tseng; J J Lee; C M Balch; M I Ross Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John L Zapas; H Christopher Coley; Sandra L Beam; Sally D Brown; Kathleen A Jablonski; E George Elias Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Doreen M Agnese; Shahab F Abdessalam; William E Burak; Cynthia M Magro; Rodney V Pozderac; Michael J Walker Journal: Surgery Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Dennis L Rousseau; Merrick I Ross; Marcella M Johnson; Victor G Prieto; Jeffrey E Lee; Paul F Mansfield; Jeffrey E Gershenwald Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 5.344
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: A Kocsis; L Karsko; Zs Kurgyis; Zs Besenyi; L Pavics; E Dosa-Racz; E Kis; E Baltas; H Ocsai; E Varga; B Bende; A Varga; G Mohos; I Korom; J Varga; L Kemeny; I B Nemeth; J Olah Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 3.201