BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is widely used in melanoma. Identifying nodal involvement preoperatively by high-resolution ultrasound may offer less invasive staging. This study assessed feasibility and staging results of clinically targeted ultrasound (before lymphoscintigraphy) compared to SLNB. METHODS: From 2005 to 2009, a total of 325 patients with melanoma underwent ultrasound before SLNB. We reviewed demographics and histopathologic characteristics, then compared ultrasound and SLNB results. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value were determined. RESULTS: A total of 325 patients were included, 58% men and 42% women with a median age of 58 (range 18-86) years. A total of 471 basins were examined with ultrasound. Only six patients (1.8%) avoided SLNB by undergoing ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of involved nodes, then therapeutic lymphadenectomy. Sixty-five patients (20.4%) had 69 SLNB positive nodal basins; 17 nodal basins from 15 patients with positive ultrasounds were considered truly positive. Forty-five SLNB positive basins had negative ultrasounds (falsely negative). Seven node-positive basins did not undergo ultrasound because of unpredicted drainage. A total of 253 patients with negative SLNBs had negative ultrasounds in 240 nodal basins (truly negative) but falsely positive ultrasounds occurred in 40 basins. Overall, sensitivity of ultrasound was 33.8%, specificity 85.7%, positive predictive value 36.5%, and negative predictive value 84.2%. Sensitivity and specificity improved somewhat with increasing Breslow depth. Sensitivity was highest for the neck, but specificity was highest for the groin. CONCLUSIONS: Routine preoperative ultrasound in clinically node-negative melanoma is impractical because of its low sensitivity. Selected patients with thick or ulcerated lesions may benefit. Because of variable lymphatic drainage patterns, preoperative ultrasound without lymphoscintigraphic localization will provide incomplete evaluation in many cases.
BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is widely used in melanoma. Identifying nodal involvement preoperatively by high-resolution ultrasound may offer less invasive staging. This study assessed feasibility and staging results of clinically targeted ultrasound (before lymphoscintigraphy) compared to SLNB. METHODS: From 2005 to 2009, a total of 325 patients with melanoma underwent ultrasound before SLNB. We reviewed demographics and histopathologic characteristics, then compared ultrasound and SLNB results. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value were determined. RESULTS: A total of 325 patients were included, 58% men and 42% women with a median age of 58 (range 18-86) years. A total of 471 basins were examined with ultrasound. Only six patients (1.8%) avoided SLNB by undergoing ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of involved nodes, then therapeutic lymphadenectomy. Sixty-five patients (20.4%) had 69 SLNB positive nodal basins; 17 nodal basins from 15 patients with positive ultrasounds were considered truly positive. Forty-five SLNB positive basins had negative ultrasounds (falsely negative). Seven node-positive basins did not undergo ultrasound because of unpredicted drainage. A total of 253 patients with negative SLNBs had negative ultrasounds in 240 nodal basins (truly negative) but falsely positive ultrasounds occurred in 40 basins. Overall, sensitivity of ultrasound was 33.8%, specificity 85.7%, positive predictive value 36.5%, and negative predictive value 84.2%. Sensitivity and specificity improved somewhat with increasing Breslow depth. Sensitivity was highest for the neck, but specificity was highest for the groin. CONCLUSIONS: Routine preoperative ultrasound in clinically node-negative melanoma is impractical because of its low sensitivity. Selected patients with thick or ulcerated lesions may benefit. Because of variable lymphatic drainage patterns, preoperative ultrasound without lymphoscintigraphic localization will provide incomplete evaluation in many cases.
Authors: Christiane Voit; Martina Kron; Gregor Schäfer; Alfred Schoengen; Heike Audring; Ansgar Lukowsky; Markus Schwürzer-Voit; Wolfram Sterry; Helmut Winter; Jürgen Rademaker Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Alexander C J van Akkooi; Christiane A Voit; Cornelis Verhoef; Alexander M M Eggermont Journal: Curr Opin Oncol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.645
Authors: Susanne H Estourgie; Omgo E Nieweg; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Cornelis A Hoefnagel; Bin B R Kroon Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Christiane A Voit; Alexander C J van Akkooi; Gregor Schäfer-Hesterberg; Alfred Schoengen; Paul I M Schmitz; Wolfram Sterry; Alexander M M Eggermont Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-09-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jacqueline Dinnes; Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano; Yemisi Takwoingi; Seau Tak Cheung; Paul Nathan; Rubeta N Matin; Naomi Chuchu; Sue Ann Chan; Alana Durack; Susan E Bayliss; Abha Gulati; Lopa Patel; Clare Davenport; Kathie Godfrey; Manil Subesinghe; Zoe Traill; Jonathan J Deeks; Hywel C Williams Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-07-01
Authors: Charlotte M C Oude Ophuis; Lisa B Koppert; Cécile de Monyé; Carolien H M van Deurzen; Senada Koljenović; Alexander C J van Akkooi; Cornelis Verhoef; Dirk J Grünhagen Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 4.430