BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard for evaluation of the draining lymphatic basin for intermediate thickness melanoma. Despite this, SLNB has not been uniformly adopted. We hypothesized that there are geographic areas of the United States where patients are less likely to receive SLNB. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was queried for patients who underwent surgery for intermediate thickness cutaneous melanoma (Breslow thickness 1.00-4.00 mm) from 2004 to 2008. Patients were categorized according to geographic area based on the reporting registry. Multivariate logistic regression models predicted use of SLNB. RESULTS: Entry criteria were met by 8957 patients. On multivariate analysis, patients from the South were less likely (OR 0.54, CI 0.48-0.62; P < 0.001) to receive a SLNB. Additional factors associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving a SLNB included head and neck primary tumor site, high or unknown serum LDH, Asian, Hispanic, Native American or unknown race, and increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: Patients from the South were less likely to receive a SLNB for an intermediate thickness cutaneous melanoma. This report of geographic disparities on a national level should be confirmed locally to better guide interventions aimed at eliminating these disparities.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard for evaluation of the draining lymphatic basin for intermediate thickness melanoma. Despite this, SLNB has not been uniformly adopted. We hypothesized that there are geographic areas of the United States where patients are less likely to receive SLNB. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was queried for patients who underwent surgery for intermediate thickness cutaneous melanoma (Breslow thickness 1.00-4.00 mm) from 2004 to 2008. Patients were categorized according to geographic area based on the reporting registry. Multivariate logistic regression models predicted use of SLNB. RESULTS: Entry criteria were met by 8957 patients. On multivariate analysis, patients from the South were less likely (OR 0.54, CI 0.48-0.62; P < 0.001) to receive a SLNB. Additional factors associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving a SLNB included head and neck primary tumor site, high or unknown serum LDH, Asian, Hispanic, Native American or unknown race, and increasing age. CONCLUSIONS:Patients from the South were less likely to receive a SLNB for an intermediate thickness cutaneous melanoma. This report of geographic disparities on a national level should be confirmed locally to better guide interventions aimed at eliminating these disparities.
Authors: Christopher J Sonnenday; Justin B Dimick; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2007-10-03 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: A Houghton; D Coit; W Bloomer; A Buzaid; D Chu; B Eisenburgh; J Guitart; T Johnson; S Miller; S Sener; K Tanabe; J Thompson; M Urist; M Walker Journal: Oncology (Williston Park) Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 2.990
Authors: Warren H Tseng; Thomas R Stevenson; Robert J Canter; Steven L Chen; Vijay P Khatri; Richard J Bold; Steve R Martinez Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Janice N Cormier; Yan Xing; Meichun Ding; Jeffrey E Lee; Paul F Mansfield; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Merrick I Ross; Xianglin L Du Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Donald L Morton; John F Thompson; Alistair J Cochran; Nicola Mozzillo; Robert Elashoff; Richard Essner; Omgo E Nieweg; Daniel F Roses; Harald J Hoekstra; Constantine P Karakousis; Douglas S Reintgen; Brendon J Coventry; Edwin C Glass; He-Jing Wang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-09-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: F B Hagemeister; R Khetan; P Allen; P McLaughlin; M A Rodriguez; F Swan; J E Romaguera; F Cabanillas Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 1994 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; Charles M Balch; Jeffrey D Wayne; David C Chang; Bryan E Palis; Sydney M Dy; Julie R Lange Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Julie A Luker; Kylie Wall; Julie Bernhardt; Ian Edwards; Karen A Grimmer-Somers Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: R M H Roumen; M S Schuurman; M J Aarts; A J G Maaskant-Braat; G Vreugdenhil; W J Louwman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 3.240