PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) sought to provide an evidence-based guideline on the use of lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in staging patients with newly diagnosed melanoma. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review of the literature published from January 1990 through August 2011 was completed using MEDLINE and EMBASE. Abstracts from ASCO and SSO annual meetings were included in the evidence review. An Expert Panel was convened to review the evidence and develop guideline recommendations. RESULTS: Seventy-three studies met full eligibility criteria. The evidence review demonstrated that SLN biopsy is an acceptable method for lymph node staging of most patients with newly diagnosed melanoma. RECOMMENDATIONS: SLN biopsy is recommended for patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas (Breslow thickness, 1 to 4 mm) of any anatomic site; use of SLN biopsy in this population provides accurate staging. Although there are few studies focusing on patients with thick melanomas (T4; Breslow thickness, > 4 mm), SLN biopsy may be recommended for staging purposes and to facilitate regional disease control. There is insufficient evidence to support routine SLN biopsy for patients with thin melanomas (T1; Breslow thickness, < 1 mm), although it may be considered in selected patients with high-risk features when staging benefits outweigh risks of the procedure. Completion lymph node dissection (CLND) is recommended for all patients with a positive SLN biopsy and achieves good regional disease control. Whether CLND after a positive SLN biopsy improves survival is the subject of the ongoing Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II.
PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) sought to provide an evidence-based guideline on the use of lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in staging patients with newly diagnosed melanoma. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review of the literature published from January 1990 through August 2011 was completed using MEDLINE and EMBASE. Abstracts from ASCO and SSO annual meetings were included in the evidence review. An Expert Panel was convened to review the evidence and develop guideline recommendations. RESULTS: Seventy-three studies met full eligibility criteria. The evidence review demonstrated that SLN biopsy is an acceptable method for lymph node staging of most patients with newly diagnosed melanoma. RECOMMENDATIONS: SLN biopsy is recommended for patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas (Breslow thickness, 1 to 4 mm) of any anatomic site; use of SLN biopsy in this population provides accurate staging. Although there are few studies focusing on patients with thick melanomas (T4; Breslow thickness, > 4 mm), SLN biopsy may be recommended for staging purposes and to facilitate regional disease control. There is insufficient evidence to support routine SLN biopsy for patients with thin melanomas (T1; Breslow thickness, < 1 mm), although it may be considered in selected patients with high-risk features when staging benefits outweigh risks of the procedure. Completion lymph node dissection (CLND) is recommended for all patients with a positive SLN biopsy and achieves good regional disease control. Whether CLND after a positive SLN biopsy improves survival is the subject of the ongoing Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II.
Authors: Charles M Balch; Donald L Morton; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Kelly M McMasters; Omgo E Nieweg; Barry Powell; Merrick I Ross; Vernon K Sondak; John F Thompson Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: J F Thompson; W H McCarthy; C M Bosch; C J O'Brien; M J Quinn; S Paramaesvaran; K Crotty; S W McCarthy; R F Uren; R Howman-Giles Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 1995-08 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Sandra L Wong; Donald L Morton; John F Thompson; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Stanley P L Leong; Douglas S Reintgen; Haim Gutman; Michael S Sabel; Grant W Carlson; Kelly M McMasters; Douglas S Tyler; James S Goydos; Alexander M M Eggermont; Omgo E Nieweg; A Benedict Cosimi; Adam I Riker; Daniel G Coit Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-04-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Cristina R Ferrone; Katherine S Panageas; Klaus Busam; Mary Sue Brady; Daniel G Coit Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: R F Uren; R Howman-Giles; J F Thompson; H M Shaw; M J Quinn; C J O'Brien; W H McCarthy Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Csaba Gajdos; Kent A Griffith; Sandra L Wong; Timothy M Johnson; Alfred E Chang; Vincent M Cimmino; Lori Lowe; Carol R Bradford; Riley S Rees; Michael S Sabel Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Tracy Onega; Lisa M Reisch; Paul D Frederick; Berta M Geller; Heidi D Nelson; Jason P Lott; Andrea C Radick; David E Elder; Raymond L Barnhill; Michael W Piepkorn; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Renata Madru; Thuy A Tran; Johan Axelsson; Christian Ingvar; Adnan Bibic; Freddy Ståhlberg; Linda Knutsson; Sven-Erik Strand Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-12-15
Authors: Dale Han; Jonathan S Zager; Daohai Yu; Xiuhua Zhao; Brooke Walls; Suroosh S Marzban; Nikhil G Rao; Vernon K Sondak; Jane L Messina Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Donald L Morton; John F Thompson; Alistair J Cochran; Nicola Mozzillo; Omgo E Nieweg; Daniel F Roses; Harold J Hoekstra; Constantine P Karakousis; Christopher A Puleo; Brendon J Coventry; Mohammed Kashani-Sabet; B Mark Smithers; Eberhard Paul; William G Kraybill; J Gregory McKinnon; He-Jing Wang; Robert Elashoff; Mark B Faries Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: F C Wright; L H Souter; S Kellett; A Easson; C Murray; J Toye; D McCready; C Nessim; D Ghazarian; N J Look Hong; S Johnson; D P Goldstein; T Petrella Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 3.677