Suraj S Venna1, Suresh Thummala2, Mehdi Nosrati2, Stanley P Leong3, James R Miller2, Richard W Sagebiel2, Mohammed Kashani-Sabet4. 1. Auerback Melanoma Research Laboratory and Melanoma Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Medstar, Washington Cancer Institute at the Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia. 2. Auerback Melanoma Research Laboratory and Melanoma Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Center for Melanoma Research and Treatment, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, California. 3. Auerback Melanoma Research Laboratory and Melanoma Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Center for Melanoma Research and Treatment, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, California. 4. Auerback Melanoma Research Laboratory and Melanoma Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Center for Melanoma Research and Treatment, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: kashani@cpmcri.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A minority of patients with T1 melanoma will have a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy (SLNB) finding. Identifying who will develop metastatic disease is important in determining prognosis and treatment. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify clinical and histologic features predictive of a positive SLNB result and determine its prognostic significance in patients with T1 melanoma. METHODS: Clinical and histologic parameters were evaluated in 484 patients with T1 melanoma for their ability to predict a positive SLNB result. The impact of various factors on SLN positivity was evaluated. SLN status was examined as a predictor of overall survival. RESULTS: In all, 34 patients had a positive SLNB finding. Four factors predicted a higher risk of SLN positivity: age 43 years or younger, Breslow depth 0.8 mm or greater, tumors on the lower extremity and trunk, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte level. By multivariate analysis, low tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (P = .0015) and decreasing age (P = .0058) independently predicted SLN positivity. If 0 to 2 of these factors were present, the rate of a positive SLNB result was 3%; this increased to 15% with 3 factors present and to 30% if all 4 factors were present (P < .002). SLN-positive patients had significantly decreased survival (P = .003), and SLN status was the most powerful predictor of survival (P = .009). LIMITATIONS: Our data analysis includes patients from 1994 to 2007 and therefore information on mitotic rate, a recently defined T1b criterion, is not recorded for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combining clinical and histologic prognostic factors may help identify subgroups of T1 patients at higher risk of SLN positivity. SLN status has significant prognostic impact in patients with thin melanomas.
BACKGROUND: A minority of patients with T1 melanoma will have a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy (SLNB) finding. Identifying who will develop metastatic disease is important in determining prognosis and treatment. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify clinical and histologic features predictive of a positive SLNB result and determine its prognostic significance in patients with T1 melanoma. METHODS: Clinical and histologic parameters were evaluated in 484 patients with T1 melanoma for their ability to predict a positive SLNB result. The impact of various factors on SLN positivity was evaluated. SLN status was examined as a predictor of overall survival. RESULTS: In all, 34 patients had a positive SLNB finding. Four factors predicted a higher risk of SLN positivity: age 43 years or younger, Breslow depth 0.8 mm or greater, tumors on the lower extremity and trunk, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte level. By multivariate analysis, low tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (P = .0015) and decreasing age (P = .0058) independently predicted SLN positivity. If 0 to 2 of these factors were present, the rate of a positive SLNB result was 3%; this increased to 15% with 3 factors present and to 30% if all 4 factors were present (P < .002). SLN-positive patients had significantly decreased survival (P = .003), and SLN status was the most powerful predictor of survival (P = .009). LIMITATIONS: Our data analysis includes patients from 1994 to 2007 and therefore information on mitotic rate, a recently defined T1b criterion, is not recorded for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combining clinical and histologic prognostic factors may help identify subgroups of T1 patients at higher risk of SLN positivity. SLN status has significant prognostic impact in patients with thin melanomas.
Authors: Andrew J Sinnamon; Madalyn G Neuwirth; Pratyusha Yalamanchi; Phyllis Gimotty; David E Elder; Xiaowei Xu; Rachel R Kelz; Robert E Roses; Emily Y Chu; Michael E Ming; Douglas L Fraker; Giorgos C Karakousis Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 10.282
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: Jennifer Nguyen; Richard Bernert; Kevin In; Paul Kang; Noemi Sebastiao; Chengcheng Hu; K Taraszka Hastings Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Garth Herbert; Giorgos C Karakousis; Edmund K Bartlett; Salman Zaheer; Danielle Graham; Brian J Czerniecki; Douglas L Fraker; Charlotte Ariyan; Daniel G Coit; Mary S Brady Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Charles M Balch; John F Thompson; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Seng-Jaw Soong; Shouluan Ding; Kelly M McMasters; Daniel G Coit; Alexander M M Eggermont; Phyllis A Gimotty; Timothy M Johnson; John M Kirkwood; Stanley P Leong; Merrick I Ross; David R Byrd; Alistair J Cochran; Martin C Mihm; Donald L Morton; Michael B Atkins; Keith T Flaherty; Vernon K Sondak Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-02-15 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Taylor J Aiken; Christopher C Stahl; Patrick B Schwartz; James Barrett; Alexandra W Acher; Deborah Lemaster; Glen Leverson; Sharon Weber; Heather Neuman; Daniel E Abbott Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 3.454