Heidi Wat1, Ambikaipakan Senthilselvan2, Thomas G Salopek3. 1. Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 3. Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: tsalopek@ualberta.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of studies to substantiate whether the presence of a single mitosis justifies sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy (SLNB) in thin melanomas. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if mitotic rate is associated with SLNB outcome when taking into account other prognostic factors. METHODS: All cases of melanoma that underwent SLNB in the province of Alberta, Canada, between 2007 and 2013 were reviewed through a provincial tumor database. RESULTS: A total of 1072 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. When analyzing all melanomas regardless of thickness, mitotic rate was a good predictor of SLN status. When stratified by Breslow thickness, only intermediate melanomas (1.01-2.0 mm) demonstrated a significant relationship between mitotic rate and positive SLN status (P = .010). For melanomas 1 mm or smaller, mitotic rate was not associated with SLN status. A statistically significant interaction was identified between Breslow thickness and mitotic rate such that for decreasing Breslow depth, the effect of mitotic rate on SLNB status diminished (P = .028). LIMITATIONS: The study was retrospective in nature. There is underlying variability in mitotic rate reporting methods over time, and between different dermatopathologists. CONCLUSIONS: Mitotic rate does not have unequivocal utility in predicting SLNB status in thin melanomas. There is a significant interaction between mitotic rate and Breslow depth, such that the predictive value of mitotic rate on SLN positivity may be dependent on Breslow thickness.
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of studies to substantiate whether the presence of a single mitosis justifies sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy (SLNB) in thin melanomas. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if mitotic rate is associated with SLNB outcome when taking into account other prognostic factors. METHODS: All cases of melanoma that underwent SLNB in the province of Alberta, Canada, between 2007 and 2013 were reviewed through a provincial tumor database. RESULTS: A total of 1072 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. When analyzing all melanomas regardless of thickness, mitotic rate was a good predictor of SLN status. When stratified by Breslow thickness, only intermediate melanomas (1.01-2.0 mm) demonstrated a significant relationship between mitotic rate and positive SLN status (P = .010). For melanomas 1 mm or smaller, mitotic rate was not associated with SLN status. A statistically significant interaction was identified between Breslow thickness and mitotic rate such that for decreasing Breslow depth, the effect of mitotic rate on SLNB status diminished (P = .028). LIMITATIONS: The study was retrospective in nature. There is underlying variability in mitotic rate reporting methods over time, and between different dermatopathologists. CONCLUSIONS: Mitotic rate does not have unequivocal utility in predicting SLNB status in thin melanomas. There is a significant interaction between mitotic rate and Breslow depth, such that the predictive value of mitotic rate on SLN positivity may be dependent on Breslow thickness.
Authors: Emanuelle M Rizk; Angelina M Seffens; Megan H Trager; Michael R Moore; Larisa J Geskin; Robyn D Gartrell-Corrado; Winston Wong; Yvonne M Saenger Journal: Am J Clin Dermatol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 7.403
Authors: A Piñero-Madrona; G Ruiz-Merino; P Cerezuela Fuentes; E Martínez-Barba; J N Rodríguez-López; J Cabezas-Herrera Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Richard A Scolyer; Kenneth R Hess; Vernon K Sondak; Georgina V Long; Merrick I Ross; Alexander J Lazar; Mark B Faries; John M Kirkwood; Grant A McArthur; Lauren E Haydu; Alexander M M Eggermont; Keith T Flaherty; Charles M Balch; John F Thompson Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-10-13 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Laura A Taylor; Megan M Eguchi; Lisa M Reisch; Andrea C Radick; Hannah Shucard; Kathleen F Kerr; Michael W Piepkorn; Stevan R Knezevich; David E Elder; Raymond L Barnhill; Joann G Elmore Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Antonio Tejera-Vaquerizo; Simone Ribero; Susana Puig; Aram Boada; Sabela Paradela; David Moreno-Ramírez; Javier Cañueto; Blanca de Unamuno; Ana Brinca; Miguel A Descalzo-Gallego; Simona Osella-Abate; Paola Cassoni; Cristina Carrera; Sergi Vidal-Sicart; Antoni Bennássar; Ramón Rull; Llucìa Alos; Celia Requena; Isidro Bolumar; Víctor Traves; Ángel Pla; A Fernández-Orland; Ane Jaka; María T Fernández-Figueres; Josep M Hilari; Pol Giménez-Xavier; Ricardo Vieira; Rafael Botella-Estrada; Concepción Román-Curto; Lara Ferrándiz; Nicolás Iglesias-Pena; Carlos Ferrándiz; Josep Malvehy; Pietro Quaglino; Eduardo Nagore Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 4.452