Mónica Vidal1, Sergi Vidal-Sicart2,3, Ferran Torres4,5, Diana Milena Ruiz2, Pilar Paredes2,3, Francesca Pons2,3. 1. Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. monicavidalg@hotmail.com. 2. Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Institut d'Investigacions Biomédiques Agustí Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain. 4. Statistical of Biostatistics and Data Management Core Facility, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Biostatistics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the diagnosis of head and neck melanoma, lymphatic drainage is complex and highly variable. As regional lymph node metastasis is one of the most important prognostic factors, lymphoscintigraphy can help map individual drainage patterns. The aim of this study was to compare the results of lymphoscintigraphy and sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection with theoretical anatomical patterns of lymphatic drainage based on the location of the primary tumour lesion in patients with head and neck melanoma. We also determined the percentage of discrepancies between our lymphoscintigraphy and the theoretical location of nodal drainage predicted by a large lymphoscintigraphic database, in order to explain recurrence and false-negative SLN biopsies. METHODS: In this retrospective study of 152 patients with head and neck melanoma, the locations of the SLNs on lymphoscintigraphy and detected intraoperatively were compared with the lymphatic drainage predicted by on-line software based on a large melanoma database. RESULTS: All patients showed lymphatic drainage and in all patients at least one SLN was identified by lymphoscintigraphy. Of the 152 patients, 4 had a primary lesion in areas that were not described in the Sydney Melanoma Unit database, so agreement could only be evaluated in 148 patients. Agreement between lymphoscintigraphic findings and the theoretical lymphatic drainage predicted by the software was completely concordant in 119 of the 148 patients (80.4 %, 95 % CI 73.3 - 86 %). However, this concordance was partial (some concordant nodes and others not) in 18 patients (12.2 %, 95 % CI 7.8 - 18.4 %). Discordance was complete in 11 patients (7.4 %, 95 % CI 4.2 - 12.8 %). CONCLUSION: In melanoma of the head and neck there is a high correlation between lymphatic drainage found by lymphoscintigraphy and the predicted drainage pattern and basins provided by a large reference database. Due to unpredictable drainage, preoperative lymphoscintigraphy is essential to accurately detect the SLNs in head and neck melanoma.
PURPOSE: In the diagnosis of head and neck melanoma, lymphatic drainage is complex and highly variable. As regional lymph node metastasis is one of the most important prognostic factors, lymphoscintigraphy can help map individual drainage patterns. The aim of this study was to compare the results of lymphoscintigraphy and sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection with theoretical anatomical patterns of lymphatic drainage based on the location of the primary tumour lesion in patients with head and neck melanoma. We also determined the percentage of discrepancies between our lymphoscintigraphy and the theoretical location of nodal drainage predicted by a large lymphoscintigraphic database, in order to explain recurrence and false-negative SLN biopsies. METHODS: In this retrospective study of 152 patients with head and neck melanoma, the locations of the SLNs on lymphoscintigraphy and detected intraoperatively were compared with the lymphatic drainage predicted by on-line software based on a large melanoma database. RESULTS: All patients showed lymphatic drainage and in all patients at least one SLN was identified by lymphoscintigraphy. Of the 152 patients, 4 had a primary lesion in areas that were not described in the Sydney Melanoma Unit database, so agreement could only be evaluated in 148 patients. Agreement between lymphoscintigraphic findings and the theoretical lymphatic drainage predicted by the software was completely concordant in 119 of the 148 patients (80.4 %, 95 % CI 73.3 - 86 %). However, this concordance was partial (some concordant nodes and others not) in 18 patients (12.2 %, 95 % CI 7.8 - 18.4 %). Discordance was complete in 11 patients (7.4 %, 95 % CI 4.2 - 12.8 %). CONCLUSION: In melanoma of the head and neck there is a high correlation between lymphatic drainage found by lymphoscintigraphy and the predicted drainage pattern and basins provided by a large reference database. Due to unpredictable drainage, preoperative lymphoscintigraphy is essential to accurately detect the SLNs in head and neck melanoma.
Entities:
Keywords:
Lymphoscintigraphy; Melanoma, head and neck; Sentinel lymph node
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: 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: Timothy R Fincher; John C O'Brien; Todd M McCarty; Tammy L Fisher; John T Preskitt; Zelig H Lieberman; Jeffrey F Stephens; Joseph A Kuhn Journal: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2004-07
Authors: Hayley M Reynolds; P Rod Dunbar; Roger F Uren; Shane A Blackett; John F Thompson; Nicolas P Smith Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 41.316