Erin Cordeiro1, Mai-Kim Gervais2, Prakesh S Shah3,4, Nicole J Look Hong2,5, Frances C Wright2,5. 1. Division of General Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada. ecordeiro@toh.on.ca. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Paediatrics, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most patients with melanoma have a thin (≤1.00 mm) lesion. There is uncertainty as to which patients with thin melanoma should undergo sentinel lymph node (SN) biopsy. We sought to quantify the proportion of SN metastases in patients with thin melanoma and to determine the pooled effect of high-risk features of the primary lesion on SN positivity. METHODS: Published literature between 1980 and 2015 was searched and critically appraised. Primary outcome was the proportion of SN metastases in patients with thin cutaneous melanoma. Secondary outcomes included the effect of high-risk pathological features of the primary lesion on the proportion of SN metastases. Summary measures were estimated by Mantel-Haenszel method using random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Sixty studies (10,928 patients) met the criteria for inclusion. Pooled SN positivity was 4.5 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.8-5.2 %]. Predictors of a positive SN were: thickness ≥0.75 mm [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.90 (95 % CI 1.08-3.34); with a likelihood of SN metastases of 8.8 % (95 % CI 6.4-11.2 %)]; Clark level IV/V [AOR 2.24 (95 % CI 1.23-4.08); with a likelihood of 7.3 % (95 % CI 6.2-8.4 %)]; ≥1 mitoses/mm2 [AOR 6.64 (95 % CI 2.77-15.88); pooled likelihood 8.8 % (95 % CI 6.2-11.4 %)]; and the presence of microsatellites [unadjusted OR 6.94 (95 % CI 2.13-22.60); likelihood 26.6 % (95 % CI 4.3-48.9 %)]. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled proportion of SN metastases in thin melanoma is 4.5 %. Thickness ≥0.75 mm, Clark level IV/V, mitoses, and microsatellites significantly increased the odds of SN positivity and should prompt strong consideration of SN biopsy.
BACKGROUND: Most patients with melanoma have a thin (≤1.00 mm) lesion. There is uncertainty as to which patients with thin melanoma should undergo sentinel lymph node (SN) biopsy. We sought to quantify the proportion of SN metastases in patients with thin melanoma and to determine the pooled effect of high-risk features of the primary lesion on SN positivity. METHODS: Published literature between 1980 and 2015 was searched and critically appraised. Primary outcome was the proportion of SN metastases in patients with thin cutaneous melanoma. Secondary outcomes included the effect of high-risk pathological features of the primary lesion on the proportion of SN metastases. Summary measures were estimated by Mantel-Haenszel method using random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Sixty studies (10,928 patients) met the criteria for inclusion. Pooled SN positivity was 4.5 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.8-5.2 %]. Predictors of a positive SN were: thickness ≥0.75 mm [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.90 (95 % CI 1.08-3.34); with a likelihood of SN metastases of 8.8 % (95 % CI 6.4-11.2 %)]; Clark level IV/V [AOR 2.24 (95 % CI 1.23-4.08); with a likelihood of 7.3 % (95 % CI 6.2-8.4 %)]; ≥1 mitoses/mm2 [AOR 6.64 (95 % CI 2.77-15.88); pooled likelihood 8.8 % (95 % CI 6.2-11.4 %)]; and the presence of microsatellites [unadjusted OR 6.94 (95 % CI 2.13-22.60); likelihood 26.6 % (95 % CI 4.3-48.9 %)]. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled proportion of SN metastases in thin melanoma is 4.5 %. Thickness ≥0.75 mm, Clark level IV/V, mitoses, and microsatellites significantly increased the odds of SN positivity and should prompt strong consideration of SN biopsy.
Authors: Richard J B Walker; Nicole J Look Hong; Marc Moncrieff; Alexander C J van Akkooi; Evan Jost; Carolyn Nessim; Winan J van Houdt; Emma H A Stahlie; Chanhee Seo; May Lynn Quan; J Gregory McKinnon; Frances C Wright; Michail N Mavros Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 4.339
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: 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
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: Jill C Rubinstein; Gang Han; Laura Jackson; Kaleigh Bulloch; Stephan Ariyan; Deepak Narayan; Bonnie G Rothberg; Dale Han Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Flora Yan; Hannah M Knochelmann; Patrick F Morgan; John M Kaczmar; David M Neskey; Evan M Graboyes; Shaun A Nguyen; Besim Ogretmen; Anand K Sharma; Terry A Day Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Antonio G Richetta; Virginia Valentini; Federica Marraffa; Giovanni Paolino; Piera Rizzolo; Valentina Silvestri; Veronica Zelli; Anna Carbone; Cinzia Di Mattia; Stefano Calvieri; Pasquale Frascione; Pietro Donati; Laura Ottini Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-08-14