David Y Lee1, Briana J Lau1, Kelly T Huynh1, Devin C Flaherty1, Ji-Hey Lee2, Stacey L Stern2, Steve J O'Day3, Leland J Foshag1, Mark B Faries4. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, The John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence St John's Health Center, Santa Monica, CA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, The John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence St John's Health Center, Santa Monica, CA. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, The John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence St John's Health Center, Santa Monica, CA. 4. Department of Surgical Oncology, The John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence St John's Health Center, Santa Monica, CA. Electronic address: mark.faries@jwci.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether patients with positive SLNB should undergo complete lymph node dissection (CLND) is an important unanswered clinical question. STUDY DESIGN: Patients diagnosed with positive SLNB at a melanoma referral center from 1991 to 2013 were studied. Outcomes of patients who underwent CLND were compared with those who did not undergo immediate CLND (observation [OBS] group). RESULTS: There were 471 patients who had positive SLNB; 375 (79.6%) in the CLND group and 96 (20.4%) in the OBS group. The groups were similar except that the CLND group was younger and had more sentinel nodes removed. Five-year nodal recurrence-free survival was significantly better in the CLND group compared with the OBS group (93.1% vs 84.4%; p = 0.005). However, 5-year (66.4% vs 55.2%) and 10-year (59.5% vs 45.0%) distant metastasis-free survival rates were not significantly different (p = 0.061). The CLND group's melanoma-specific survival (MSS) rate was superior to that of the OBS group; 5-year MSS rates were 73.7% vs 65.5% and 10-year MSS rates were 66.8% vs 48.3% (p = 0.015). On multivariate analysis, CLND was associated with improved MSS (hazard ratio = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.40-0.89; p = 0.011) and lower nodal recurrence (hazard ratio = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.86; p = 0.016). Increased Breslow thickness, older age, ulceration, and trunk melanoma were all associated with worse outcomes. On subgroup analysis, the following factors were associated with better outcomes from CLND: male sex, nonulcerated primary, intermediate thickness, Clark level IV or lower extremity tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of positive SLNB with CLND was associated with improved MSS and nodal recurrence rates. Follow-up beyond 5 years was needed to see a significant difference in MSS rates.
BACKGROUND: Whether patients with positive SLNB should undergo complete lymph node dissection (CLND) is an important unanswered clinical question. STUDY DESIGN:Patients diagnosed with positive SLNB at a melanoma referral center from 1991 to 2013 were studied. Outcomes of patients who underwent CLND were compared with those who did not undergo immediate CLND (observation [OBS] group). RESULTS: There were 471 patients who had positive SLNB; 375 (79.6%) in the CLND group and 96 (20.4%) in the OBS group. The groups were similar except that the CLND group was younger and had more sentinel nodes removed. Five-year nodal recurrence-free survival was significantly better in the CLND group compared with the OBS group (93.1% vs 84.4%; p = 0.005). However, 5-year (66.4% vs 55.2%) and 10-year (59.5% vs 45.0%) distant metastasis-free survival rates were not significantly different (p = 0.061). The CLND group's melanoma-specific survival (MSS) rate was superior to that of the OBS group; 5-year MSS rates were 73.7% vs 65.5% and 10-year MSS rates were 66.8% vs 48.3% (p = 0.015). On multivariate analysis, CLND was associated with improved MSS (hazard ratio = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.40-0.89; p = 0.011) and lower nodal recurrence (hazard ratio = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.86; p = 0.016). Increased Breslow thickness, older age, ulceration, and trunk melanoma were all associated with worse outcomes. On subgroup analysis, the following factors were associated with better outcomes from CLND: male sex, nonulcerated primary, intermediate thickness, Clark level IV or lower extremity tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of positive SLNB with CLND was associated with improved MSS and nodal recurrence rates. Follow-up beyond 5 years was needed to see a significant difference in MSS rates.
Authors: Sandro Pasquali; Simone Mocellin; Luca G Campana; Elena Bonandini; Maria C Montesco; Alberto Tregnaghi; Paolo Del Fiore; Donato Nitti; Carlo R Rossi Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Celia Chao; Sandra L Wong; Merrick I Ross; Douglas S Reintgen; R Dirk Noyes; Patricia B Cerrito; Michael J Edwards; Kelly M McMasters Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Justin J Baker; Michael O Meyers; Jill Frank; Keith D Amos; Karyn B Stitzenberg; David W Ollila Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Kelly M McMasters; Sandra L Wong; Michael J Edwards; Celia Chao; Merrick I Ross; R Dirk Noyes; Vicki Viar; Patricia B Cerrito; Douglas S Reintgen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.344
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: 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 Roka; P Mastan; M Binder; I Okamoto; M Mittlboeck; R Horvat; H Pehamberger; E Diem Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2007-03-13 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: K P Wevers; R Murali; E Bastiaannet; R A Scolyer; A J Suurmeijer; J F Thompson; H J Hoekstra Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2012-11-06 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Mark B Faries; John F Thompson; Alistair J Cochran; Robert H Andtbacka; Nicola Mozzillo; Jonathan S Zager; Tiina Jahkola; Tawnya L Bowles; Alessandro Testori; Peter D Beitsch; Harald J Hoekstra; Marc Moncrieff; Christian Ingvar; Michel W J M Wouters; Michael S Sabel; Edward A Levine; Doreen Agnese; Michael Henderson; Reinhard Dummer; Carlo R Rossi; Rogerio I Neves; Steven D Trocha; Frances Wright; David R Byrd; Maurice Matter; Eddy Hsueh; Alastair MacKenzie-Ross; Douglas B Johnson; Patrick Terheyden; Adam C Berger; Tara L Huston; Jeffrey D Wayne; B Mark Smithers; Heather B Neuman; Schlomo Schneebaum; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Charlotte E Ariyan; Darius C Desai; Lisa Jacobs; Kelly M McMasters; Anja Gesierich; Peter Hersey; Steven D Bines; John M Kane; Richard J Barth; Gregory McKinnon; Jeffrey M Farma; Erwin Schultz; Sergi Vidal-Sicart; Richard A Hoefer; James M Lewis; Randall Scheri; Mark C Kelley; Omgo E Nieweg; R Dirk Noyes; Dave S B Hoon; He-Jing Wang; David A Elashoff; Robert M Elashoff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paolo A Ascierto; Allison Betof Warner; Christian Blank; Corrado Caracò; Sandra Demaria; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Nikhil I Khushalani; Georgina V Long; Jason J Luke; Janice M Mehnert; Caroline Robert; Piotr Rutkowski; Hussein A Tawbi; Iman Osman; Igor Puzanov Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 8.440
Authors: Karolina Richter; Tomasz Stefura; Krzysztof Macheta; Jonasz Tempski; Jakub Kazoń; Magdalena Szeremeta; Paweł Klimont; Marta Kołodziej-Rzepa; Tomasz Wojewoda; Wojciech M Wysocki Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-04 Impact factor: 4.964