K M Joyce1, N M McInerney2, R P Piggott2, F Martin2, D M Jones2, A J Hussey2, M J Kerin3, J L Kelly2, P J Regan2. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland. kennethjoyce1@gmail.com. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland. 3. Department of Surgery, Clinical Science Institute, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a standard method for determining the pathologic status of the regional lymph nodes. AIMS: The aim of our study was to determine the incidence and clinicopathologic factors predictive of SLN positivity, and to evaluate the prognostic importance of SLNB in patients with cutaneous melanoma. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of all patients who underwent SLNB for primary melanoma at our institution from 2005 to 2012. Statistical analysis was performed using χ 2 and Fischer exact test. RESULTS: In total, 318 patients underwent SLNB, of which 65 were for thin melanoma (≤1 mm). There were 36 positive SLNB, 278 negative SLNB and in four cases the SLN was not located. The incidence rate for SLNB was 11.3% overall and 1.5% in thin melanomas alone. Statistical analysis identified Breslow thickness >1 mm (P = 0.006), Clark level ≥ IV (P = 0.004) and age <75 years (P = 0.035) as the strongest predictors of SLN positivity. Our overall false negativity rate was 20% (9/45) with one case of false-negative SLNB in thin melanomas. CONCLUSION: Breslow thickness of the primary tumour remains the strongest predictor of SLN positivity. Our findings point to a possible limited role for SLNB in thin melanoma due to its low positivity rate, associated false-negative rate and related morbidity.
BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a standard method for determining the pathologic status of the regional lymph nodes. AIMS: The aim of our study was to determine the incidence and clinicopathologic factors predictive of SLN positivity, and to evaluate the prognostic importance of SLNB in patients with cutaneous melanoma. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of all patients who underwent SLNB for primary melanoma at our institution from 2005 to 2012. Statistical analysis was performed using χ 2 and Fischer exact test. RESULTS: In total, 318 patients underwent SLNB, of which 65 were for thin melanoma (≤1 mm). There were 36 positive SLNB, 278 negative SLNB and in four cases the SLN was not located. The incidence rate for SLNB was 11.3% overall and 1.5% in thin melanomas alone. Statistical analysis identified Breslow thickness >1 mm (P = 0.006), Clark level ≥ IV (P = 0.004) and age <75 years (P = 0.035) as the strongest predictors of SLN positivity. Our overall false negativity rate was 20% (9/45) with one case of false-negative SLNB in thin melanomas. CONCLUSION: Breslow thickness of the primary tumour remains the strongest predictor of SLN positivity. Our findings point to a possible limited role for SLNB in thin melanoma due to its low positivity rate, associated false-negative rate and related morbidity.
Authors: John F Thompson; Seng-Jaw Soong; Charles M Balch; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Shouluan Ding; Daniel G Coit; Keith T Flaherty; Phyllis A Gimotty; Timothy Johnson; Marcella M Johnson; Stanley P Leong; Merrick I Ross; David R Byrd; Natale Cascinelli; Alistair J Cochran; Alexander M Eggermont; Kelly M McMasters; Martin C Mihm; Donald L Morton; Vernon K Sondak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joost A P Leijte; Iris M C van der Ploeg; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Omgo E Nieweg; Simon Horenblas Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Matias E Valsecchi; Damian Silbermins; Nicole de Rosa; Sandra L Wong; Gary H Lyman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Susan B Kesmodel; Giorgos C Karakousis; Jeffrey D Botbyl; Robert J Canter; Robert T Lewis; Peter M Wahl; Kyla P Terhune; Abass Alavi; David E Elder; Michael E Ming; DuPont Guerry; Phyllis A Gimotty; Douglas L Fraker; Brian J Czerniecki; Francis R Spitz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2005-04-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: S Ribero; S Osella-Abate; M Sanlorenzo; P Savoia; C Astrua; G Cavaliere; C Tomasini; R Senetta; G Macripò; M G Bernengo; P Quaglino Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Dale Han; Daohai Yu; Xiuhua Zhao; Suroosh S Marzban; Jane L Messina; Ricardo J Gonzalez; C Wayne Cruse; Amod A Sarnaik; Christopher Puleo; Vernon K Sondak; Jonathan S Zager Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-07-06 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: Phyllis A Gimotty; DuPont Guerry; Michael E Ming; Rosalie Elenitsas; Xiaowei Xu; Brian Czerniecki; Francis Spitz; Lynn Schuchter; David Elder Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-08-09 Impact factor: 44.544