BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Indications for sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in patients with thin melanoma (≤1 mm thick) are controversial. We asked whether deep margin (DM) positivity at initial biopsy of thin melanoma is associated with SLN positivity. METHODS: Cases were identified using prospectively maintained databases at two melanoma centers. Patients who had undergone SLN biopsy for melanoma ≤1 mm were included. DM status was assessed for association with SLN metastasis in univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: 1413 cases were identified, but only 1129 with known DM status were included. 39% of patients had a positive DM on original biopsy. DM-positive and DM-negative patients did not differ significantly in primary thickness, ulceration, or mitotic activity. DM-positive and DM-negative patients had similar incidence of SLN metastasis (5.7% vs 3.5%; P = 0.07). Positive DM was not associated with SLN metastasis on univariate analysis (OR 1.69, 95% CI: 0.95-3.00, P = 0.07) or on multivariate analysis adjusted for Breslow depth, Clark level, mitotic rate, and ulceration (OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.89-2.85; P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with thin melanoma, a positive DM on initial biopsy is not associated with risk of SLN metastasis, so DM positivity should not be considered an indication for SLN staging in an otherwise low-risk patient.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Indications for sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in patients with thin melanoma (≤1 mm thick) are controversial. We asked whether deep margin (DM) positivity at initial biopsy of thin melanoma is associated with SLN positivity. METHODS: Cases were identified using prospectively maintained databases at two melanoma centers. Patients who had undergone SLN biopsy for melanoma ≤1 mm were included. DM status was assessed for association with SLN metastasis in univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: 1413 cases were identified, but only 1129 with known DM status were included. 39% of patients had a positive DM on original biopsy. DM-positive and DM-negative patients did not differ significantly in primary thickness, ulceration, or mitotic activity. DM-positive and DM-negative patients had similar incidence of SLN metastasis (5.7% vs 3.5%; P = 0.07). Positive DM was not associated with SLN metastasis on univariate analysis (OR 1.69, 95% CI: 0.95-3.00, P = 0.07) or on multivariate analysis adjusted for Breslow depth, Clark level, mitotic rate, and ulceration (OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.89-2.85; P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with thin melanoma, a positive DM on initial biopsy is not associated with risk of SLN metastasis, so DM positivity should not be considered an indication for SLN staging in an otherwise low-risk patient.
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: 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: Jonathan S Zager; Steven N Hochwald; Suroosh S Marzban; Rony Francois; Kimberly M Law; Ashley H Davis; Jane L Messina; Vladimir Vincek; Christina Mitchell; Ann Church; Edward M Copeland; Vernon K Sondak; Stephen R Grobmyer Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.113
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: Phillip Moore; Jon Hundley; Jennifer Hundley; Edward A Levine; Phillip Williford; Omar Sangueza; Thomas McCoy; Perry Shen Journal: Am Surg Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Dale Han; Jonathan S Zager; Yu Shyr; Heidi Chen; Lynne D Berry; Sanjana Iyengar; Mia Djulbegovic; Jaimie L Weber; Suroosh S Marzban; Vernon K Sondak; Jane L Messina; John T Vetto; Richard L White; Barbara Pockaj; Nicola Mozzillo; Kim James Charney; Eli Avisar; Robert Krouse; Mohammed Kashani-Sabet; Stanley P Leong Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-11-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Doreen M Agnese; Shahab F Abdessalam; William E Burak; Cynthia M Magro; Rodney V Pozderac; Michael J Walker Journal: Surgery Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Dennis L Rousseau; Merrick I Ross; Marcella M Johnson; Victor G Prieto; Jeffrey E Lee; Paul F Mansfield; Jeffrey E Gershenwald Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Suraj S Venna; Suresh Thummala; Mehdi Nosrati; Stanley P Leong; James R Miller; Richard W Sagebiel; Mohammed Kashani-Sabet Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 11.527
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