Michelle Lo1, Alyss Robinson2, Ryckie Wade2,3, Howard Peach3, Donald Dewar3, Martin Heaton4, Marc Moncrieff4,5. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK. Michelle.Lo@nhs.net. 2. Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 3. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK. 4. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK. 5. Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extracapsular spread (ECS) is recognized to be a high-risk factor in melanoma patients with macrometastatic (N+) nodal disease; however, ECS risk in sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy, micrometastatic stage III disease is ambiguous. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine ECS incidence and its prognostic significance. METHODS: A two-center, retrospective analysis of all patients with micro/macrometastatic lymphadenopathy undergoing nodal surgery from 2008 to 2014 was performed. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, nodal ECS status, and patient outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Overall, 515 patients with nodal disease were identified (males/females = 277/238); median age was 63 years (range 17-94). There was an increased frequency of ECS disease in N+ disease compared with SLN+ disease (52.4% vs. 16.2%; p < 0.0001). The absolute disease-specific survival (DSS) difference for SLN+ patients was approximately 30% at 10 years (66.2% vs. 37.2%; p < 0.0001), and the prognosis of SLN+/ECS+ patients was identical to N+/ECS- patients. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that ECS status was an independent prognostic indicator for DSS (hazard ratio 2.47, 95% confidence interval 1.87-3.26; p < 0.0001) in patients with SLN+ disease. There were significant differences in nodal burden according to ECS status between the SLN+ and N+ subgroups suggestive of differing biology in ECS+ tumors. CONCLUSION: We found that ECS is a significant DSS, progression-free survival, and overall survival indicator in SLN+ and N+ disease. We demonstrated that ECS upstages stage III disease, similar to ulceration in primary melanoma (stage I/II disease). A simplified staging system substituting ECS for N stage accurately stages patients according to prognosis.
BACKGROUND: Extracapsular spread (ECS) is recognized to be a high-risk factor in melanomapatients with macrometastatic (N+) nodal disease; however, ECS risk in sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy, micrometastatic stage III disease is ambiguous. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine ECS incidence and its prognostic significance. METHODS: A two-center, retrospective analysis of all patients with micro/macrometastatic lymphadenopathy undergoing nodal surgery from 2008 to 2014 was performed. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, nodal ECS status, and patient outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Overall, 515 patients with nodal disease were identified (males/females = 277/238); median age was 63 years (range 17-94). There was an increased frequency of ECS disease in N+ disease compared with SLN+ disease (52.4% vs. 16.2%; p < 0.0001). The absolute disease-specific survival (DSS) difference for SLN+ patients was approximately 30% at 10 years (66.2% vs. 37.2%; p < 0.0001), and the prognosis of SLN+/ECS+ patients was identical to N+/ECS- patients. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that ECS status was an independent prognostic indicator for DSS (hazard ratio 2.47, 95% confidence interval 1.87-3.26; p < 0.0001) in patients with SLN+ disease. There were significant differences in nodal burden according to ECS status between the SLN+ and N+ subgroups suggestive of differing biology in ECS+ tumors. CONCLUSION: We found that ECS is a significant DSS, progression-free survival, and overall survival indicator in SLN+ and N+ disease. We demonstrated that ECS upstages stage III disease, similar to ulceration in primary melanoma (stage I/II disease). A simplified staging system substituting ECS for N stage accurately stages patients according to prognosis.
Authors: A C J van Akkooi; J H W de Wilt; C Verhoef; P I M Schmitz; A N van Geel; A M M Eggermont; M Kliffen Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-09-12 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Laetitia Vercellino; Dorine de Jong; Laurent Dercle; Benoit Hosten; Brian Braumuller; Jeeban Paul Das; Aileen Deng; Antoine Moya-Plana; Camry A'Keen; Randy Yeh; Pascal Merlet; Barouyr Baroudjian; Mary M Salvatore; Kathleen M Capaccione Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-04-29