Joshua N Herb1,2, David W Ollila3, Karyn B Stitzenberg3, Michael O Meyers3. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Joshua.herb@unchealth.unc.edu. 2. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Joshua.herb@unchealth.unc.edu. 3. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The utility of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for non-ulcerated T1b melanoma is debated and associated costs are poorly characterized. Prior work using institutional registries may overestimate the incidence of nodal positivity in this population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the use of SLNB, positivity prevalence, and procedural costs in patients with non-ulcerated T1b melanoma using a population-based registry. METHODS: We identified patients with clinically node-negative, non-ulcerated melanoma 0.8-1.0 mm thick (T1b according to the 8th edition standard of the American Joint Committee on Cancer) in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2010 to 2016. The prevalence of SLNB procedures and positive sentinel nodes were calculated. Factors associated with SLNB and sentinel node positivity were assessed using logistic regression. Medicare reimbursement costs and patient out-of-pocket expenses for SLNB and wide local excision (WLE) versus WLE alone were estimated. RESULTS: Among 7245 included patients, 3835(53%) underwent SLNB, 156 (4.1%, 95% confidence interval 3.5-4.7) of whom had a positive SLNB. Younger age, >1 mitosis per mm2, female sex, and truncal tumor location were associated with higher odds of positivity. The estimated SLNB cost to identify one patient with stage III disease was $71,700 (range $54,648-$83,172). Out-of-pocket expenses for a Medicare patient were estimated to be $652 for a WLE and SLNB and $79 for a WLE alone. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, only 4% of selected non-ulcerated T1b patients had a positive SLNB, which is lower than prior reports. At the population level, SLNB is associated with high costs per prognostic information gained.
BACKGROUND: The utility of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for non-ulcerated T1b melanoma is debated and associated costs are poorly characterized. Prior work using institutional registries may overestimate the incidence of nodal positivity in this population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the use of SLNB, positivity prevalence, and procedural costs in patients with non-ulcerated T1b melanoma using a population-based registry. METHODS: We identified patients with clinically node-negative, non-ulcerated melanoma 0.8-1.0 mm thick (T1b according to the 8th edition standard of the American Joint Committee on Cancer) in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2010 to 2016. The prevalence of SLNB procedures and positive sentinel nodes were calculated. Factors associated with SLNB and sentinel node positivity were assessed using logistic regression. Medicare reimbursement costs and patient out-of-pocket expenses for SLNB and wide local excision (WLE) versus WLE alone were estimated. RESULTS: Among 7245 included patients, 3835(53%) underwent SLNB, 156 (4.1%, 95% confidence interval 3.5-4.7) of whom had a positive SLNB. Younger age, >1 mitosis per mm2, female sex, and truncal tumor location were associated with higher odds of positivity. The estimated SLNB cost to identify one patient with stage III disease was $71,700 (range $54,648-$83,172). Out-of-pocket expenses for a Medicare patient were estimated to be $652 for a WLE and SLNB and $79 for a WLE alone. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, only 4% of selected non-ulcerated T1b patients had a positive SLNB, which is lower than prior reports. At the population level, SLNB is associated with high costs per prognostic information gained.
Authors: Edmund K Bartlett; Phyllis A Gimotty; Andrew J Sinnamon; Heather Wachtel; Robert E Roses; Lynn Schuchter; Xiaowei Xu; David E Elder; Michael Ming; Rosalie Elenitsas; DuPont Guerry; Rachel R Kelz; Brian J Czerniecki; Douglas L Fraker; Giorgos C Karakousis Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-10-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Katherine Mallin; Amanda Browner; Bryan Palis; Greer Gay; Ryan McCabe; Leticia Nogueira; Robin Yabroff; Lawrence Shulman; Matthew Facktor; David P Winchester; Heidi Nelson Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jaime M Ranieri; Jeffrey D Wagner; Stacie Wenck; Cynthia S Johnson; John J Coleman Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-05-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Margaret W Cavanaugh-Hussey; Euphemia W Mu; Sewon Kang; Charles M Balch; Timothy Wang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-05-05 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: 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: Charles M Balch; John F Thompson; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Seng-Jaw Soong; Shouluan Ding; Kelly M McMasters; Daniel G Coit; Alexander M M Eggermont; Phyllis A Gimotty; Timothy M Johnson; John M Kirkwood; Stanley P Leong; Merrick I Ross; David R Byrd; Alistair J Cochran; Martin C Mihm; Donald L Morton; Michael B Atkins; Keith T Flaherty; Vernon K Sondak Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-02-15 Impact factor: 5.344