Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multicenter Adoption and Outcomes of Nodal Observation for Patients with Melanoma and Sentinel Lymph Node Metastases

  • Melanoma
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Following publication of the MSLT-II trial showing no survival benefit of completion lymphadenectomy (CLND) in patients with melanoma sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastases, it is expected that practice patterns have changed. The purpose of this study is to understand real-world practices and outcomes after publication of this landmark trial.

Patients and Methods

Patients with truncal/extremity melanoma SLN metastases diagnosed between 2013 and 2019 at four academic cancer centers were included in this retrospective cohort study. Descriptive statistics, Cox proportional hazards model, and multivariable regression were used to characterize the cohort and identify predictors of CLND, harboring non-SLN (NSLN) metastases, and survival.

Results

Results of 1176 patients undergoing SLN biopsy, 183 had SLN metastases. The number of patients who underwent CLND before versus after trial publication was 75.7.% versus 20.5% (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09–0.28). Of those undergoing nodal observation (NO), 92% had a first nodal-basin ultrasound, while 63% of patients had a fourth. In exploratory multivariable analyses, age ≥ 50 years was associated with lower rate of CLND (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36–0.92) and larger SLN deposit (> 1.0 mm) with increased rate of CLND (HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.17–3.00) in the complete cohort. Extracapsular extension was associated with increased risk of NSLN metastases (HR 12.43, 95% CI 2.48–62.31). Adjusted survival analysis demonstrated no difference in recurrence or mortality between patients treated with CLND versus NO at median 2.2-year follow-up.

Conclusion

Nodal observation was rapidly adopted into practice in patients with melanoma SLN metastases at four centers in Canada. Younger age and higher nodal burden were associated with increased use of CLND after trial publication. Ultrasound (US) surveillance decreased with time from SLNB. In our study, CLND was not associated with a decreased risk of recurrence or mortality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wong SL, Faries MB, Kennedy EB, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and management of regional lymph nodes in melanoma: american society of clinical oncology and society of surgical oncology clinical practice guideline update. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(2):356–77. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6267-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Faries MB, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Completion dissection or observation for sentinel-node metastasis in melanoma. New Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2211–22. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1613210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Leiter U, Stadler R, Mauch C, et al. Complete lymph node dissection versus no dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node biopsy positive melanoma (DeCOG-SLT): a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(6):757–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00141-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cutaneous Melanoma (Version 3.2022). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cutaneous_melanoma.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2022.

  5. Bamboat ZM, Konstantinidis IT, Kuk D, Ariyan CE, Brady MS, Coit DG. Observation after a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(9):3117–23. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3758-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Broman KK, Hughes TM, Dossett LA, et al. Surveillance of sentinel node-positive melanoma patients with reasons for exclusion from MSLT-II: multi-institutional propensity score matched analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2021;232(4):424–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.11.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Faries MB, Thompson JF, Cochran A, et al. The impact on morbidity and lengthof stay of early versus delayed complete lymphadenectomy in melanoma: results of the multicenter selective lymphadenectomy trial (I). Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(12):3324–9. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1203-0.The.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Postlewait LM, Farley CR, Seamens AM, et al. Morbidity and outcomes following axillary lymphadenectomy for melanoma: weighing the risk of surgery in the era of MSLT-II. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(2):465–70. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6242-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Moody JA, Botham SJ, Dahill KE, Wallace DL. Complications following completion lymphadenectomy versus therapeutic lymphadenectomy for melanoma - a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(9):1760–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2017.07.003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wright FC, Souter LH, Kellett S, et al. Primary excision margins, sentinel lymph node biopsy, and completion lymph node dissection in cutaneous melanoma: a clinical practice guideline. Curr Oncol. 2019;26(4):541–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wahl TS, Graham LA, Hawn MT, et al. Association of the modified frailty index with 30-day surgical readmission. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(8):749–57. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.

  13. Rubin D. Multiple Imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Giuliano A, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer. JAMA. 2011;305(6):569–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Morrow M, Jagsi R, Chandler M, Shumway D, Katz SJ. Surgeon attitudes toward the omission of axillary dissection in early breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(11):1511–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nijhuis AAG, Spillane AJ, Stretch JR, et al. Current management of patients with melanoma who are found to be sentinel node-positive. Surg Oncol. 2020;90:491–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.15491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Alexander CJ, Nowecki ZI, Voit C, et al. Sentinel node tumor burden according to the rotterdam criteria is the most important prognostic factor for survival in melanoma patients: a multicenter study in 388 ratients with positive sentinel nodes. Ann Surg. 2008;248(6):949–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818fefe0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Franke V, van Akkooi ACJ. The extent of surgery for stage III melanoma: how much is appropriate? Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(3):e167–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30099-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Leiter U, Stadler R, Mauch C, et al. Final analysis of decog-slt trial: no survival benefit for complete lymph node dissection in patients with melanoma with positive sentinel node. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(32):3000–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.02306.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kwak M, Song Y, Gimotty PA, et al. Characteristics associated with pathologic nodal burden in patients presenting with clinical melanoma nodal metastasis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(12):3962–71. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07694-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hauschild A, Dummer R, Schadendorf D, et al. Longer follow-up confirms relapse-free survival benefit with adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with resected BRAF V600–mutant stage III melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(35):3441–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.01219.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Weber J, Mandala M, Del Vecchio M, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III or IV melanoma. New Engl J Med. 2017;377(19):1824–35. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1709030.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Xing Y, Bronstein Y, Ross MI, et al. Contemporary diagnostic imaging modalities for the staging and surveillance of melanoma patients: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(2):129–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bartlett EK, Lee AY, Spanheimer PM, et al. Nodal and systemic recurrence following observation of a positive sentinel lymph node in melanoma. Br J Surg. 2020;107(11):1480–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11621.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ibrahim AM, May ML, Bosse D. Imaging intensity and survival outcomes in high-risk resected melanoma treated by systemic therapy at recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08407-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Neuwirth MG. Timing is everything: could surveillance imaging intensity influence survival in high-risk melanoma? Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(10):3577–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08633-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No authors have conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Elena Parvez MD, MSc, FRCSC

  2. Gerald Bronfman Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Farzin Khosrow-Khavar PhD

  3. Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Teodora Dumitra MD, PhD, Sarkis Meterissian MD. MSc, FRCSC & Sinziana Dumitra MD, MSc, FRCSC

  4. Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Carolyn Nessim MD, MSc, FRCSC & Éricka Bernard-Bédard MD

  5. Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Justin Rivard MD, MSc, FRCSC & Sara Wang MD

  6. Department of Surgery, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Vera Pravong MD & Mai-Kim Gervais MD, MSc, FRCSC

Authors
  1. Elena Parvez MD, MSc, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farzin Khosrow-Khavar PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Teodora Dumitra MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carolyn Nessim MD, MSc, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Éricka Bernard-Bédard MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Justin Rivard MD, MSc, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Vera Pravong MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sara Wang MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mai-Kim Gervais MD, MSc, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Sarkis Meterissian MD. MSc, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sinziana Dumitra MD, MSc, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Parvez MD, MSc, FRCSC.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parvez, E., Khosrow-Khavar, F., Dumitra, T. et al. Multicenter Adoption and Outcomes of Nodal Observation for Patients with Melanoma and Sentinel Lymph Node Metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 30, 1195–1205 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-12695-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-12695-7

Search

Navigation