Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sentinel lymph node status as most important prognostic factor in patients with high-risk cutaneous melanomas (tumour thickness >4.00 mm): outcome analysis from a single institution

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is considered the most powerful prognostic indicator of survival in patients with cutaneous melanoma of intermediate thickness (1–4 mm). The use of SLNB in patients with melanoma with a tumour thickness >4.0 mm is still controversial. The purpose of the current study was to determine the prognostic value of SLNB in patients with thick cutaneous melanomas (tumour thickness >4.0 mm) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Methods

A retrospective single-centre study was performed at the Department of Dermatology and Allergy, University of Bonn, and the Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Bonn, based on data collected between September 2000 and January 2010. A total of 142 patients with cutaneous melanoma of thickness >4.00 mm were identified, and 63 of these patients underwent SLNB.

Results

Of the 63 patients in whom SLNB was performed, 25 (39.7 %) had a positive SLN. Ulceration was more frequent in SLN-positive patients (44 %) than in SLN-negative patients (18.4 %). The mean follow-up time for the 63 patients was 50.7 months. Positive SLN status predicted a significantly reduced life expectancy in the analyses of PFS and OS. In SLN-positive patients 5-year OS was 76 % and in SLN-negative patients was 84.2 % (p = 0.048). Patients with a combination of ulcerated tumour and positive SLN had the worst prognosis.

Conclusion

On the basis of our follow-up data, SLNB has to be recommended in patients with a tumour thickness >4.00 mm after exclusion of lymph node macrometastases or distant metastases. SLN status is the most significant prognostic factor in this group of patients.

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. Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong S, Thompson JF, Atkins MB, Byrd DR, et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC Melanoma Staging and Classification. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:6199–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ross MI. Sentinel node biopsy for melanoma: an update after two decades of experience. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2010;29:238–48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Morton DL, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, Mozzillo N, Elashoff R, Essner R, et al. Sentinel-node biopsy or nodal observation in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1307–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ross MI, Gershenwald JE. How should we view the results of the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial-1 (MSLT-1)? Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:670–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vuylsteke RJ, van Leeuwen PA. Statius Muller MG, Gietema HA, Kragt DR, Meijer S. Clinical outcome of stage I/II melanoma patients after selective sentinel lymph node dissection: long term follow-up results. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1057–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hinz T, Ahmadzadehfar H, Wierzbicki A, Höller T, Wenzel J, Biersack HJ, et al. Prognostic value of sentinel lymph node biopsy in 121 low-risk melanomas (tumour thickness <1.00 mm) on the basis of a long-term follow-up. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:581–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Perrott RE, Glass LF, Reintgen DS, Fenske NA. Reassessing the role of lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy in the management of cutaneous malignant melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49:567–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Carlson GW, Murray DR, Hestley A, Staley CA, Lyles RH, Cohen C. Sentinel lymph node mapping for thick (≥ 4mm) melanoma: should we be doing it? Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:408–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jacobs IA, Chang CK, Salti GI. Role of Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thick (> 4mm) primary melanoma. Ann Surg. 2004;70:59–62.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gutzmer R, Satzger I, Thoms KM, Völker B, Mitteldorf C, Kapp A, et al. Sentinel lymph node status is the most important prognostic factor for thick (> or = 4mm) melanomas. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2008;6:198–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gutzmer R, Al Ghazal M, Geerlings H, Kapp A. Sentinel node biopsy in melanoma delays recurrence but does not change melanoma-related survival: a retrospective analysis of 673 patients. Br J Dermatol. 2005;153:1137–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Thompson JF, Shaw HM. The prognosis of patients with thick primary melanomas: is regional lymph node status relevant, and does removing positive regional nodes influence outcome? Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:719–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Essner R, Chung MH, Bleicher R, Hsueh E, Wanek L, Morton DL. Prognostic implications of thick (≥4mm) melanoma in the era of intraoperative lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:754–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Balch CM, Soong SJ, Gershenwald JE, Thompson JF, Reintgen DS, Cascinelli N, et al. Prognostic factors analysis of 17600 melanoma patients: validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging system. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3622–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Salti GI, Kansagra A, Warso MA, Ronan SG, Das Gupta TK. Clinical node-negative thick melanoma. Arch Surg. 2002;137:291–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Garbe C, Paul A, Kohler-Späth H, Ellwanger U, Stroebel W, Schwarz M, et al. Prospective evaluation of a follow-up schedule in cutaneous melanoma patients: recommendations for an effective follow-up strategy. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:520–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Balch CM. Cutaneous melanoma: prognosis and treatment results worldwide. Semin Surg Oncol. 1992;8:400–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Carlson GW, Murray DR, Lyles RH, Staley CA, Hestley A, Cohen C. The amount of metastatic melanoma in a sentinel lymph node: does it have prognostic significance? Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:575–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Spanknebel K, Coit DG, Bieligk SC, Gonen M, Rosai J, Klimstra DS. Characterization of micrometastatic disease in melanoma sentinel lymph nodes by enhanced pathology: recommendations for standardizing pathologic analysis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:305–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Topar G, Eisendle K, Zelger B, Fritsch P. Sentinel lymph node status in melanoma: a valuable prognostic factor? Br J Dermatol. 2006;154:1080–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rondelli F, Vedovati MC, Becattini C, Tomassini GM, Messina S, Noya G, et al. Prognostic role of sentinel node biopsy in patients with thick melanoma: a meta-analysis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012;26:560–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mansfield PF, Lee JE, Balch CM. Cutaneous melanoma: current practise and surgical controversies. Curr Probl Surg. 1994;31:253–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim SH, Garcia C, Rodriguez J, Coit DG. Prognosis of thick cutaneous melanoma. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;188:241–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Gershenwald JE, Mansfield PF, Lee JE, Ross MI. Role of lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thick (≥ 4mm) primary melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7:160–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cherpelis BS, Haddad F, Messina J, Cantor AB, Fitzmorris K, Reintgen DS, et al. Sentinel lymph node micrometastasis and other histologic factors that predict outcome in patients with thicker melanomas. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;44:762–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Singluff CL, Stidham KR, Ricci WM, Stanley WE, Seigler HF. Surgical management of regional lymph nodes in patients with melanoma: experience with 4682 patients. Ann Surg. 1994;219:120–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Scoggins CR, Bowen AL, Martin 2nd RC, Edwards MJ, Reintgen DS, Ross MI, et al. Prognostic information from sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thick melanoma. Arch Surg. 2010;145:622–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ferrone CR, Panageas KS, Busam K, Brady MS, Coit DG. Multivariate prognostic model for patients with thick cutaneous melanoma: importance of sentinel lymph node status. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:637–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mandala M, Imberti GL, Piazzalunga D, Belfiglio M, Labianca R, Barberis M, et al. Clinical and histopathological risk factors to predict sentinel lymph node positivity, disease-free and overall survival in clinical stages I-II AJCC skin melanoma: outcome analysis from a single-institution prospectively collected database. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:2537–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Heaton KM, Sussman JJ, Gershenwald JE, Lee JE, Reintgen DS, Mansfield PF, et al. Surgical margins and prognostic factors in patients with thick (> 4mm) primary melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998;5:322–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Goeppner D, Ulrich J, Pokrywka A, Peters B, Gollnick H, Leverkus M. Sentinel lymph node biopsy status is a key parameter to stratify the prognostic heterogeneity of malignant melanoma in high-risk tumors >4.0 mm. Dermatology. 2011;222:59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, Thompson JF, Ding S, Byrd DR, et al. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors among 2313 patients with stage III melanoma: comparison of nodal micrometastases versus macrometastases. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2452–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Miller MW, Vetto JT, Monroe MM, Weerasinghe R, Andersen PE, Gross N. False-negative sentinel lymph node biopsy in head and neck melanoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;145:606–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gadd MA, Cosimi AB, Yu J, Duncan LM, Yu L, Flotte TJ, et al. Outcome of patients with melanoma and histological negative sentinel lymph nodes. Arch Surg. 1999;134:381–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Yudd AP, Kempf JS, Goydos JS, Stahl TJ, Feinstein RS. Use of sentinel node lymphoscintigraphy in malignant melanoma. Radiographics. 1999;19:343–53.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Leong SP. Role of selective sentinel lymph node dissection in head and neck melanoma. J Surg Oncol. 2011;104:361–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pitman KT, Johnson JT, Brown ML, Myers EN. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 2002;112:2101–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Jacobs IA, Chang CK, DasGupta TK, Salti GI. Role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thin primary melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:558–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zapas JL, Coley HC, Beam SL, Brown SD, Jablonski KA, Elias EG. The risk of regional lymph node metastases in patients with melanoma less than 1.0mm thick: recommendation for sentinel lymph node biopsy. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197:403–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant from the German Cancer Aid (Program for the Development of Interdisciplinary Oncology Centers of Excellence in Germany), Bonn, Germany.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Cologne Bonn University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Torsten Hinz, Joerg Wenzel, Thomas Bieber & Monika-H. Schmid-Wendtner

  2. Department of Nuclear medicine, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar, Anja Wierzbicki & Hans-J. Biersack

  3. Institute for Medical Biometry, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Tobias Hoeller

  4. Interdisciplinary Oncology Center (IOC) Munich, Nußbaumstr. 12, 80336, Munich, Germany

    Monika-H. Schmid-Wendtner

Authors
  1. Torsten Hinz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anja Wierzbicki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tobias Hoeller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joerg Wenzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hans-J. Biersack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thomas Bieber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Monika-H. Schmid-Wendtner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monika-H. Schmid-Wendtner.

Additional information

Torsten Hinz and Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hinz, T., Ahmadzadehfar, H., Wierzbicki, A. et al. Sentinel lymph node status as most important prognostic factor in patients with high-risk cutaneous melanomas (tumour thickness >4.00 mm): outcome analysis from a single institution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39, 1316–1325 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2139-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2139-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation