Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp 927–932 | Cite as

The Prognostic Importance of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Thin Melanoma

  • Jaime M. Ranieri
  • Jeffrey D. Wagner
  • Stacie Wenck
  • Cynthia S. Johnson
  • John J. ColemanIII
Article

Abstract

Background

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is prognostically useful in patients with cutaneous melanoma with Breslow thickness >1 mm. The objective of this study was to determine whether sentinel node histology has similar prognostic importance in patients with thin melanomas (≤1 mm).

Methods

This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent SLNB for clinically localized melanoma at Indiana University Medical Center between 1994 and 2003. SLNB results and traditional melanoma prognostic indicators were studied in univariate log-rank tests.

Results

One hundred eighty-four patients with melanomas ≤1 mm thick underwent SLNB. SLNB was tumor positive in 12 patients (6.5%). Univariate analysis of SLNB results revealed that Breslow thickness, Clark level of invasion, and mitotic index were associated with SLNB status. Tumor positivity was observed at different rates in tumor thickness subsets: <.75 mm, 2.3%; and .75 to 1.0 mm, 10.2% (P = .0372). Disease-free survival and overall survival were significantly associated with SLNB results in melanomas ≤1 mm (log-rank test: P < .0001 and P = .0125, respectively) at a median follow-up of 26.3 months.

Conclusions

SLNB histology in melanomas ≤1.0 mm deep is a significant predictor of outcome. SLNB should be considered for selected patients with melanomas .75 to 1.0 mm.

Keywords

Melanoma Metastases Sentinel lymph node Prognosis Tumor thickness  Breslow level 

References

  1. 1.
    Lipsker DM, Hedelin G, Heid E, et al. Striking increase of thin melanomas contrasts with stable incidence of thick melanomas. Arch Dermatol 1999; 135:1451–6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balch CM, Buzaid AC, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:3635–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Woods JE, Soule EH, Creagan ET. Metastasis and death in patients with thin melanomas (< 0.76 mm). Ann Surg 1983; 198:63–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mansson-Brahme E, Carstensen J, Erhardt K, et al. Prognostic factors in thin cutaneous malignant melanoma. Cancer 1994; 73:2324–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Slingluff CL, Vollmer RT, Reintgen DS, et al. Lethal “thin” malignant melanoma: identifying patients at risk. Ann Surg 1988; 208:150–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Naruns PL, Nizze JA, Cochran AJ, et al. Recurrence potential of thin primary melanomas. Cancer 1986; 57:545–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corsetti RL, Allen HM, Wanebo HJ. Thin ≤1 mm level III and IV melanomas are higher risk lesions for regional failure and warrant sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 2000; 7:456–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guitart J, Lowe L, Piepkorn M, et al. Histological characteristics of metastasizing thin melanomas: a case-control study of 43 cases. Arch Dermatol 2002; 138:603–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bedrosian I, Faries MB, Guerry D, et al. Incidence of sentinel node metastases in patients with thin primary melanoma (≤1 mm) with vertical growth phase. Ann Surg Oncol 2000; 7:262–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oliveira Filho RS, Ferreira LM, Biasi LJ, et al. Vertical growth phase and positive sentinel node in thin melanoma. Braz J Med Biol Res 2003; 36:347–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wagner JD, Gordon MS, Chuang TY, et al. Predicting sentinel and residual lymph node basin disease after sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma. Cancer 2000; 89:453–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gershenwald JE, Thompson W, Mansfield PF, et al. Multi-institutional melanoma lymphatic mapping experience: the prognostic value of sentinel lymph node status in 612 stage I or II melanoma patients. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:976–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wagner JD, Ranieri J, Evdokimow DZ, et al. Patterns of initial recurrence and prognosis after sentinel lymph node biopsy and selective lymphadenectomy for melanoma. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 112:486–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lowe JB, Hurst E, Moley JF, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thin melanoma. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139:617–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muller MG, Leeuwen PA, vanDiest PJ, et al. No indication for performing sentinel node biopsy in melanoma patients with a Breslow thickness of less than 0.9 mm. Melanoma Res 2001; 11:303–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, et al. Technical details of intra-operative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg 1992; 127:392–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jacobs IA, Chang CK, DasGupta TK, et al. Role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thin (< 1 mm) primary melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:558–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nahabedian MY, Tufaro AP, Manson PN. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for the T1 (thin) melanoma: is it necessary? Ann Plast Surg 2003; 50:601–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schmid-Wendtner MH, Baumert J, Schmidt M, et al. Prognostic index for cutaneous melanoma: an analysis after follow-up of 2715 patients. Melanoma Res 2001; 11:619–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Azzola MF, Shaw HM, Thompson JF, et al. Tumor mitotic index is a more powerful prognostic indicator than ulceration in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of 3661 patients from a single center. Cancer 2003; 97:1488–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kesmodel SB, Karakousis GC, Botbyl JP, et al. Mitotic rate as a predictor for sentinel lymph node positivity in patients with thin melanomas. Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12:449–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Balch CM, Soong SJ, Gershenwald JE, et al. Prognostic factors analysis of 17,600 melanoma patients: validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging system. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:3622–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Finley JW, Gibbs JF, Rodriguez LM, et al. Pathologic and clinical features influencing outcome of thin melanoma: correlation with newly proposed staging system. Am Surg 2000; 66:527–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Agnese DM, Abdessalam SF, Burak WE, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sentinel lymph node biopsy in thin melanomas. Surgery 2003; 134:542–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Surgical Oncology, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaime M. Ranieri
    • 1
  • Jeffrey D. Wagner
    • 1
  • Stacie Wenck
    • 1
  • Cynthia S. Johnson
    • 2
  • John J. ColemanIII
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery/Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryIndiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University–Purdue UniversityIndianapolis
  2. 2.Department of Medicine/BiostatisticsIndiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University–Purdue UniversityIndianapolis

Personalised recommendations