Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 12, pp 3469–3475 | Cite as

Prediction of Residual Nodal Disease at Completion Dissection Following Positive Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Melanoma

  • Andrew J. Sinnamon
  • Yun Song
  • Cimarron E. Sharon
  • Yu-Xiao Yang
  • David E. Elder
  • Paul J. Zhang
  • Xiaowei Xu
  • Robert E. Roses
  • Rachel R. Kelz
  • Douglas L. Fraker
  • Giorgos C. Karakousis
Melanomas

Abstract

Introduction

While recent trial data have demonstrated no survival benefit to immediate completion lymph node dissection (CLND) for positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) disease in melanoma, prediction of non-SLN disease may help risk-stratify patients for more intensive observation of the nodal basin.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective cohort of patients with positive SLN biopsy (SLNB) who underwent CLND was identified (1996–2016). A risk score for likelihood of CLND-positive disease was developed based on factors associated with presence of CLND metastases identified on logistic regression. Survival outcomes were analyzed.

Results

Among 312 patients with positive SLN, 192 underwent CLND and had complete pathologic data for evaluation. The median age of the study cohort was 53 years [interquartile range (IQR) 43–66 years], and 112 (58%) were male. Thirty-one (16%) had non-SLN metastatic disease on CLND. The four factors independently associated with CLND positivity and thus included in the risk score were Breslow thickness ≥ 3 mm [odds ratio (OR) 2.56, p = 0.047], presence of primary tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (OR 0.33, p = 0.013), ≥ 2/3 positive-to-total SLN ratio (OR 4.35, p = 0.003), and combined subcapsular and parenchymal metastatic SLN location or metastatic deposit ≥ 1 mm (OR 4.45, p = 0.013). The four-point risk score predicted CLND positivity well with area under the curve of 0.82 (0.80–0.85). Increasing risk score was independently associated with increasingly worse melanoma-specific survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.54, p = 0.001].

Conclusions

Likelihood of residual nodal disease after positive SLNB and survival can be predicted from primary tumor and SLN characteristics. High-risk patients may warrant more intensive surveillance of the nodal basin to reduce risk of loss of regional control.

Notes

Disclosure

There are no financial interests to disclose. There are no external sources of funding to report.

References

  1. 1.
    Faries MB, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Completion dissection or observation for sentinel-node metastasis in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2211–2222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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):757–767.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eggermont AM, Chiarion-Sileni V, Grob JJ, et al. Adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(5):522–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Long GV, Hauschild A, Santinami M, et al. Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(19):1813-1823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maio M, Lewis K, Demidov L, et al. Adjuvant vemurafenib in resected, BRAF(V600) mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM8): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):510–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weber J, Mandala M, Del Vecchio M, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III or IV melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(19):1824–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cadili A, Scolyer RA, Brown PT, Dabbs K, Thompson JF. Total sentinel lymph node tumor size predicts nonsentinel node metastasis and survival in patients with melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(11):3015–3020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dewar DJ, Newell B, Green MA, Topping AP, Powell BW, Cook MG. The microanatomic location of metastatic melanoma in sentinel lymph nodes predicts nonsentinel lymph node involvement. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(16):3345–3349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gershenwald JE, Andtbacka RH, Prieto VG, et al. Microscopic tumor burden in sentinel lymph nodes predicts synchronous nonsentinel lymph node involvement in patients with melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(26):4296–4303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee JH, Essner R, Torisu-Itakura H, Wanek L, Wang H, Morton DL. Factors predictive of tumor-positive nonsentinel lymph nodes after tumor-positive sentinel lymph node dissection for melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(18):3677–3684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murali R, Desilva C, Thompson JF, Scolyer RA. Non-Sentinel Node Risk Score (N-SNORE): a scoring system for accurately stratifying risk of non-sentinel node positivity in patients with cutaneous melanoma with positive sentinel lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(29):4441–4449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Ploeg AP, van Akkooi AC, Rutkowski P, et al. Prognosis in patients with sentinel node-positive melanoma is accurately defined by the combined Rotterdam tumor load and Dewar topography criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2206–2214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kesmodel SB, Karakousis GC, Botbyl JD, et al. Mitotic rate as a predictor of sentinel lymph node positivity in patients with thin melanomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12(6):449-458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith GC, Seaman SR, Wood AM, Royston P, White IR. Correcting for optimistic prediction in small data sets. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180(3):318–324.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schemper M, Smith TL. A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(4):343–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. In. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2015.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clark TG, Bradburn MJ, Love SB, Altman DG. Survival analysis part I: basic concepts and first analyses. Br J Cancer. 2003;89(2):232–238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Azimi F, Scolyer RA, Rumcheva P, et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte grade is an independent predictor of sentinel lymph node status and survival in patients with cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(21):2678–2683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Burton AL, Roach BA, Mays MP, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in melanoma. Am Surg. 2011;77(2):188–192.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taylor RC, Patel A, Panageas KS, Busam KJ, Brady MS. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes predict sentinel lymph node positivity in patients with cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(7):869–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Egger ME, Bower MR, Czyszczon IA, et al. Comparison of sentinel lymph node micrometastatic tumor burden measurements in melanoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218(4):519–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew J. Sinnamon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yun Song
    • 1
  • Cimarron E. Sharon
    • 1
  • Yu-Xiao Yang
    • 2
  • David E. Elder
    • 3
  • Paul J. Zhang
    • 3
  • Xiaowei Xu
    • 3
  • Robert E. Roses
    • 1
  • Rachel R. Kelz
    • 1
  • Douglas L. Fraker
    • 1
  • Giorgos C. Karakousis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Endocrine and Oncologic Surgery DivisionHospital of the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and InformaticsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of PathologyHospital of the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations