Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 25–32 | Cite as

Correlation Between Surgical and Histologic Margins in Melanoma Wide Excision Specimens

  • Erica B. Friedman
  • Tristan J. Dodds
  • Serigne Lo
  • Peter M. Ferguson
  • Matthew Beck
  • Robyn P. M. Saw
  • Jonathan R. Stretch
  • Kenneth K. Lee
  • Omgo E. Nieweg
  • Andrew J. Spillane
  • Richard A. Scolyer
  • John F. ThompsonEmail author
Melanoma

Abstract

Introduction

Wide surgical excision is the standard treatment for localized primary cutaneous melanomas, with a narrow histologic margin associated with an increased risk of local recurrence. The correlation between surgical and histologic margins is poorly documented in the literature.

Methods

An audit was performed to (1) document the shrinkage of formalin-fixed specimens, and (2) use a precisely measured surgical margin in vivo to predict the histologic margin. For patients presenting for wide excision of melanomas and other malignant skin tumors, measured surgical margin, in vivo and ex vivo specimen width, and histologic margins after formalin fixation were recorded. The effects of clinicopathologic characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), tumor type, anatomic site, and presence of visible tumor in predicting specimen shrinkage and histologic margin were assessed.

Results

In total, 252 specimens were evaluated. When compared with measured width in vivo, the formalin-fixed specimens showed a mean shrinkage of 14% (R2 = 0.98), regardless of patient age, sex, BMI, or site of the lesion. The measured surgical margin was not a strong predictor of the histologic margin, with a high degree of variability (R2 = 0.55) not explained by patient factors, tumor subtype, or presence of visible tumor at the time of excision (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

A consistent 14% shrinkage rate of wide excision specimens was found across all patients and excision sites, and we propose a clinically useful 15% correction factor that will account for fixation and shrinkage of cutaneous excision specimens. Excision margins measured by the surgeon were a poor predictor of the histologic margins.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Kaye Oakley for her invaluable assistance with the preparation of this manuscript.

Disclosures

Erica B. Friedman, Tristan J. Dodds, Serigne Lo, Peter M. Ferguson, Matthew Beck, Robyn P.M. Saw, Jonathan R. Stretch, Kenneth K. Lee, Omgo E. Nieweg, Andrew J. Spillane, Richard A. Scolyer, and John F. Thompson have no disclosures to declare.

Supplementary material

10434_2018_6858_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1712 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Coats J. On a case of multiple melanotic sarcoma with remarks on the mode of growth and extension of such tumours. Glasg Med J. 1885;24:92–97.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Veronesi U, Cascinelli N. Narrow excision (1-cm margin): a safe procedure for thin cutaneous melanoma. Arch Surg. 1991;126(4):438-441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balch CM, Urist MM, Karakousis CP, et al. Efficacy of 2-cm surgical margins for intermediate-thickness melanomas (1–4 mm). Results of a multi-institutional randomized surgical trial. Ann Surg. 1993;218(3):262-267; (discussion 267–269).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohn-Cedermark G, Rutqvist LE, Andersson R, et al. Long term results of a randomized study by the Swedish Melanoma Study Group on 2-cm versus 5-cm resection margins for patients with cutaneous melanoma with a tumor thickness of 0.8–2.0 mm. Cancer. 2000;89(7):1495–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khayat D, Rixe O, Martin G, et al. Surgical margins in cutaneous melanoma (2 cm versus 5 cm for lesions measuring less than 2.1-mm thick). Cancer. 2003;97(8):1941–1946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thomas JM, Newton-Bishop J, A’Hern R, et al. Excision margins in high-risk malignant melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(8):757–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Melanoma Version 1.2018. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/melanoma.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov 2017.
  8. 8.
    Cancer Council Australia Melanoma Guidelines Working Party. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of melanoma. Available at: http://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Guidelines:Melanoma. Accessed 5 Nov 2017 (Version http://wiki.cancer.org.au/australiawiki/index.php?oldid=171252).
  9. 9.
    MacKenzie Ross AD, Haydu LE, Quinn MJ, et al. The association between excision margins and local recurrence in 11,290 thin (T1) primary cutaneous melanomas: a case-control study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(4):1082–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haydu LE, Stollman JT, Scolyer RA, et al. Minimum safe pathologic excision margins for primary cutaneous melanomas (1–2 mm in thickness): analysis of 2131 patients treated at a single center. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(4):1071–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McKinnon JG, Starritt EC, Scolyer RA, McCarthy WH, Thompson JF. Histopathologic excision margin affects local recurrence rate: analysis of 2681 patients with melanomas < or = 2 mm thick. Ann Surg. 2005;241(2):326–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pasquali S, Haydu LE, Scolyer RA, et al. The importance of adequate primary tumor excision margins and sentinel node biopsy in achieving optimal locoregional control for patients with thick primary melanomas. Ann Surg. 2013;258(1):152–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Golomb FM, Doyle JP, Grin CM, Kopf AW, Silverman MK, Levenstein MJ. Determination of preexcision surgical margins of melanomas from fixed-tissue specimens. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991;88(5):804–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Silverman MK, Golomb FM, Kopf AW, et al. Verification of a formula for determination of preexcision surgical margins from fixed-tissue melanoma specimens. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992;27(2 Pt 1):214–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kerns MJ, Darst MA, Olsen TG, Fenster M, Hall P, Grevey S. Shrinkage of cutaneous specimens: formalin or other factors involved? J Cutan Pathol. 2008;35(12):1093–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hudson-Peacock MJ, Matthews JN, Lawrence CM. Relation between size of skin excision, wound, and specimen. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;32(6):1010–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kossard S, Anderson P, Davies A, Cooper A. Histological evaluation of the effect of 0.05% tretinoin in the treatment of photo damaged skin. Geographic differences in elastosis in baseline biopsies. Australas J Dermatol. 1993;34(3):89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jones ME, Shugg D, Dwyer T, Young B, Bonett A. Interstate differences in incidence and mortality from melanoma: a re-examination of the latitudinal gradient. Med J Aust. 1992;157(6):373–378.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clausen SP, Brady MS. Surgical margins in patients with cutaneous melanoma–assessing the adequacy of excision. Melanoma Res. 2005;15(6):539–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Osborne JE, Hutchinson PE. A follow-up study to investigate the efficacy of initial treatment of lentigo maligna with surgical excision. Br J Plast Surg. 2002;55(8):611–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Florell SR, Boucher KM, Leachman SA, et al. Histopathologic recognition of involved margins of lentigo maligna excised by staged excision: an interobserver comparison study. Arch Dermatol. 2003;139(5):595–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erica B. Friedman
    • 1
  • Tristan J. Dodds
    • 1
    • 2
  • Serigne Lo
    • 1
    • 3
  • Peter M. Ferguson
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Matthew Beck
    • 2
  • Robyn P. M. Saw
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jonathan R. Stretch
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kenneth K. Lee
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Omgo E. Nieweg
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andrew J. Spillane
    • 1
    • 3
  • Richard A. Scolyer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • John F. Thompson
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Melanoma Institute AustraliaThe University of SydneyNorth SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Royal Prince Alfred HospitalCamperdownAustralia
  3. 3.The University of Sydney Central Clinical SchoolThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations