Advertisement

European Journal of Dermatology

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 487–495 | Cite as

The intriguing effect of delay time to sentinel lymph node biopsy on survival: a propensity score matching study on a cohort of melanoma patients

  • Antonio Tejera-VaquerizoEmail author
  • Miguel Angel Descalzo-Gallego
  • Victor Traves
  • Celia Requena
  • Isidro Bolumar
  • Angel Pla
  • Eduardo Nagore
Clinical Report
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Time between primary melanoma excision and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has not been sufficiently studied as an independent predictor of survival in cutaneous melanoma.

Objectives

We used propensity score matching to evaluate whether early SLNB (performed ≤40 days from excisional biopsy) is associated with higher mortality in patients with cutaneous melanoma.

Materials & methods

A retrospective cohort study at a tertiary melanoma referral centre. We included 787 consecutive patients from the melanoma database of the Instituto Valenciano de Oncología who underwent a SLNB between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2015, of whom 350 were matched into pairs using propensity score matching. The variable of interest was the time between primary melanoma excision and SLNB (≤40 days vs >40 days). The study outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS), melanomaspecific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

A delay time of 40 days or less was associated with worse DSF (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-2.65; p = 0.024), MSS (AHR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.1-3.53; p = 0.08), and OS (AHR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.11-2.83; p = 0.017). Other variables associated with shorter MSS were age, tumour location and thickness, mitotic rate, and SLN status.

Conclusion

Early SLNB was associated with worse survival in patients with cutaneous melanoma after adjusting for classic prognostic factors. A delay time of over 40 days was not associated with higher mortality.

Key words

melanoma sentinel lymph node biopsy prognosis waiting list survival propensity score 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Morton DL, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Final trial report of sentinel-node biopsy versus nodal observation in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 599–609.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tejera-Vaquerizo A, Nagore E, Puig S, et al. Effect of time to sentinelnode biopsy on the prognosis of cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Cancer 2015; 51: 1780–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rubin DB. On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13: 855–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Generalitat Valenciana. Guía de Prevención y Tratamiento del Melanoma. http://www.ivo.es/uploads/Oncogu%C3%ADa_Melanoma.pdf.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tejera-Vaquerizo A, Martín-Cuevas P, Gallego E, et al. Predictors of sentinel lymph node status in cutaneous melanoma: a classification and regression tree analysis. Actas Dermosifiliogr 2015; 106: 208–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Agostino RB. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2265–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tejera-Vaquerizo A, Solís-García E, Ríos-Martín JJ, Moreno-Ramírez D. Primary cutaneous melanoma: prognostic factors not included in the classification of the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Actas Dermosifiliogr 2011; 102: 255–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 6199–206.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Azzola MF, Shaw HM, Thompson JF, et al. Tumor mitotic rate 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: 1488–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lasithiotakis K, Leiter U, Meier F, et al. Age and gender are significant independent predictors of survival in primary cutaneous melanoma. Cancer 2008; 112: 1795–804.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Balch CM, Soong SJ, Gershenwald JE, et al. Age as a prognostic factor in patients with localized melanoma and regional metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20: 3961–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nagore E, Oliver V, Botella-Estrada R, Moreno-Picot S, Insa A, Fortea JM. Prognostic factors in localized invasive cutaneous melanoma: high value of mitotic rate, vascular invasion and microscopic satellitosis. Melanoma Res 2005; 15: 169–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ribero S, Moscarella E, Ferrara G, Piana S, Argenziano G, Longo C. Regression in cutaneous melanoma: a comprehensive review from diagnosis to prognosis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2016; 30: 2030–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taylor RC, Patel A, Panageas KS, Busam KJ, Brady MS. Tumorinfiltrating lymphocytes predict sentinel lymph node positivity in patients with cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 869–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bilimoria KY, Balch CM, Wayne JD, et al. Health care system and socioeconomic factors associated with variance in use of sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma in the United States. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 1857–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tejera-Vaquerizo A, Nagore E, Herrera-Acosta E, et al. Prediction of sentinel lymph node positivity by growth rate of cutaneous melanoma. Arch Dermatol 2012; 148: 577–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tejera-Vaquerizo A, Barrera-Vigo MV, López-Navarro N, Herrera-Ceballos E. Growth rate as a prognostic factor in localized invasive cutaneous melanoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2010; 24: 147–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nagore E, Martorell-Calatayud A, Botella-Estrada R, Guillén C. Growth rate as an independent prognostic factor in localized invasive cutaneous melanoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2011; 25: 618–20, author reply: 620.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin MJ, Mar V, McLean C, Kelly JW. An objective measure of growth rate using partial biopsy specimens of melanomas that were initially misdiagnosed. J Am Acad Dermatol 2014; 71: 691–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pasquali S, Mocellin S, Mozzillo N, et al. Nonsentinel lymph node status in patients with cutaneous melanoma: results from a multi-institution prognostic study. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 935–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rossi CR, Mozzillo N, Maurichi A, et al. Number of excised lymph nodes as a quality assurance measure for lymphadenectomy in melanoma. JAMA Surg 2014; 149: 700–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Akkooi AC, Voit CA, Verhoef C, Eggermont AM. New developments in sentinel node staging in melanoma: controversies and alternatives. Curr Opin Oncol 2010; 22: 169–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rubin Donald B. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thompson JF, Soong SJ, Balch CM, et al. Prognostic significance of mitotic rate in localized primary cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of patients in the multi-institutional American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging database. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2199–205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Munn DH, Mellor AL. The tumor-draining lymph node as an immune-privileged site. Immunol Rev 2006; 213: 146–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim R, Emi M, Tanabe K, Arihiro K. Immunobiology of the sentinel lymph node and its potential role for antitumour immunity. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7: 1006–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cochran AJ, Huang RR, Su A, Itakura E, Wen DR. Is sentinel node susceptibility to metastases related to nodal immune modulation? Cancer J 2015; 21: 39–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gerlini G, Di Gennaro P, Mariotti G, et al. Human Langerhans cells are immature in melanoma sentinel lymph nodes. Blood 2012; 119: 4807–8, author reply: 4809-10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van de Ven R, van den Hout MF, Lindenberg JJ, et al. Characterization of four conventional dendritic cell subsets in human skin-draining lymph nodes in relation to T-cell activation. Blood 2011; 118: 2502–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Molenkamp BG, van Leeuwen PA, van den Eertwegh AJ, et al. Immunomodulation of the melanoma sentinel lymph node: a novel adjuvant therapeutic option. Immunobiology 2006; 211: 651–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parrett BM, Accortt NA, Li R, et al. The effect of delay time between primary melanoma biopsy and sentinel lymph node dissection on sentinel node status, recurrence, and survival. Melanoma Res 2012; 22: 386–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oude Ophuis CM, Verhoef C, Rutkowski P, et al. The interval between primary melanoma excision and sentinel node biopsy is not associated with survival in sentinel node positive patients-An EORTC Melanoma Group study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016; 42: 1906–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fortes C, Mastroeni S, Caggiati A, et al. The effect of time to sentinel lymph node biopsy on cutaneous melanoma survival. Am J Surg 2016; 212: 935–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Oude Ophuis CM, van Akkooi AC, Rutkowski P, et al. Effects of time interval between primary melanoma excision and sentinel node biopsy on positivity rate and survival. Eur J Cancer 2016; 67: 164–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lens MB, Dawes M, Goodacre T, Newton-Bishop JA. Elective lymph node dissection in patients with melanoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Surg 2002; 137: 458–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sim FH, Taylor WF, Pritchard DJ, Soule EH. Lymphadenectomy in the management of stage I malignant melanoma: a prospective randomized study. Mayo Clin Proc 1986; 61: 697–705.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© John Libbey Eurotext 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Tejera-Vaquerizo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Miguel Angel Descalzo-Gallego
    • 2
  • Victor Traves
    • 3
  • Celia Requena
    • 4
  • Isidro Bolumar
    • 5
  • Angel Pla
    • 6
  • Eduardo Nagore
    • 4
  1. 1.Servicio de DermatologíaInstituto Dermatológico GlobalDermPalma del Río (Córdoba)Spain
  2. 2.Unidad de InvestigaciónFundación Piel Sana AEDVMadridSpain
  3. 3.Servicio de Anatomía PatológicaInstituto Valenciano de OncologíaValenciaSpain
  4. 4.Servicio de DermatologíaInstituto Valenciano de OncologíaValenciaSpain
  5. 5.Servicio de CirugíaInstituto Valencia de OncologíaValenciaSpain
  6. 6.Servicio de OtorrinolaringologíaInstituto Valenciano de OncologíaValencianoSpain

Personalised recommendations