Patterns of failure in patients with cutaneous head and neck melanoma

Sentinel lymph node biopsy for lentigo maligna melanoma under local anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Lentigo maligna melanoma is mainly localized in the head and neck region in elderly patients. Due to its slow horizontal growth, it has a good prognosis compared to other melanoma subtypes, but specific data are rare.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate sentinel lymph node biopsy in lentigo maligna melanoma under local anaesthesia and to discuss the benefit.

METHODS

Investigation of patients with lentigo maligna melanoma and tumour thickness ≥1 mm treated at the Department of Dermatology, University Medical Centre Tuebingen, between January 2008 and October 2019.

RESULTS

In total, 204 patients (126 SLNB, 78 non-SLNB) with a median age of 75.7 years (SLNB: 73.3 years, non-SLNB: 79.7 years) could be included. Sixteen of 126 (12.7%) sentinel lymph nodes were positive. Five-year overall survival was 87.9% (88.5% SLNB; 87.4% non-SLNB) and 5-year distant metastasis-free survival was 85.8% (85.4% SLNB; 86.7% non-SLNB). There was no significant difference for distant metastasis-free survival (p = 0.861) and overall survival (p = 0.247) between patients with and without sentinel lymph node biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Sentinel lymph node biopsy in lentigo maligna melanoma under local anaesthesia is a safe and simple method, even in very old patients. However, LMM has a very good 5-year overall survival. In high-risk patients with high tumour thickness and/or ulceration, adjuvant immunotherapy can now be offered without the need to perform this procedure.

Association of Complex Lymphatic Drainage in Head and Neck Cutaneous Melanoma With Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Outcomes: A Cohort Study and Literature Review

Importance

Although sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a vital staging tool, its application in head and neck melanoma (HNM) is complicated by a higher false-negative rate (FNR) compared with other regions. This may be due to the complex lymphatic drainage in the head and neck.

Objective

To compare the accuracy, prognostic value, and long-term outcomes of SLNB in HNM with melanoma from the trunk and limb, focusing on the lymphatic drainage pattern.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort observational study at a single UK University cancer center included all patients with primary cutaneous melanoma undergoing SLNB between 2010 to 2020. Data analysis was conducted during December 2022.

Exposures

Primary cutaneous melanoma undergoing SLNB between 2010 to 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

This cohort study compared the FNR (defined as the ratio between false-negative results and the sum of false-negative and true-positive results) and false omission rate (defined as the ratio between false-negative results and the sum of false-negative and true-negative results) for SLNB stratified by 3 body regions (HNM, limb, and trunk). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare recurrence-free survival (RFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS). Comparative analysis of detected lymph nodes on lymphoscintigraphy (LSG) and SLNB was performed by quantifying lymphatic drainage patterns by number of nodes and lymph node basins. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression identified independent risk factors.

Results

Overall, 1080 patients were included (552 [51.1%] men, 528 [48.9%] women; median age at diagnosis 59.8 years), with a median (IQR) follow-up 4.8 (IQR, 2.7-7.2) years. Head and neck melanoma had a higher median age at diagnosis (66.2 years) and higher Breslow thickness (2.2 mm). The FNR was highest in HNM (34.5% vs 14.8% trunk or 10.4% limb, respectively). Similarly, the false omission rate was 7.8% in HNM compared with 5.7% trunk or 3.0% limbs. The MSS was no different (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.43-1.53), but RFS was lower in HNM (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.85). On LSG, patients with HNM had the highest proportion of multiple hotspots (28.6% with ≥3 hotspots vs 23.2% trunk and 7.2% limbs). The RFS was lower for patients with HNM with 3 or more affected lymph nodes found on LSG than those with fewer than 3 affected lymph nodes (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.18-0.77). Cox regression analysis showed head and neck location to be an independent risk factor for RFS (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.01-2.50), but not for MSS (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.35-1.71).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found higher rates of complex lymphatic drainage, FNR, and regional recurrence in HNM compared with other body sites on long-term follow-up. We advocate considering surveillance imaging for HNM for high-risk melanomas irrespective of sentinel lymph node status.

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Malignant Melanoma of the Head and Neck: A Single Center Experience

Purpose: This study evaluated the characteristics of patients with head and neck (H&N) melanoma who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNLB) and assessed the clinical course of patients categorizing subjects according to SLNB status and melanoma location (scalp area vs. non-scalp areas). Methods: Patients undergoing SLNB for melanoma of H&N from 2015 to 2021 were prospectively characterized according to sentinel lymph node (SLN) status. SPECT/CT had been previously performed. Patients were followed until the first adverse event to evaluate progression-free survival. Results: 93 patients were enrolled. SLNB was negative in 75 patients. The median Breslow index was higher for patients with positive SLNB compared with patients with negative SLNB. In addition, the Breslow index was higher for melanoma of the scalp compared with non-scalp melanoma. The median follow-up was 24.8 months. Progression occurred at the systemic level in the 62.5% of cases. There was a significant association between positive SLNB and progression (p-value < 0.01) of disease, with lower progression-free survival for patients with melanoma of the scalp compared with those with melanoma at other anatomic sites (p-value: 0.15). Conclusions: Scalp melanomas are more aggressive than other types of H&N melanomas. Sentinel lymph node status is the strongest prognostic criterion for recurrence.

Case volume regionalization and volume-based outcome differences in cutaneous head and neck melanoma

BACKGROUND

Hospital volume has emerged as a prognostic factor in oncology but is not currently known whether volume is associated with improved outcomes for cutaneous head and neck (HN) melanoma.

METHODS

A total of 556 079 cutaneous melanoma cases reported by the 2004-2016 National Cancer Database were separated into two cohorts (HN and non-HN) and facilities within each cohort were classified by case volume. Analysis employed chi-square, analysis of variance, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Only 41 facilities (3.1% of 1326) treating HN melanoma and 50 facilities (3.7% of 1344) treating non-HN melanoma were classified as high-volume facilities (HVFs). The estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) was 62.7% (standard error [SE]: 0.4%) for patients with HN at low-volume facilities (LVFs), 69.3% (SE: 0.4%) at IVFs, and 71.8% (SE 0.4%) at HVFs (p < 0.001). Differences in OS remained significant between HVFs versus LVFs after adjusting for confounders.

CONCLUSION

Volume is independently associated with OS and improved surgical outcomes for HN melanoma.

Do Oncologic Outcomes From Head and Neck Versus Truncal and Extremity Melanoma Differ? A Single-Institution Single-Subspecialty Experience

BACKGROUND

Outcomes are thought to be worse in head and neck (H&N) melanoma patients. However, definitive evidence of inferior outcomes in H&N melanoma in the modern era is lacking. We sought to ascertain whether H&N melanomas carry a worse prognosis than melanomas of other sites.

METHODS

All patients who underwent excision for primary melanoma by fellowship-trained surgical oncologists at a single institution from 2014 to 2020 were queried from the electronic medical record. Patients who had AJCC eighth edition stage I-III disease were included.

RESULTS

Of 1127 patients, 28.7% had primary H&N melanoma. H&N patients were more likely to be male, older, and present with more advanced AJCC stage. Median follow-up was 20.0 months (IQR 26.4). On multivariable analyses controlling for other variables, H&N melanoma was associated with worse RFS. Notably, H&N melanoma was not associated with worse MSS, DMFS, or OS on univariate or multivariable analyses. Among patients who recurred, H&N patients were significantly more likely to recur locally compared to non-H&N patients. On subgroup analysis, scalp melanoma was also associated with worse RFS compared to patients with melanoma in locations other than the scalp. When patients with scalp melanoma were excluded from analysis, non-scalp H&N RFS was not significantly different from the non-H&N group on univariate or multivariable analyses.

DISCUSSION

In this series from a high-volume tertiary referral center, the differences in rates and sites of recurrence between H&N and non-H&N melanoma do not impact melanoma-specific or overall survival, suggesting that H&N melanoma patients should be treated similarly with respect to regional and systemic therapies.

Extirpative Considerations of Melanoma of the Head and Neck

The incidence of melanoma is continuing to rise in the United States, and head and neck melanomas account for 25% of all cutaneous melanomas. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations for surgical margins and sentinel lymph node biopsy in head and neck melanomas are the same as cutaneous melanoma located in other regions, but require special considerations when performing wide local excision, sentinel lymph node biopsy, and completion lymph node dissection and reconstruction taking into account the location of the melanoma and structures involved in and around the suggested margins.