Sentinel node biopsy in patients with in-transit recurrence of malignant melanoma

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Recurrent Melanoma: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is routinely performed for primary cutaneous melanomas; however, limited data exist for SLNB after locally recurrent (LR) or in-transit (IT) melanoma.

METHODS

Data from three centers performing SLNB for LR/IT melanoma (1997 to the present) were reviewed, with the aim of assessing (1) success rate; (2) SLNB positivity; and (3) prognostic value of SLNB in this population.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 107 patients. Management of the primary melanoma included prior SLNB for 56 patients (52%), of whom 10 (18%) were positive and 12 had complete lymph node dissections (CLNDs). In the present study, SLNB was performed for IT disease (48/107, 45%) or LR melanoma (59/107, 55%). A sentinel lymph node (SLN) was removed in 96% (103/107) of cases. Nodes were not removed for four patients due to lymphoscintigraphy failures (2) or nodes not found during surgery (2). SLNB was positive in 41 patients (40%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 31.5-50.5), of whom 35 (88%) had CLND, with 13 (37%) having positive nonsentinel nodes. Median time to disease progression after LR/IT metastasis was 1.4 years (95% CI 0.75-2.0) for patients with a positive SLNB, and 5.9 years (95% CI 1.7-10.2) in SLNB-negative patients (p = 0.18). There was a trend towards improved overall survival for patients with a negative SLNB (p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

SLNB can be successful in patients with LR/IT melanoma, even if prior SLNB was performed. In this population, the rates of SLNB positivity and nonsentinel node metastases were 40% and 37%, respectively. SLNB may guide management and prognosis after LR/IT disease.

Analysis of predictive factors for the outcome of complete lymph node dissection in melanoma patients with metastatic sentinel lymph nodes

BACKGROUND

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a widely accepted procedure to accurately stage patients with melanoma. However, there is no consensus concerning the practical consequences of a positive SLN, since a survival benefit of a complete lymph node dissection (CLND) has not yet been demonstrated.

OBJECTIVE

We wondered whether we could identify a subgroup of patients with metastatic involvement of the SLN who could be excluded from the recommendation to undergo CLND.

METHODS

At the Department of Dermatology at the University of Munich, a total of 213 patients with metastatic SLNs (24.9%) were identified among 854 patients who had undergone SLNB between 1996 and 2007. All SLN-positive patients had been advised to have CLND. Survival analyses were performed by using the Kaplan-Meier approach.

RESULTS

A total of 176 (82.6%) of 213 SLN-positive patients underwent CLND. In this group, 26 patients (14.8%) showed metastatic disease in non-sentinel lymph nodes (NSLN). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 26.1% in NSLN-positive patients and 74% in NSLN-negative patients. SLN-positive patients who refused CLND had a better prognosis than patients with CLND. Breslow tumor thickness was significantly associated with positive CLND status with higher median values in CLND-positive than CLND-negative patients (3.03 vs 2.22 mm).

LIMITATIONS

The subgroup of patients with metastatic disease in CLND may have been too small to reach statistical significance for other tumor- or patient-related parameters. Mitotic indices of the primary melanomas had not been determined in this retrospective study; thus a possible correlation with lymph node status could not be tested.

CONCLUSION

Among SLN-positive patients, the presence of metastatic NSLN is a highly significant poor prognostic factor. Tumor thickness is a significant prognostic parameter for positive CLND status and might be considered in the decision to perform CLND in case of metastatic SLN.

Controversies in the management of metastatic melanoma to regional lymphatic basins

The primary management of lymph nodes involved with metastatic melanoma is regional lymphadenectomy. Many controversies of regional lymph node dissection exist including extent and nature of the lymphadenectomy, treatment of lymphatic metastases in unusual locations and the role of adjuvant radiotherapy. Although radical neck dissection has been the gold standard for cervical disease, modified dissections do not seem to compromise regional control in appropriately selected patients. In the axilla, a Level I, II, and III dissection is most commonly performed. Combined superficial and deep groin dissection is justified for clinically palpable disease although management of patients with histologically positive yet clinically non-palpable disease is more controversial. Burden of disease, imaging, patient co-morbidity, and Cloquet nodal status must be considered. Many technical variations exist in an attempt to improve morbidity rates secondary to lymphadenectomy. Unfortunately, complication rates are difficult to compare secondary to variable study designs, definitions, and patient populations. Adjuvant radiation therapy appears warranted in patients with high risk of regional recurrence including bulky disease, extracapsular extension or cervical location.