Timing of sentinel node biopsy independently predicts disease-free and overall survival in clinical stage I-II melanoma patients: A multicentre study of the Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI).
Melanoma
Prognosis
Sentinel lymph node
Journal
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)
ISSN: 1879-0852
Titre abrégé: Eur J Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9005373
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
received:
28
04
2020
revised:
26
06
2020
accepted:
01
07
2020
pubmed:
3
8
2020
medline:
3
8
2020
entrez:
3
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) still remains a key procedure to appropriately stage melanoma patients and to select those who are candidate to novel treatments with immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting. The impact of timing of SNB on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) is still unclear. The study was conducted at 6 Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) centres and included 8953 consecutive clinical stage I-II melanoma patients who were diagnosed, treated, and followed up between November 1997 and March 2018. All patients were prospectively included in dedicated IMI database. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to investigate how baseline characteristics and time interval until SNB are related to DFS and OS. Considering the whole population, at multivariable analysis, after adjusting for age, gender, Breslow thickness, site, ulceration, and the SNB status, a delay in the timing of SNB was associated with a better DFS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR, delayed versus early SNB] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-0.99, p < 0.001) and OS (aHR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99, p = 0.001). Specifically, in patients with a negative SNB status, a beneficial impact of delayed SNB (i.e. at least 32 days after primary excision) was confirmed for DFS (aHR 0.70, 95%CI 0.63-0.79, p < 0.001) and OS (aHR 0.69, 95%CI 0.61-0.78, p < 0.001), whereas in those with a positive SNB status, DFS (aHR 0.96, 95%CI 0.84-1.09, p = 0.534) and OS (aHR 0.94 95%CI 0.81-1.08, p = 0.374) were not significantly different in patients with early or delayed SNB. Our study does not support a strict time interval for SNB. These results may be useful for national guidelines, for counselling patients and reducing the number of high urgency referrals.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) still remains a key procedure to appropriately stage melanoma patients and to select those who are candidate to novel treatments with immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting. The impact of timing of SNB on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) is still unclear.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The study was conducted at 6 Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) centres and included 8953 consecutive clinical stage I-II melanoma patients who were diagnosed, treated, and followed up between November 1997 and March 2018. All patients were prospectively included in dedicated IMI database. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to investigate how baseline characteristics and time interval until SNB are related to DFS and OS.
RESULTS
Considering the whole population, at multivariable analysis, after adjusting for age, gender, Breslow thickness, site, ulceration, and the SNB status, a delay in the timing of SNB was associated with a better DFS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR, delayed versus early SNB] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-0.99, p < 0.001) and OS (aHR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99, p = 0.001). Specifically, in patients with a negative SNB status, a beneficial impact of delayed SNB (i.e. at least 32 days after primary excision) was confirmed for DFS (aHR 0.70, 95%CI 0.63-0.79, p < 0.001) and OS (aHR 0.69, 95%CI 0.61-0.78, p < 0.001), whereas in those with a positive SNB status, DFS (aHR 0.96, 95%CI 0.84-1.09, p = 0.534) and OS (aHR 0.94 95%CI 0.81-1.08, p = 0.374) were not significantly different in patients with early or delayed SNB.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study does not support a strict time interval for SNB. These results may be useful for national guidelines, for counselling patients and reducing the number of high urgency referrals.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32739767
pii: S0959-8049(20)30370-1
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.07.001
pmc: PMC7391020
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
30-39Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest statement The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Eur J Cancer. 2015 Sep;51(13):1780-93
pubmed: 26072362
J Am Coll Surg. 2017 Aug;225(2):302-311
pubmed: 28668274
Oral Oncol. 2005 Jan;41(1):89-96
pubmed: 15598591
Eur J Dermatol. 2017 Oct 1;27(5):487-495
pubmed: 28944755
Ann Surg. 2008 Dec;248(6):949-55
pubmed: 19092339
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 8;376(23):2211-2222
pubmed: 28591523
Virchows Arch. 2014 Mar;464(3):265-81
pubmed: 24487785
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Jan;25(1):265-270
pubmed: 29101504
CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jan-Feb;66(1):7-30
pubmed: 26742998
Nat Rev Cancer. 2012 Mar 15;12(4):298-306
pubmed: 22419253
Melanoma Res. 2012 Oct;22(5):386-91
pubmed: 22955010
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jun;17(6):757-767
pubmed: 27161539
Eur J Cancer. 2006 Feb;42(3):372-80
pubmed: 16403622
J Clin Oncol. 2001 Aug 15;19(16):3635-48
pubmed: 11504745
Annu Rev Immunol. 2004;22:329-60
pubmed: 15032581
Clin Exp Dermatol. 2020 Dec;45(8):1011-1018
pubmed: 32422686
Annu Rev Immunol. 2001;19:47-64
pubmed: 11244030
Ann Surg Oncol. 2002 Jan-Feb;9(1):82-7
pubmed: 11833497
Int J Surg. 2020 Mar;75:160-164
pubmed: 32036082
Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Jan 1;11(1):107-12
pubmed: 15671534
Am J Surg. 2008 Dec;196(6):834-42; discussion 842-3
pubmed: 19095097
Am J Surg. 2016 Nov;212(5):935-940
pubmed: 27266393
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Nov;67:164-173
pubmed: 27669503
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Dec;42(12):1906-1913
pubmed: 27266406
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 20;27(36):6199-206
pubmed: 19917835