A retrospective study on prophylactic regional lymphadenectomy versus nodal observation only in the management of dogs with stage I, completely resected, low-grade cutaneous mast cell tumors.
Canine
Lymphadenectomy
Mast cell tumor
Observation
Stage I
Journal
BMC veterinary research
ISSN: 1746-6148
Titre abrégé: BMC Vet Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101249759
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Oct 2021
15 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
27
01
2021
accepted:
30
09
2021
entrez:
15
10
2021
pubmed:
16
10
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
While lymphadenectomy of metastatic lymph nodes (LNs) has been associated with improved outcome, the clinical utility of prophylactic lymphadenectomy in dogs with stage I cutaneous mast cell tumors (cMCTs) remains a controversial topic. To assess the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy of uninvolved regional LNs, the long-term outcome of cMCT-bearing dogs with cytologically negative and surgically unresected regional LNs (observation only, OO) was compared with that of dogs with surgically resected and histologically negative regional LNs (prophylactic regional lymphadenectomy, PRL). A retrospective analysis of 64 dogs with a low-grade, completely resected stage I cMCT was performed: 35 (54.7%) dogs were subjected to OO and 29 (45.3%) underwent PRL. Dogs were monitored for a median of 813 and 763 days in the OO group and PRL group, respectively. The number of dogs undergoing MCT progression was significantly higher in the OO group (P = 0.028) and curve comparison revealed a tendency to a better time to progression in the PRL group (P = 0.058). No significant difference in survival time (P = 0.294) was observed between dogs in the OO and PRL groups. Our results showed that lack of immediate lymphadenectomy was associated with a higher risk for tumor progression. This preliminary judgement, reinforced by the findings that lymphadenectomy was well tolerated in all cases, and that histopathology provides the definitive assessment of the nodal pathological status, may suggest that prophylactic lymphadenectomy is indicated in the management of stage I MCTs. Larger prospective studies are warranted for generating clinical evidence of this latter hypothesis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
While lymphadenectomy of metastatic lymph nodes (LNs) has been associated with improved outcome, the clinical utility of prophylactic lymphadenectomy in dogs with stage I cutaneous mast cell tumors (cMCTs) remains a controversial topic. To assess the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy of uninvolved regional LNs, the long-term outcome of cMCT-bearing dogs with cytologically negative and surgically unresected regional LNs (observation only, OO) was compared with that of dogs with surgically resected and histologically negative regional LNs (prophylactic regional lymphadenectomy, PRL).
RESULTS
RESULTS
A retrospective analysis of 64 dogs with a low-grade, completely resected stage I cMCT was performed: 35 (54.7%) dogs were subjected to OO and 29 (45.3%) underwent PRL. Dogs were monitored for a median of 813 and 763 days in the OO group and PRL group, respectively. The number of dogs undergoing MCT progression was significantly higher in the OO group (P = 0.028) and curve comparison revealed a tendency to a better time to progression in the PRL group (P = 0.058). No significant difference in survival time (P = 0.294) was observed between dogs in the OO and PRL groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results showed that lack of immediate lymphadenectomy was associated with a higher risk for tumor progression. This preliminary judgement, reinforced by the findings that lymphadenectomy was well tolerated in all cases, and that histopathology provides the definitive assessment of the nodal pathological status, may suggest that prophylactic lymphadenectomy is indicated in the management of stage I MCTs. Larger prospective studies are warranted for generating clinical evidence of this latter hypothesis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34649575
doi: 10.1186/s12917-021-03043-0
pii: 10.1186/s12917-021-03043-0
pmc: PMC8518262
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
331Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 24;8(7):e69222
pubmed: 23894435
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2017 Aug 15;251(4):421-428
pubmed: 28763275
BMC Surg. 2019 Apr 24;18(Suppl 1):110
pubmed: 31074400
Vet Comp Oncol. 2018 Dec;16(4):580-589
pubmed: 30047226
Vet Comp Oncol. 2009 Jun;7(2):130-8
pubmed: 19453367
Vet Comp Oncol. 2016 Sep;14(3):245-51
pubmed: 24717019
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 May 1;218(9):1424-8
pubmed: 11345304
Ann Surg Oncol. 2000 Mar;7(2):87-97
pubmed: 10761786
J Comp Pathol. 2014 Nov;151(4):329-38
pubmed: 25172053
Vet Comp Oncol. 2014 Dec;12(4):287-98
pubmed: 23240829
Vet Comp Oncol. 2020 Dec;18(4):580-589
pubmed: 32103587
Vet Surg. 2021 Jan;50(1):133-141
pubmed: 33169849
J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1973 Nov;18(6):351-6
pubmed: 4769842
Front Immunol. 2020 Oct 21;11:2166
pubmed: 33193295
Top Companion Anim Med. 2020 Nov;41:100472
pubmed: 32891740
Vet Comp Oncol. 2020 Dec;18(4):818-824
pubmed: 32216019
Vet Comp Oncol. 2014 Sep;12(3):215-26
pubmed: 22958227
Vet Pathol. 2016 Nov;53(6):1117-1123
pubmed: 27034386
Vet Comp Oncol. 2018 Dec;16(4):505-510
pubmed: 29893066
Mod Pathol. 2010 May;23 Suppl 2:S26-32
pubmed: 20436499
Vet Comp Oncol. 2008 Sep;6(3):162-70
pubmed: 19178676
Vet Comp Oncol. 2012 Sep;10(3):e1-e29
pubmed: 22882486
Proc R Soc Med. 1969 Nov;62(11 Part 1):1090-2
pubmed: 5356855
Vet Clin Pathol. 2018 Sep;47(3):489-500
pubmed: 30011068
Vet Comp Oncol. 2020 Jun;18(2):239-246
pubmed: 31509648
Ann Surg. 1996 Sep;224(3):255-63; discussion 263-6
pubmed: 8813254
Surgery. 2014 Jun;155(6):998-1005
pubmed: 24856120
Vet Comp Oncol. 2017 Dec;15(4):1206-1217
pubmed: 27523399
Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2019 Sep;49(5):819-836
pubmed: 31178200