Prognostic Significance of Sentinel Lymph Node Status in Thick Primary Melanomas (> 4 mm).
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
23
06
2022
accepted:
12
06
2023
medline:
8
11
2023
pubmed:
14
8
2023
entrez:
13
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The key prognostic factors for staging patients with primary cutaneous melanoma are Breslow thickness, ulceration, and sentinel lymph node (SLN) status. The multicenter selective lymphadenectomy trial (MSLT-I) verified SLN status as the most important prognostic factor for patients with intermediate-thickness melanoma (Breslow thickness, 1-4 mm). Although most international guidelines recommend SLN biopsy (SLNB) also for patients with thick (> 4 mm, pT4) melanomas, its prognostic role has been questioned. The primary aim of this study was to establish whether SLN status is prognostic in T4 melanoma tumors. Data for all patients with a diagnosis of primary invasive cutaneous melanoma of Breslow thickness greater than 1 mm in Sweden between 2007 and 2020 were retrieved from the Swedish Melanoma Registry, a large prospective population-based registry. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model for melanoma-specific survival (MSS) was constructed based on Breslow thickness stratified for SLN status. The study enrolled 10,491 patients, 1943 of whom had a Breslow thickness greater than 4 mm (pT4). A positive SLN was found for 34% of these pT4 patients. The 5-year MSS was 71%, and the 10-year MSS was 62%. There was a statistically significant difference in MSS between the patients with a positive SLN and those with a negative SLN (hazard ratio of 2.4 (95% confidence interval CI 1.6-3.5) for stage T4a and 2.0 (95% CI 1.6-2.5) for satage T4b. Sentinel lymph node status gives important prognostic information also for patients with thick (> 4 mm) melanomas, and the authors thus recommend that clinical guidelines be updated to reflect this.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The key prognostic factors for staging patients with primary cutaneous melanoma are Breslow thickness, ulceration, and sentinel lymph node (SLN) status. The multicenter selective lymphadenectomy trial (MSLT-I) verified SLN status as the most important prognostic factor for patients with intermediate-thickness melanoma (Breslow thickness, 1-4 mm). Although most international guidelines recommend SLN biopsy (SLNB) also for patients with thick (> 4 mm, pT4) melanomas, its prognostic role has been questioned. The primary aim of this study was to establish whether SLN status is prognostic in T4 melanoma tumors.
METHODS
METHODS
Data for all patients with a diagnosis of primary invasive cutaneous melanoma of Breslow thickness greater than 1 mm in Sweden between 2007 and 2020 were retrieved from the Swedish Melanoma Registry, a large prospective population-based registry. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model for melanoma-specific survival (MSS) was constructed based on Breslow thickness stratified for SLN status.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The study enrolled 10,491 patients, 1943 of whom had a Breslow thickness greater than 4 mm (pT4). A positive SLN was found for 34% of these pT4 patients. The 5-year MSS was 71%, and the 10-year MSS was 62%. There was a statistically significant difference in MSS between the patients with a positive SLN and those with a negative SLN (hazard ratio of 2.4 (95% confidence interval CI 1.6-3.5) for stage T4a and 2.0 (95% CI 1.6-2.5) for satage T4b.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Sentinel lymph node status gives important prognostic information also for patients with thick (> 4 mm) melanomas, and the authors thus recommend that clinical guidelines be updated to reflect this.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37574516
doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-14050-w
pii: 10.1245/s10434-023-14050-w
pmc: PMC10625939
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8026-8033Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012 Oct;38(10):936-42
pubmed: 22617251
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Apr;21(4):1075-81
pubmed: 24531700
Melanoma Res. 2012 Oct;22(5):362-7
pubmed: 22713797
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Dec;18(13):3593-600
pubmed: 21647761
Ann Surg. 2013 Jul;258(1):152-7
pubmed: 23426339
Ann Surg Oncol. 2003 May;10(4):408-15
pubmed: 12734090
Med J Aust. 2015 Jul 6;203(1):20
pubmed: 26126561
Lancet. 2022 Apr 30;399(10336):1718-1729
pubmed: 35367007
Arch Surg. 2010 Jul;145(7):622-7
pubmed: 20644123
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021 Apr 1;19(4):364-376
pubmed: 33845460
Lancet Oncol. 2015 May;16(5):522-30
pubmed: 25840693
Dermatology. 2011 Feb;222(1):59-66
pubmed: 21196701
N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 9;377(19):1813-1823
pubmed: 28891408
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 1;36(4):399-413
pubmed: 29232171
J Invest Dermatol. 2016 Jun;136(6):1161-1171
pubmed: 26902923
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2008 Mar;6(3):198-203
pubmed: 18093216
Arch Surg. 1992 Apr;127(4):392-9
pubmed: 1558490
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Sep;22(9):2978-87
pubmed: 25605514
CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Nov;67(6):472-492
pubmed: 29028110
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Feb;23(2):579-84
pubmed: 26471491
Cancer. 2009 Dec 15;115(24):5752-60
pubmed: 19827151
Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Feb;28(2):1007-1016
pubmed: 32524460
Ann Surg Oncol. 2000 Mar;7(2):160-5
pubmed: 10761797
N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 13;370(7):599-609
pubmed: 24521106