» Articles » PMID: 12297910

Pattern and Incidence of First Site Recurrences Following Sentinel Node Procedure in Melanoma Patients

Overview
Journal World J Surg
Publisher Wiley
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2002 Sep 26
PMID 12297910
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Studies of large series of melanoma patients indicated that the average incidence of developing a recurrence during follow-up was 40%. The most frequent first sites of these recurrences were the regional lymph nodes. We hypothesized that the sentinel node (SN) procedure may change the pattern of recurrence by reducing the number of first recurrences in the regional lymph node basin during follow-up to a negligible number, and that locoregional cutaneous and distance metastases are the major future sites of recurrence. We further studied the influence of SN status together with different influential factors on prognosis. An SN procedure with a triple technique was performed in 250 consecutive patients with proven AJCC stages I and II cutaneous melanoma. The median follow-up was 38 months. So far, 44 patients (18%) have developed a recurrence of the disease. The distribution of localization of the first metastases was as follows: 23 patients (52%) with a locoregional cutaneous recurrence; 4 (9%) with recurrence in the regional lymph node basin; 2 (5%) with recurrence in an interval node; and 15 (34%) with distant recurrence. The relative risk of developing recurrence for SN-positive patients is 4.2; for Breslow thickness of 1.51 to 4.00 mm it is 5.5, and thicker than 4.0 mm it is 6.2; for lymphatic invasion 7.6; and for ulceration 3.8. We conclude that the SN procedure changes the pattern of recurrences during follow-up by reducing the number of first recurrences within the regional lymph node basin to a negligible number. High Breslow thickness, lymphatic invasion, and ulceration of the primary melanoma are strong risk factors for recurrence.

Citing Articles

Clinical and biological aspects of sentinel node biopsy in malignant melanoma--an update.

Callejo Peixoto I, Meneses e Sousa J Clin Transl Oncol. 2005; 7(4):145-9.

PMID: 15960920 DOI: 10.1007/BF02708751.


Sentinel node status in melanoma patients is not predictive for overall survival upon multivariate analysis.

Roka F, Kittler H, Cauzig P, Hoeller C, Hinterhuber G, Wolff K Br J Cancer. 2005; 92(4):662-7.

PMID: 15700039 PMC: 2361872. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602391.


How morphometric analysis of metastatic load predicts the (un)usefulness of PET scanning: the case of lymph node staging in melanoma.

Mijnhout G, Hoekstra O, van Lingen A, van Diest P, Ader H, Lammertsma A J Clin Pathol. 2003; 56(4):283-6.

PMID: 12663640 PMC: 1769919. DOI: 10.1136/jcp.56.4.283.


The argument against sentinel node biopsy for malignant melanoma.

Thomas J, Patocskai E BMJ. 2000; 321(7252):3-4.

PMID: 10875809 PMC: 1127684. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.321.7252.3.

References
1.
Kirkwood J . Systemic adjuvant treatment of high-risk melanoma: the role of interferon alfa-2b and other immunotherapies. Eur J Cancer. 1998; 34 Suppl 3:S12-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(97)10159-9. View

2.
Urist M, Maddox W, Kennedy J, Balch C . Patient risk factors and surgical morbidity after regional lymphadenectomy in 204 melanoma patients. Cancer. 1983; 51(11):2152-6. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19830601)51:11<2152::aid-cncr2820511134>3.0.co;2-7. View

3.
Koh H, Sober A, Day Jr C, Lew R, Kopf A, Lamar W . Prognosis of clinical stage I melanoma patients with positive elective regional node dissection. J Clin Oncol. 1986; 4(8):1238-44. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1986.4.8.1238. View

4.
Coates A, Ingvar C, Petersen-Schaefer K, Shaw H, Milton G, OBrien C . Elective lymph node dissection in patients with primary melanoma of the trunk and limbs treated at the Sydney Melanoma unit from 1960 to 1991. J Am Coll Surg. 1995; 180(4):402-9. View

5.
DREPPER H, Kohler C, Bastian B, Breuninger H, Brocker E, Gohl J . Benefit of elective lymph node dissection in subgroups of melanoma patients. Results of a multicenter study of 3616 patients. Cancer. 1993; 72(3):741-9. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19930801)72:3<741::aid-cncr2820720318>3.0.co;2-w. View