4.7 Article

Clinicopathologic Predictors of Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Thin Melanoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 31, 期 35, 页码 4387-4393

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.50.1114

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Indications for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for thin melanoma are continually evolving. We present a large multi-institutional study to determine factors predictive of sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis in thin melanoma. Patients and Methods Retrospective review of the Sentinel Lymph Node Working Group database from 1994 to 2012 identified 1,250 patients who had an SLNB and thin melanomas ( 1 mm). Clinicopathologic characteristics were correlated with SLN status and outcome. Results SLN metastases were detected in 65 (5.2%) of 1,250 patients. On univariable analysis, rates of Breslow thickness 0.75 mm, Clark level IV, ulceration, and absence of regression differed significantly between positive and negative SLN groups (all P < .05). These four variables and mitotic rate were used in multivariable analysis, which demonstrated that Breslow thickness 0.75 mm (P = .03), Clark level IV (P = .05), and ulceration (P = .01) significantly predicted SLN metastasis with 6.3%, 7.0%, and 11.6% of the patients with these respective characteristics having SLN disease. Melanomas < 0.75 mm had positive SLN rates of < 5% regardless of Clark level and ulceration status. Median follow-up was 2.6 years. Melanoma-specific survival was significantly worse for patients with positive versus negative SLNs (P = .001). Conclusion Breslow thickness 0.75 mm, Clark level IV, and ulceration significantly predict SLN disease in thin melanoma. Most SLN metastases (86.2%) occur in melanomas 0.75 mm, with 6.3% of these patients having SLN disease, whereas in melanomas < 0.75 mm, SLN metastasis rates are < 5%. By using a 5% metastasis risk threshold, SLNB is indicated for melanomas 0.75 mm, but further study is needed to define indications for SLNB in melanomas < 0.75 mm.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据