4.6 Article

Predictors of sentinel lymph node positivity in thin melanoma using the National Cancer Database

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
Volume 80, Issue 2, Pages 441-447

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.08.051

Keywords

Clark level; melanoma; mitotic rate; National Cancer Database; sentinel lymph node biopsy; thin

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) specimens are often obtained from patients for further staging after these patients have undergone melanoma excision. Limited data regarding predictors of SLNB positivity in thin melanoma are available. Objective: We sought to evaluate predictors of SLNB positivity in thin melanoma. Methods: Patients with cutaneous melanoma with a Breslow thickness <= 1.00 mm who received a SLNB were identified from the National Cancer Database between 2004 and 2014 (n = 9186). Predictors of SLNB positivity were analyzed using logistic regression. Results: In a multivariate analysis, patients <60 years of age (P < .001) and Breslow thickness >0.8 mm (P = .03) were at increased risk for positive sentinel lymph node (SLN). Moreover, on multivariate analysis, the presence of dermal mitoses increased the odds of SLN positivity by 95% (odds ratio [OR] 1.95 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.53-2.5], P < .001), ulceration by 63% (OR 1.63 [95% CI 1.21-2.18], P < .001), and Clark level IV to V by 48% (OR 1.48 [95% CI 1.19-1.85]). Patients without ulceration but with dermal mitoses had 92% (OR 1.92 [95% CI 1.5-2.48], P < .001) increased SLN positivity. Limitations: Limited survival data are available. Conclusions: Younger age, a Breslow thickness >0.8 mm, the presence of dermal mitoses, ulceration, and Clark level IV to V are positive predictors of positive SLN. While the new American Joint Committee on Cancer system has removed dermal mitotic rate from staging, continued evaluation of dermal mitotic rate could be valuable for guiding surgical decision making about SLNB.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available