Metastases from head and neck melanomas can occur in any SN demonstrated by lymphoscintigraphy. SNs in discordant as well as predicted node fields should be removed and examined to optimize the accuracy of staging.

A sentinel lymph node (SLN) that is melanoma negative by pathologic examination implies absence of melanoma metastasis to that regional lymph node field. However, a small proportion of patients develop regional node field recurrence after a negative SLN biopsy. In this study, we reviewed the histopathology of negative SLNs from such patients to determine whether occult melanoma cells were present in the SLNs, to characterize the pathologic features of false-negative SLNs, and to provide recommendations for the histopathologic examination of these specimens. Between March 1992 and June 2001, of 1152 patients who had undergone SLN biopsy for primary melanomas at the Sydney Melanoma Unit, 976 were diagnosed with negative SLNs by initial pathologic examination (using 2 hematoxylin and eosin stained sections, and 2 immunostained sections for S-100 protein and HMB45), and follow-up was available in 957. Of these, 26 (2.7%) developed regional lymph node recurrence during a median follow-up period of 35.7 months. For 22 of them, the original slides and tissue blocks were available for reexamination. The original slides of each block were reviewed. Multiple further sections were cut from each block and stained with hematoxylin and eosin, for S-100, HMB45, and Melan A. Deposits of occult melanoma cells were detected in 7 of the 22 cases (31.8%). In 5 of the 7 cases, deposits of melanoma cells were present only in the recut sections. There were no significant differences in clinical and pathologic variables for those patients in whom occult melanoma cells were found by pathologic reexamination of their SLNs, compared with those in whom no melanoma cells were detected. The detection of melanoma cell deposits in only 7 of 22 false-negative SLNs suggests that mechanisms other than failure of histopathologic examination may contribute to the failure of the SLN biopsy technique in some patients. The failure rate for melanoma detection in SLNs by our routine pathologic examination, using the current protocol at our institution, was <1% (7 of 957 patients). Routinely performing more intensive histopathologic examination of SLNs is difficult to justify from a cost benefit perspective; we therefore recommend examining two hematoxylin and eosin stained sections and two immunostained sections (for S-100 and HMB45) routinely on SLNs from melanoma patients.

There is ample evidence in the literature to support the fact that there is an increased risk of the development of melanoma in individuals with a large congenital melanocytic naevus (LCMN). The published melanoma risk estimates, by and large, do not distinguish between cutaneous and extracutaneous melanomas. It is currently not known to what extent each contributes to the overall cited melanoma risk estimates. In order to obtain a better understanding of the association between LCMN and cutaneous melanoma arising within an LCMN, we report the preliminary findings of a cross-sectional study of 379 patients, with a median age of 3 years, from the first self-referred, Internet-based registry of patients with LCMN. To date, no cutaneous melanoma has been reported; possible reasons for this finding are discussed. Further research is required to clarify the risk of the development of cutaneous melanoma separate from non-cutaneous melanoma and to identify subgroups of patients with LCMN at highest risk for the development of melanoma. This information will help to formulate appropriate decisions concerning the management of patients with LCMN.