Does sentinel lymph node biopsy in cutaneous head and neck melanoma alter disease outcome?

Doting, E; Vries, M. de; Plukker, John; Jager, Piet L.; Post, Wendy J.; Suurmeijer, Albert; Hoekstra, Harald J.

doi:10.1002/jso.20554

Cited by 29 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 51 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous data suggest a higher false‐omission rate in the head and neck region relative to nonhead and neck regions. After recalculations were made where necessary, the compiled false‐omission rate across head and neck melanoma series with a minimum 30‐month follow‐up is 9.3% 8, 10, 20‐25. The literature predicts a lower false‐omission rate when considering nonhead and neck melanomas, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Melanoma Group data set (4.7%),17 John Wayne Cancer Center data set (4.8%),26 Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial 1 (3.4%),18 and others 7, 19.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sentinel lymph node biopsy is accurate and prognostic in head and neck melanoma

Erman

Collar

Griffith

et al. 2011

Cancer

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has emerged as a widely used staging procedure for cutaneous melanoma. However, debate remains around the accuracy and prognostic implications of SLNB for cutaneous melanoma arising in the head and neck, as previous reports have demonstrated inferior results to those in nonhead and neck regions. Through the largest single-institution series of head and neck melanoma patients, the authors set out to demonstrate that SLNB accuracy and prognostic value in the head and neck region are comparable to other sites. METHODS: A prospectively collected database was queried for cutaneous head and neck melanoma patients who underwent SLNB at the University of Michigan between 1997 and 2007. Primary endpoints included SLNB result, time to recurrence, site of recurrence, and date and cause of death. Multivariate models were constructed for analyses. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-three patients were identified. A sentinel lymph node was identified in 352 of 353 patients (99.7%). Sixty-nine of the 353 (19.6%) patients had a positive SLNB. Seventeen of 68 patients (25%) undergoing completion lymphadenectomy after a positive SLNB result had at least 1 additional positive nonsentinel lymph node. Patients with local control and a negative SLNB failed regionally in 4.2% of cases. Multivariate analysis revealed positive SLNB status to be the most prognostic clinicopathologic predictor of poor outcome; hazard ratio was 4.23 for SLNB status and recurrence-free survival (P < .0001) and 3.33 for overall survival (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: SLNB is accurate and its results are of prognostic importance for head and neck melanoma patients. Cancer 2012;118:1040-

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sentinel lymph node biopsy is accurate and prognostic in head and neck melanoma

Erman

Collar

Griffith

et al. 2011

Cancer

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We surmise that many patients with CHNM did not have lymph node staging performed prior to the era of sentinel node biopsy. Even among those patients that did undergo lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy, higher false negative rates for sentinel lymph node biopsies of the neck are well-documented(14-15, 24-31). Up to 30% of patients with lymph node metastases from neck melanomas bypass the nearest node and involve nodes at more distant sites(32).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tumor Location Predicts Survival in Cutaneous Head and Neck Melanoma

Tseng

Martinez

2011

Journal of Surgical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Foremost among these is the lack of consensus on what constitutes high-risk clinical and pathologic features that warrant a technically difficult and potentially disabling dissection [59] of the lymphatic drainage for the conjunctival surface preauricular, parotid, submandibular and cervical lymph node basins [7,9,21,54]. Nonlimbal location and Breslow thickness beyond 2 mm increase the risk for lymph node metastases at diagnosis [54].…”

Section: Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsymentioning

confidence: 99%

Conjunctival melanoma: pitfalls and dilemmas in management

Shildkrot

Wilson

2010

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The management of conjunctival surface melanomas is complicated by local recurrence and metastatic disease, particularly for lesions greater than 2 mm in thickness and arising from nonbulbar conjunctiva. Early complete excision with appropriate adjuvant cryotherapy and topical chemotherapy may be curative in some patients. Conjunctival anatomy and high recurrence rate with resultant metastatic spread undermines the utility of sentinel lymph node biopsy in this condition. Further research and innovation for detection of systemic micrometastases and treatment of metastatic disease are needed.

show abstract

Does sentinel lymph node biopsy in cutaneous head and neck melanoma alter disease outcome?

Abstract: The safety and accuracy of SLNB in the neck and parotid nodal basins were similar to those in non-head and neck sites. However, the technique is technically demanding in this region. In this small series SLNB did not alter disease outcome.

Cited by 29 publications

References 51 publications

Sentinel lymph node biopsy is accurate and prognostic in head and neck melanoma

Sentinel lymph node biopsy is accurate and prognostic in head and neck melanoma

Tumor Location Predicts Survival in Cutaneous Head and Neck Melanoma

Conjunctival melanoma: pitfalls and dilemmas in management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About