Show simple item record

Is there a benefit to sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with T4 melanoma?

dc.contributor.authorGajdos, Csabaen_US
dc.contributor.authorGriffith, Kent A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorWong, Sandra L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorJohnson, Timothy M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorChang, Alfred E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCimmino, Vincent M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLowe, Lorien_US
dc.contributor.authorBradford, Carol R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRees, Riley S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSabel, Michael S.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-01-05T15:09:05Z
dc.date.available2010-03-01T21:10:28Zen_US
dc.date.issued2009-12-15en_US
dc.identifier.citationGajdos, Csaba; Griffith, Kent A.; Wong, Sandra L.; Johnson, Timothy M.; Chang, Alfred E.; Cimmino, Vincent M.; Lowe, Lori; Bradford, Carol R.; Rees, Riley S.; Sabel, Michael S. (2009). "Is there a benefit to sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with T4 melanoma?." Cancer 115(24): 5752-5760. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/64525>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0008-543Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0142en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/64525
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=19827151&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Controversy exists as to whether patients with thick (Breslow depth >4 mm), clinically lymph node-negative melanoma require sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy. The authors examined the impact of SLN biopsy on prognosis and outcome in this patient population. METHODS: A review of the authors' institutional review board-approved melanoma database identified 293 patients with T4 melanoma who underwent surgical excision between 1998 and 2007. Patient demographics, histologic features, and outcome were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Of 227 T4 patients who had an SLN biopsy, 107 (47%) were positive. The strongest predictors of a positive SLN included angiolymphatic invasion, satellitosis, or ulceration of the primary tumor. Patients with a T4 melanoma and a negative SLN had a significantly better 5-year distant disease-free survival (DDFS) (85.3% vs 47.8%; P < .0001) and overall survival (OS) (80% vs 47%; P < .0001) compared with those with metastases to the SLN. For SLN-positive patients, only angiolymphatic invasion was a significant predictor of DDFS, with a hazard ratio of 2.29 ( P = .007). Ulceration was not significant when examining SLN-positive patients but the most significant factor among SLN-negative patients, with a hazard ratio of 5.78 ( P = .02). Increasing Breslow thickness and mitotic rate were also significantly associated with poorer outcome. Patients without ulceration or SLN metastases had an extremely good prognosis, with a 5-year OS >90% and a 5-year DDFS of 95%. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically lymph node-negative T4 melanoma cases should be strongly considered for SLN biopsy, regardless of Breslow depth. SLN lymph node status is the most significant prognostic sign among these patients. T4 patients with a negative SLN have an excellent prognosis in the absence of ulceration and should not be considered candidates for adjuvant high-dose interferon. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.en_US
dc.format.extent199745 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherLife and Medical Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.otherCancer Research, Oncology and Pathologyen_US
dc.titleIs there a benefit to sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with T4 melanoma?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOncology and Hematologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumBiostatistics Core, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; Department of Dermatology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; Fax: (734) 647-9647 ; 304 Cancer Center, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0932en_US
dc.identifier.pmid19827151en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64525/1/24660_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cncr.24660en_US
dc.identifier.sourceCanceren_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe its collections in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in them. We encourage you to Contact Us anonymously if you encounter harmful or problematic language in catalog records or finding aids. More information about our policies and practices is available at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.