441 research outputs found
Thick primary melanoma has a heterogeneous tumor biology: an institutional series
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Thick melanomas (TM) ≥4 mm have a high risk for nodal and distant metastases. Optimal surgical management, prognostic significance of sentinel node biopsy (SLNB), and benefits of interferon (IFN) for these patients are unclear. As a continuum of increasing tumor thickness is placed into a single TM group, differences in biologic and clinical behavior may be lost. The purpose of this study was to better characterize the diverse biology in TM, including the value of increasing thickness and nodal status information, potentially identifying high risk TM subgroups that may warrant more aggressive treatment/follow up.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>155 consecutive TM patients treated at a single institution between 1971 and 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient, disease and treatment features were analyzed with respect to disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Median patient age was 66 years and 68% of patients were men. The trunk was the most common TM location (35%), followed by the head and neck (29%) and lower extremities (20%). Median thickness was 6 mm and 61% were ulcerated. 6% patients had stage IV disease, 12% had clinical nodal metastases. Clinically negative lymph node basins were treated by observation (22 patients - 15.4%), elective lymph node dissection (ELND) (24 patients - 17.6%) or SLNB (91 patients - 67%). 75% of ELND's and 53% of SLNB's were positive. Completion node dissection was performed in 38 SLNB+ patients and 22% had additional positive nodes. 17% of the study patients received IFN. At median follow up of 26 months, 5 year DFS and OS were 42% and 43.6%. For SLNB positive vs negative, median DFS were 22 vs 111 months (p = 0.006) and median OS were 41 vs 111 months (p = 0.006). When stratified by tumor thickness ≤ vs > 6 mm, 5 year DFS was 58.3% vs 20% (p < 0.0001) and OS was 62% vs 20% (P < 0.0001). IFN had no impact on DFS or OS (p = 0.98 and 0.8 respectively).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Within the high risk group of patients with TM, cases with tumor thickness > 6 mm or a positive SLNB had a significantly worse DFS and OS (p < .0001, <.0001 and .006, .006).</p
Primary cutaneous melanoma of the breast: A case report
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Background: Primary cutaneous melanoma of the breast is a very rare tumour, accounting for < 5 % of all malignant melanomas. Case presentation: A young lady was seen in the breast clinic for a skin lesion in the right breast. Clinical examination and investigations confirmed a diagnosis of a primary cutaneous melanoma of the breast. The lesion was excised and the patient made good recovery. She has shown no signs of local recurrence and is under regular follow-up in the dermatology clinic. Conclusion: This case is educational as it shows that the treatment of breast cutaneous melanoma is similar to that for any skin parts with surgery remaining the main therapeutic option. It also shows that mastectomy is unnecessary as it does not improve the results obtained by wide local excision of melanoma. Background Primary cutaneous melanoma rarely affects the breast, accounting for less than 5 % of all malignant melanomas
Prognosis of Sentinel Node Staged Patients with Primary Cutaneous Melanoma
Background: This study investigated survival probabilities and prognostic factors in sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) staged patients with cutaneous melanoma (CM) with the aim of defining subgroups of patients who are at higher risk for recurrences and who should be considered for adjuvant clinical trials.\ud
\ud
Methods: Patients with primary CM who underwent SLNB in the Department of Dermatology, University of Tuebingen, Germany, between 1996 and 2009 were included into this study. Survival probabilities and prognostic factors were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models.\ud
\ud
Results: 1909 SLNB staged patients were evaluated. Median follow-up time was 44 months. Median tumor thickness was 1.8 mm, ulceration was present in 31.8% of cases. The 5-year Overall Survival (OS) was 90.3% in SLNB negative patients (IB 96.2%, IIA 87.0%, IIB 78.1%, IIC 72.6%). Patients with micrometastases (stage IIIA/B) had a 5-year OS rate of 70.9% which was clearly less favorable than for stages I–II. Multivariate analysis revealed tumor thickness, ulceration, body site, histopathologic subtype and SLNB status as independent significant prognostic factors.\ud
\ud
Conclusion: Survival rates of patients with primary CM in stages I–II were shown to be much more favorable than previously reported from non sentinel node staged collectives. For future clinical trials, sample size calculations should be adapted using survival probabilities based on sentinel node staging
Adjunct primer for the use of national comprehensive cancer network guidelines for the surgical management of cutaneous malignant melanoma patients
Recently, a Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) survey of melanoma patterns of care by the Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale showed remarkable deviations from best practice patterns throughout the country. The study, which analyzed the SEER records of 35,126 stage I to III cutaneous malignant melanoma patients treated from 2004 to 2006, showed that adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) therapeutic resection margins occurred in less than 36% of patients. Similarly, considerable variation in the quality of melanoma care in the United States when assessed using 26 quality indicators drawn by a panel of melanoma experts was independently reported. These observations underscore the significant lack of adherence to published best practice patterns reflected by the NCCN guidelines. The untoward effects of these variations in practice pattern can have an inordinate impact on the survival of melanoma patients in whom long term outcomes are affected by the adequacy of surgical management. Thin malignant melanoma is curable; however, thick or node positive melanoma is often incurable. This outcome is determined not only by the stage at presentation but by the use of best practice patterns as reflected in current NCCN cutaneous melanoma practice guidelines
How Should We View the Results of the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial-1 (MSLT-1)?
The influence of sentinel lymph node tumour burden on additional lymph node involvement and disease-free survival in cutaneous melanoma – a retrospective analysis of 392 cases
Twenty per cent of sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma patients have positive non-SLN lymph nodes in completion lymph node dissection (CLND). We investigated SLN tumour load, non-sentinel positivity and disease-free survival (DFS) to assess whether certain patients could be spared CLND. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed on 392 patients between 1999 and 2005. Median observation period was 38.8 months. Sentinel lymph node tumour load did not predict non-SLN positivity: 30.8% of patients with SLN macrometastases (⩾2 mm) and 16.4% with micrometastases (⩽2 mm) had non-SLN positivity (P=0.09). Tumour recurrences after positive SLNs were more than twice as frequent for SLN macrometastases (51.3%) than for micrometastases (24.6%) (P=0.005). For patients with SLN micrometastases, the DFS analysis was worse (P=0.003) when comparing those with positive non-SLNs (60% recurrences) to those without (17.6% recurrences). This difference did not translate into significant differences in DFS: patients with SLN micrometastasis, either with (P=0.022) or without additional positive non-SLNs (P<0.0001), fared worse than patients with tumour-free SLNs. The 2-mm cutoff for SLN tumour load accurately predicts differences in DFS. Non-SLN positivity in CLND, however, cannot be predicted. Therefore, contrary to other studies, no recommendations concerning discontinuation of CLND based on SLN tumour load can be deduced
Is intra-operative gamma probe detection really necessary for inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy?
- …