Freedom of expression or protectionism in the debate on sentinel node biopsy in melanoma

Melanoma and Sarcoma Unit, Department of Surgery, The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Impact Factor: 4.45). 12/2009; 61(6):1079. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2009.06.057
Source: PubMed
10 Reads
  • Source
    • "However, according to the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT) [4], there was no significant difference in disease-specific survival between patients with lymphatic mapping by SLNB (and immediate CLND) and patients with nodal observation. Other retrospective studies have shown similar results and the influence of SLNB and CLND on long term patient survival as well as its therapeutic role are still debated [5]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Since the introduction of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), its use as a standard of care for patients with clinically node-negative cutaneous melanoma remains controversial. We wished to evaluate our experience of SLNB for melanoma. Methods A single center observational cohort of 203 melanoma patients with a primary cutaneous melanoma (tumour thickness > 1 mm) and without clinical evidence of metastasis was investigated from 2002 to 2009. Head and neck melanoma were excluded. SLN was identified following preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and intraoperative gamma probe interrogation. Results The SLN identification rate was 97%. The SLN was tumor positive in 44 patients (22%). Positive SLN was significantly associated with primary tumor thickness and microscopic ulceration. The median follow-up was 39.5 (5–97) months. Disease progression was significantly more frequent in SLN positive patients (32% vs 13%, p = 0.002). Five-year DFS and OS of the entire cohort were 79.6% and 84.6%, respectively, with a statistical significant difference between SLN positive (58.7% and 69.7%) and SLN negative (85% and 90.3%) patients (p = 0.0006 and p = 0.0096 respectively). Postoperative complications after SLNB were observed in 12% of patients. Conclusion Our data confirm previous studies and support the clinical usefulness of SLNB as a reliable and accurate staging method in patients with cutaneous melanoma. However, the benefit of additional CLND in patients with positive SLN remains to be demonstrated.
    BMC Dermatology 12/2012; 12(1):21. DOI:10.1186/1471-5945-12-21
  • Source

    01/2011; 1(1):83-4. DOI:10.5826/dpc.dp0101a17
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the introduction of sentinel lymph node biopsy, its use as a standard of care for patients with clinically node-negative cutaneous melanoma remains controversial. Our experience of sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma is presented and evaluated. A cohort study was conducted on 69 patients with a primary cutaneous melanoma and with no clinical evidence of metastasis, who had sentinel lymph node biopsy from October-2005 to December-2013. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was identified using preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and subsequent intraoperative detection with gamma probe. The sentinel lymph node biopsy identification rate was 98.5%. The sentinel lymph node biopsy was positive for metastases in 23 patients (33.8%). Postoperative complications after sentinel lymph node biopsy were observed in 4.4% compared to 38% of complications in patients who had complete lymphadenectomy. The sentinel lymph node biopsy in melanoma offers useful information about the lymphatic dissemination of melanoma and allows an approximation to the regional staging, sparing the secondary effects of lymphadenectomy. More studies with larger number of patients and long term follow-up will be necessary to confirm the validity of sentinel lymph node biopsy in melanoma patients, and especially of lymphadenectomy in patients with positive sentinel lymph node biopsy. Copyright © 2015 Academia Mexicana de Cirugía A.C. Published by Masson Doyma México S.A. All rights reserved.
    Cirugia y cirujanos 06/2015; 49(5). DOI:10.1016/j.circir.2015.05.032 · 0.18 Impact Factor