|
Advertisement |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 23, No 21 (July 20), 2005: pp. 4588-4590 © 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.12.245
The Risk of In-Transit Melanoma Metastasis Depends on Tumor Biology and Not the Surgical Approach to Regional Lymph NodesDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, The Sydney Melanoma Unit, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, and the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, and the Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Although the majority of patients newly diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma present with clinically negative regional nodal basins, many of these patients harbor occult regional lymph node metastases. Historically, the initial treatment strategy for patients with clinically negative regional lymph nodes has been controversial. Treatments have included elective dissection, the goal of which was improved survival, and observation followed by dissection when clinical relapse developed. A more rational selective approach, involving lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), has now been widely adopted. SLNB is a minimally invasive technique for identifying the approximately 20% of patients who harbor occult metastatic disease and who may therefore benefit from completion lymphadenectomy.1-4 Some authors have suggested that SLNB should not be employed outside the confines of a formal clinical investigation5-9 because results are not yet available from completed clinical trials designed to assess whether SLNB affects survival. Among the authors' concerns is the possibility that SLNB may increase the risk of in-transit metastasis (ITM), thereby reducing, eliminating, or reversing any potential survival advantage associated with the SLNB technique.5,10 The hypothesis that the SLNB technique and subsequent completion lymph node dissection in SLN-positive patients may disturb lymph flow and lead to increased rates of ITM—if the hypothesis is accurate—is of particular concern because SLNB has been widely adopted as the standard of care for many patients with clinically localized melanoma. When considering whether ITM is promoted by regional lymph node basin intervention, a full appreciation of the biology and incidence of ITM in melanoma patients before the advent of SLNB would be helpful. ITM is defined as a unique manifestation of intralymphatic tumor dissemination, characterized by the presence of melanoma in either cutaneous or subcutaneous tissue situated between the primary tumor and the draining regional lymph node basin. In the pre-SLNB era, ITMs were reported to develop in 2.3% to 13% of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I and II melanoma treated by either wide local excision (WLE) alone or WLE plus elective lymph node dissection (ELND).11,12 The appearance of ITM has serious prognostic implications: the reported 5-year survival rates in patients with ITM range from 12% to 37%.13-15 Notoriously difficult to treat, ITMs are usually managed by simple excision, intralesional injection, or limb perfusion. Important risk factors for the development of ITM include thicker primary tumors, ulceration, lower-extremity location of the primary tumor, and regional lymph node metastasis.12,13,16,17 It has been theorized that ITMs occur as a result of melanoma cells detaching from the primary tumor, entering dermal and subcutaneous lymphatic channels, and then becoming lodged in these vessels before reaching a regional lymph node.18 Mechanical interruption of lymphatic flow to the regional nodes, either by metastatic nodal disease obstructing normal lymph flow or by removal of the regional nodes, could then predispose to ITM by causing impairment of lymphatic drainage from the primary tumor.19 In one study,16 27% of patients treated with WLE plus ELND developed ITM, compared with only 10% of patients treated with WLE plus a delayed therapeutic lymph node dissection performed after the lymph nodes became palpable. These remarkable findings led to speculation that early intervention in the lymph node basin using ELND or SLNB could result in an increased risk of ITM. Concern that SLNB may cause ITM has been heightened by several recent studies9,10 reporting ITM rates as high as 23% after WLE and SLNB. Others5 have suggested that the incidence of local or in-transit recurrence following SLNB and completion lymphadenectomy in SLN-positive patients may be greater than four times the incidence expected in patients undergoing WLE alone. However, a critical analysis of the data from previous ELND trials, as well as data from more recent multi-institutional studies from both the United States and Australia, provides compelling evidence that the SLNB procedure and completion lymph node dissection in SLN-positive patients does not increase the incidence of ITM. First, comparisons of the incidence of ITM in patients with positive SLNs with those patients undergoing WLE alone can be inappropriate and misleading. In general, patients included in SLNB studies have less favorable primary tumor characteristics than patients who undergo WLE alone. Thus it is probable that in patients who undergo SLNB, the biology of the tumor, rather than the SLNB procedure itself, contributes to the increased incidence of ITM. This is particularly true for the SLN-positive group of patients, who are significantly more likely to have thicker tumors and ulceration. More importantly, given the presence of metastatic nodal disease within the lymphatic compartment, patients with positive SLNs will predictably have higher recurrence rates at all sites. A recent small study by Estourgie et al9 exemplifies this point. The 61 patients who underwent WLE and SLNB and had positive SLNs had a particularly poor risk profile (median tumor thickness, 3.8 mm; incidence of ulceration, 50%) and, reflective of these adverse prognostic factors, had a high rate of ITM (23%). It is not surprising that other studies11,19,20 including patients with more favorable primary tumor characteristics have reported substantially lower rates of ITM (6% to 10%).
Of the 1,395 patients who underwent SLNB at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX), an overall 6.2% incidence of ITM as a first site of recurrence was observed. Patients with a positive SLN (15% of the entire cohort) had a higher rate of ITM (12%) than patients with a negative SLN (3.5%). As expected, the median tumor thickness and incidence of ulceration were significantly different for SLN-negative patients (1.3 mm and 12%, respectively) versus SLN-positive patients (3.0 mm and 45%, respectively); supporting the concept that tumor biology determines metastatic pattern.20 In a recent review of 2,018 patients with primary melanomas Other current data21,23 suggest that waiting for clinical nodal disease to develop may be ill advised. The development of clinical nodal disease itself can cause lymphatic obstruction that may be worsened after therapeutic lymph node dissection. Furthermore, the period of waiting for the development of nodal disease may allow for the growth of cell clones that are inherently more adherent to the lymphatic endothelium, and in turn could actually increase the incidence of clinical ITM. Abandoning the SLNB technique in favor of a delayed approach to the regional lymph node basin may also have a negative impact on overall survival and regional disease control. A World Health Organization Melanoma Programme study24 and a recently published multicenter trial from Germany25 evaluated the impact of ELND on survival in patients with occult node-positive disease. Interestingly, both studies demonstrated a survival advantage for node-positive patients treated with SLNB compared with node-positive patients treated with delayed therapeutic lymphadenectomy. Additionally, long-term control of regional nodal basin disease is more commonly achieved in patients undergoing dissection for microscopic disease than in patients undergoing dissection for macroscopic disease. Taken together, the current data provide compelling evidence that SLNB and completion lymph node dissection in SLN-positive patients does not increase the incidence of ITM. It seems most likely that ITM is the result of inherently adverse biology rather than mechanical disruption of the proximal nodal basin caused by either SLNB or subsequent completion lymphadenectomy. In consideration of this conclusion, the SLNB technique should be performed in patients with high-risk primary melanomas, with the goals of providing an optimal chance for cure, accurate staging, and durable regional control with minimal morbidity. A more definitive assessment of the impact of SLNB on the natural history of ITM and the role of this procedure in the overall treatment of melanoma patients will be possible with the publication of the long-term results of prospective randomized trials such as the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial. Recently presented unpublished preliminary results of this trial23 support the conclusion that there is indeed no increase in the incidence of ITM in patients treated with SLNB. Authors' Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest The authors indicated no potential conflicts of interest. Acknowledgment This publication was made possible by Grant Number P50 CA93459 from the UT M.D. Anderson Cancer Center SPORE in Melanoma, and its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. We thank M.D. Anderson Cancer Center's Department of Scientific Publications for their assistance with this manuscript. REFERENCES
1. Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, et al: Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg 127:392-399, 1992 2. Ross MI, Reintgen D, Balch CM: Selective lymphadenectomy: Emerging role for lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy in the management of early stage melanoma. Semin Surg Oncol 9:219-223, 1993[Medline]
3. Pawlik TM, Ross MI, Gershenwald JE: Lymphatic mapping in the molecular era. Ann Surg Oncol 11:362-374, 2004
4. Gershenwald JE, Thompson W, Mansfield PF, et al: Multi-institutional melanoma lymphatic mapping experience: The prognostic value of sentinel lymph node status in 612 stage I or II melanoma patients. J Clin Oncol 17:976-983, 1999 5. Thomas JM, Clark MA: Selective lymphadenectomy in sentinel node-positive patients may increase the risk of local/in-transit recurrence in malignant melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 30:686-691, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]
6. Thomas JM, Clark MA: Sentinel lymph node biopsy: Not yet standard of care for melanoma. BMJ 329:170, 2004 7. Thomas JM, Clark MA: Are there guidance issues relating to sentinel node biopsy for melanoma in the UK? Br J Plast Surg 57:689-690, 2004[CrossRef][Medline] 8. Estourgie SH, Nieweg OE, Kroon BB: The sentinel node procedure in patients with melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 30:713-714, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Estourgie SH, Nieweg OE, Valdes Olmos RA, et al: Review and evaluation of sentinel node procedures in 250 melanoma patients with a median follow-up of 6 years. Ann Surg Oncol 10:681-688, 2003 10. Estourgie SH, Nieweg OE, Kroon BB: High incidence of in-transit metastases after sentinel node biopsy in patients with melanoma. Br J Surg 91:1370-1371, 2004[CrossRef][Medline] 11. Borgstein PJ, Meijer S, van Diest PJ: Are locoregional cutaneous metastases in melanoma predictable? Ann Surg Oncol 6:315-321, 1999[Abstract] 12. Cascinelli N, Bufalino R, Marolda R, et al: Regional non-nodal metastases of cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 12:175-180, 1986[Medline] 13. Wong JH, Cagle LA, Kopald KH, et al: Natural history and selective management of in transit melanoma. J Surg Oncol 44:146-150, 1990[Medline]
14. Leon P, Daly JM, Synnestvedt M, et al: The prognostic implications of microscopic satellites in patients with clinical stage I melanoma. Arch Surg 126:1461-1468, 1991 15. Day CL Jr, Harrist TJ, Gorstein F, et al: Malignant melanoma: Prognostic significance of "microscopic satellites" in the reticular dermis and subcutaneous fat. Ann Surg 194:108-112, 1981[Medline]
16. Calabro A, Singletary SE, Balch CM: Patterns of relapse in 1001 consecutive patients with melanoma nodal metastases. Arch Surg 124:1051-1055, 1989
17. Zogakis TG, Bartlett DL, Libutti SK, et al: Factors affecting survival after complete response to isolated limb perfusion in patients with in-transit melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 8:771-778, 2001 18. Attie JN, Khafif RA: Clinical aspects of melanotic tumors, in Melanotic Tumors: Biology, Pathology and Clinical Features. Springfield, IL, Charles C. Thomas, 1964, pp 147-150 19. Karakousis CP, Choe KJ, Holyoke ED: Biologic behavior and treatment of intransit metastasis of melanoma. Surg Gynecol Obstet 150:29-32, 1980[Medline] 20. Pawlik T, Ross M, Johnson M, et al: Predictors and natural history of in-transit melanoma after sentinel lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol (in press) 21. van Poll D, Thompson JF, McKinnon JG, et al: A sentinel node biopsy procedure does not increase the incidence of in-transit recurrence in patients with primary melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol (in press) 22. Kretschmer L, Beckmann I, Thoms KM, et al: Sentinel lymphonodectomy does not increase the risk of loco-regional cutaneous metastases of malignant melanomas. Eur J Cancer 41:531-538, 2005 23. Morton DL, Cochran AJ: Presidential Address. Presented at the 4th Annual International Sentinel Node Congress, Los Angeles, CA, December 3-6, 2004 24. Cascinelli N, Morabito A, Santinami M, et al: Immediate or delayed dissection of regional nodes in patients with melanoma of the trunk: A randomised trial—WHO Melanoma Programme. Lancet 351:793-796, 1998[CrossRef][Medline] 25. Kretschmer L, Hilgers R, Mohrle M, et al: Patients with lymphatic metastasis of cutaneous malignant melanoma benefit from sentinel lymphonodectomy and early excision of their nodal disease. Eur J Cancer 40:212-218, 2004
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Copyright © 2005 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
|
1.0 mm in thickness treated over a 10-year period at the Sydney Melanoma Unit of the University of Sydney (Sydney, Australia), there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of ITM among patients treated with WLE alone (4.9%) and those patients treated with WLE plus SLNB (3.6%).
