Display options
Share it on

ISRN Dermatol. 2013;2013:315609. doi: 10.1155/2013/315609. Epub 2013 Jan 10.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thick primary cutaneous melanoma: patterns of use and underuse utilizing a population-based model.

ISRN dermatology

Steve R Martinez, Dhruvil R Shah, Anthony D Yang, Robert J Canter, Emanual Maverakis

Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California at Davis, Saeramento, CA 95817, USA ; UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, 4501 X Street, Suite 3010, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA.

PMID: 23378929 PMCID: PMC3556403 DOI: 10.1155/2013/315609

Abstract

Background. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for thick cutaneous melanoma is supported by national guidelines. We report on factors associated with the use and underuse of SLNB for thick primary cutaneous melanoma. Methods. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was queried for patients who underwent surgery for thick primary cutaneous melanoma from 2004 to 2008. We used multivariate logistic regression models to predict use of SLNB. Results. Among 1,981 patients, 833 (41.8%) did not undergo SLNB. Patients with primary melanomas of the arm (OR 2.07, CI 1.56-2.75; P < 0.001), leg (OR 2.40, CI 1.70-3.40; P < 0.001), and trunk (OR 1.82, CI 1.38-2.40; P < 0.001) had an increased likelihood of receiving a SLNB, as did those with desmoplastic histology (OR 1.47, CI 1.11-1.96; P = 0.008). A decreased likelihood of receiving SLNB was noted for advancing age ≥ 60 years (age 60 to 69: OR 0.58, CI 0.33-0.99, P = 0.047; age 70 to 79: OR 0.32, CI 0.19-0.54, P < 0.001; age 80 or more: OR 0.10, CI 0.06-0.16, P < 0.001) and unknown race/ethnicity (OR 0.21, CI 0.07-0.62; P = 0.005). Conclusions. In particular, elderly patients are less likely to receive SLNB. Further research is needed to assess whether use of SLNB in this population is detrimental or beneficial.

References

  1. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Apr 10;27(11):1857-63 - PubMed
  2. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002 Oct;9(8):754-61 - PubMed
  3. Dermatology. 2011 Feb;222(1):59-66 - PubMed
  4. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1980 Nov;3(5):511-24 - PubMed
  5. In Vivo. 2011 May-Jun;25(3):439-43 - PubMed
  6. World J Surg. 2011 Jul;35(7):1567-72 - PubMed
  7. Cancer. 2009 Dec 15;115(24):5752-60 - PubMed
  8. Curr Opin Oncol. 2006 Mar;18(2):185-8 - PubMed
  9. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Sep 20;23(27):6739-46 - PubMed
  10. Oncology (Williston Park). 1998 Jul;12(7A):153-77 - PubMed
  11. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002 Aug;9(7):637-45 - PubMed
  12. World J Surg. 2009 Nov;33(11):2464-8 - PubMed
  13. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2008 Mar;6(3):198-203 - PubMed
  14. Arch Surg. 1992 Apr;127(4):392-9 - PubMed
  15. World J Surg Oncol. 2011 Apr 14;9:40 - PubMed
  16. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000 Mar;7(2):160-5 - PubMed
  17. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009 Mar;7(3):250-75 - PubMed
  18. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012 May;26(5):560-5 - PubMed
  19. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003 May;10(4):408-15 - PubMed
  20. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 20;27(36):6199-206 - PubMed
  21. Am Surg. 2004 Jan;70(1):59-62 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support