Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Impact of False-Negative Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy on Survival in Patients with Cutaneous Melanoma

  • Melanomas
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Sentinel lymph node biopsy is widely accepted as standard care in melanoma despite lack of pertinent randomized trials results. A possible pitfall of this procedure is the inaccurate identification of the sentinel lymph node leading to biopsy and analysis of a nonsentinel node. Such a technical failure may yield a different prognosis. The purpose of this study is to analyze the incidence of false negativity and its impact on clinical outcome and to try to understand its causes.

Methods

The Melanoma Data Base at National Cancer Institute of Naples was analyzed comparing results between false-negative and tumor-positive sentinel node patients focusing on overall survival and prognostic factors influencing the clinical outcome.

Results

One hundred fifty-one cases were diagnosed to be tumor-positive after sentinel lymph node biopsy and were subjected to complete lymph node dissection. Thirty-four (18.4%)patients with tumor-negative sentinel node subsequently developed lymph node metastases in the basin site of the sentinel procedure. With a median follow-up of 42.8 months the 5-year overall survival was 48.4% and 66.3% for false-negative and tumor-positive group respectively with significant statistical differences (P < .03).

Conclusions

The sensitivity of sentinel lymph node biopsy was 81.6%, and a regional nodal basin recurrence after negative-sentinel node biopsy means a worse prognosis, compared with patients submitted to complete lymph node dissection after a positive sentinel biopsy. The evidence of higher number of tumor-positive nodes after delayed lymphadenectomy in false-negative group compared with tumor-positive sentinel node cases, confirmed the importance of an early staging of lymph nodal involvement. Further data will better clarify the role of prognostic factors to identify cases with a more aggressive biological behavior of the disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

FIG. 1.
FIG. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gadd MA, Cosimi AB, Yu J, et al. Outcome of patients with melanoma and histological negative sentinel lymph nodes Arch Surg 1999; 134:381–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Scolyer RA, Thompson JF, Li LXL, et al. Failure to remove true sentinel nodes can cause failure of the sentinel node biopsy technique: evidence from antimony concentrations in false-negative sentinel nodes from melanoma patients Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:174s–8s

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zogakis TG, Essner R, Wang H, Turner RR, Takasumi YT, Gaffney RL, et al. Melanoma recurrence patterns after negative sentinel lymphadenectomy Arch Surg 2005; 140:865–872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Morton DL. Sentinel node mapping and an International Sentinel node Society: current issues and future directions Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:137s–43s

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mozzillo N, Caracò C, Chiofalo MG, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with cutaneous melanoma: outcome after 3-year follow-up Eur J Surg Oncol 2004; 30:440–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Yee VSK, Thompson JF, McKinnon JG, et al. Outcome in 846 cutaneous melanoma patients from a single center after a negative sentinel node biopsy Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12:429–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Morton Dl, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Sentinel-node biopsy or nodal observation in melanoma N Engl J Med 2006; 355:1307–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Morton DL, Cochran AJ, Thompson JF, et al. Sentinel node biopsy for early-stage melanoma: accuracy and morbidity in MSLT-I, an International Multicenter Trial Ann Surg 2005; 242:302–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Thomas MJ. The place of sentinel node biopsy in melanoma after the multicenter selective lymphadenectomy trial ANZ J Surg 2006; 76:98–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McMaster KM. What good is sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma if it does not improve survival? Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:810–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Doubrovsky A, de Wilt JHW, Scolyer RA, et al. Sentinel node biopsy provides more accurate staging than elective lymph node dissection in patients with cutaneous melanoma Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:829–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Thompson JF, Shaw HM. The prognosis of patients with thick primary melanomas: is regional lymph node status relevant, and does removing positive regional nodes influence the outcome Ann Surg Oncol 2002; 9:719–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ferrone CR, Panageas KS, Busam K, et al. Multivariate prognostic model for patients with thick cutaneous melanoma: importance of sentinel node status Ann Surg Oncol 2002; 9:637–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Caracò C, Celentano E, Lastoria S, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy does not change melanoma-specific survival in patients with Breslow thicker than 4 mm Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:263S–6S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Caracò.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Caracò, C., Marone, U., Celentano, E. et al. Impact of False-Negative Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy on Survival in Patients with Cutaneous Melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 14, 2662–2667 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9433-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9433-5

Keywords

Navigation