Pros and cons of whether or not to do a complete lymph node dissection (CLND) are varied. Here is a post addressing both (with many links within):
Sentinel lymph node disection ~ "important diagnostic procedure and might be of therapeutic benefit re: DFS and OS!"
If you prefer the links following that one in a list - here they are:
Feb 2016:
"Patients with microscopically negative/PCR+ SLN have increased risk for nodal recurrence that was mitigated by CLND"!
Also Feb 2016:
Sunbelt Melanoma Trial Final Results: No survival benefit for interferon or complete lymph node dissection in patients with a single positive SLN!
Still Feb 2016, a little tangential...but addresses effect of positive SLN:
Women and melanoma risk
Post covering several reports from 2014:
With melanoma: You can never be too rich or too thin! But, you can be too young!!!
And this huge study from Faries et al in 2014:
Lymph node removal after superficial melanoma lesions...to do or not to do????
So....it is absolutely clear (at least to me) that removal of the sentinel node after a melanoma lesion is crucial to staging and treatment if nothing else. Complete lymph node dissection in the area of that sentinel node is more complicated.
Now there's this:
Timing
of completion lymphadenectomy after positive sentinel node biopsy in
patients with melanoma. Oude,
van Akkooi, Rutowski, et al. Br J Surg. 2017 Feb 20.
Nodal
staging with sentinel node biopsy (SNB) and completion lymph node
dissection (CLND) provides prognostic information to patients with
melanoma and their physicians. It is not known whether the timing of
CLND is associated with survival outcome and/or CLND tumour load.
This study investigated whether CLND timing is associated with CLND
tumour load, disease-free survival (DFS) and/or melanoma-specific
survival (MSS).
A
retrospective cohort of patients with SNB-positive melanoma from nine
European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)
Melanoma Group centres undergoing surgery between 1993 and 2009 were
examined. Patients were selected based on availability of CLND and
follow-up data. The CLND interval was defined as the number of days
between diagnosis and CLND. Patient and tumour characteristics were
collected. Five-year DFS and MSS rates were calculated. Cox and
logistic regression analysis were performed, adjusting for known
prognostic/predictive indicators.
A
total of 784 patients were included in the study. Their median age
was 51 years, and 418 patients (53·3%) were
men. Median Breslow thickness was 3·0 mm, and
148 patients (18·9%) had a residual tumour load. Median CLND
interval was 84 days. Five-year DFS and MSS rates
were not significantly different for patients operated on with a
median CLND interval of less than 84 days and those with an
interval of at least 84 days. In a multivariable
Cox model, CLND interval was not a significant prognostic indicator.
CLND interval was negatively correlated with identification of
positive non-sentinel nodes, but following adjustment for known risk
factors this effect was no longer found.
The
time interval between diagnosis of melanoma and CLND did not
influence CLND tumour load, DFS or MSS.
Completion
Dissection or Observation for Sentinel-Node Metastasis in Melanoma. Faries,
Thompson, Cochran, Andtbacka, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 10.
Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy is associated with increased
melanoma-specific survival (i.e., survival until death from melanoma)
among patients with node-positive intermediate-thickness melanomas
(1.2 to 3.5 mm). The value of completion lymph-node dissection for
patients with sentinel-node metastases is not clear.
In an
international trial, we randomly assigned patients with sentinel-node
metastases detected by means of standard pathological assessment or a
multimarker molecular assay to immediate completion lymph-node
dissection (dissection group) or nodal observation with
ultrasonography (observation group). The primary end point was
melanoma-specific survival. Secondary end points included
disease-free survival and the cumulative rate of nonsentinel-node
metastasis. Immediate completion lymph-node dissection was
not associated with increased melanoma-specific survival among 1934
patients with data that could be evaluated in an intention-to-treat
analysis or among 1755 patients in the per-protocol analysis. In the
per-protocol analysis, the mean (±SE) 3-year rate of
melanoma-specific survival was similar in the dissection group and
the observation group (86±1.3% and 86±1.2%, respectively) at a
median follow-up of 43 months. The rate of disease-free survival was
slightly higher in the dissection group than in the observation group
(68±1.7% and 63±1.7%, respectively) at 3 years, based on an
increased rate of disease control in the regional nodes at 3 years
(92±1.0% vs. 77±1.5%); these results must be interpreted with
caution. Nonsentinel-node metastases, identified in 11.5% of the
patients in the dissection group, were a strong, independent
prognostic factor for recurrence. Lymphedema was observed in 24.1% of
the patients in the dissection group and in 6.3% of those in the
observation group.
Immediate completion lymph-node
dissection increased the rate of regional disease control and
provided prognostic information but did not increase
melanoma-specific survival among patients with melanoma and
sentinel-node metastases.
So...if you note the 2014 study linked above, Faries has been looking at this stuff for a long time. In this latest report, again, it is clear that sentinel lymph node biopsy is "associated with melanoma specific survival." In this study, they placed patients with a positive sentinel node, randomly in either an immediate completion lymph-node dissection group or a nodal observation group that were followed with ultrasound. The group with the immediate CLND was "NOT associated with increased melanoma-specific survival". The 3 year rate of survival was similar in the dissection and observation groups. "The rate of disease free survival was slightly higher in the dissection group (68%) vs the observation group (63%) at 3 years, based on an increased rate of disease control in the regional nodes at 3 years (92% vs 77%); these results must be interpreted with caution." (Not sure why the caution unless they don't feel it was really a statistically significant finding.)
An interesting notation is that lymphedema was found in 24% of the folks with the CLND. We already knew (mostly from breast cancer patients) that lymphedema is more common in older, heavier patients and more common in inguinal dissections than in those to the upper extremities.
As Faries has done, we all need to move where the data and truth takes us. I do not regret my two CLND's done to bilateral axilla in 2003 and 2007. It is probably easier to take that stance since, despite some weird nerve stuff to my right (have had three surgeries there over the years!!!) I luckily, have not developed lymphedema. Additionally, back then we did not have the study results we have now...nor effective melanoma therapies. Great strides have been made in understanding and treating melanoma in just the past 5-7 years. For too many, however, it is not nearly enough. Keep pushing, researchers!!! Keep pushing!
Hang in there, ratties!!! - c