Sentinel lymph node biopsy vs. Observation in thin melanoma: A multicenter propensity score matching study

The therapeutic value of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in thin melanoma remains controversial. The aim of this study is to determine the role of SLNB in the survival of thin melanomas (≤1 mm). A multicenter retrospective observational study was designed. A propensity score matching was performed...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Tejera-Vaquerizo, Antonio, Boada, Aram, Ribero, Simone, Puig, Susana, Paradela, Sabela, Moreno-Ramírez, David, Ferrándiz Pulido, Lara, Nagore, Eduardo
Tipo de documento: artigo
Estado:Versão publicada
Data de publicação:2021
País:España
Recursos:Universidad de Sevilla (US)
Repositório:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
OAI Identifier:oai:idus.us.es:11441/136992
Acesso em linha:https://hdl.handle.net/11441/136992
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245878
Access Level:Acceso aberto
Palavra-chave:Melanoma
Sentinel lymph node biops
Survival
id ES_1af2b930949965e72de5f1a97b67d434
oai_identifier_str oai:idus.us.es:11441/136992
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Sentinel lymph node biopsy vs. Observation in thin melanoma: A multicenter propensity score matching studyTejera-Vaquerizo, AntonioBoada, AramRibero, SimonePuig, SusanaParadela, SabelaMoreno-Ramírez, DavidFerrándiz Pulido, LaraNagore, EduardoMelanomaSentinel lymph node biopsSurvivalThe therapeutic value of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in thin melanoma remains controversial. The aim of this study is to determine the role of SLNB in the survival of thin melanomas (≤1 mm). A multicenter retrospective observational study was designed. A propensity score matching was performed to compare patients who underwent SLNB vs. observation. A multivariate Cox regression was used. A total of 1438 patients were matched by propensity score. There were no significant differences in melanoma-specific survival (MSS) between the SLNB and observation groups. Predictors of MSS in the multivariate model were age, tumor thickness, ulceration, and interferon treatment. Results were similar for disease-free survival and overall survival. The 5- and 10-year MSS rates for SLN-negative and -positive patients were 98.5% vs. 77.3% (p < 0.001) and 97.3% vs. 68.7% (p < 0.001), respectively. SLNB does not improve MSS in patients with thin melanoma. It also had no impact on DSF or OS. However, a considerable difference in MSS, DFS, and OS between SLN-positive and -negative patients exists, confirming its value as a prognostic procedure and therefore we recommend discussing the option of SLNB with patients.MDPIMedicina2021info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/11441/136992https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245878reponame:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevillainstname:Universidad de Sevilla (US)InglésJournal of Clinical Medicine, 10 (24), 1-14.https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/24/5878info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:idus.us.es:11441/1369922026-06-17T12:51:07Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Sentinel lymph node biopsy vs. Observation in thin melanoma: A multicenter propensity score matching study
title Sentinel lymph node biopsy vs. Observation in thin melanoma: A multicenter propensity score matching study
spellingShingle Sentinel lymph node biopsy vs. Observation in thin melanoma: A multicenter propensity score matching study
Tejera-Vaquerizo, Antonio
Melanoma
Sentinel lymph node biops
Survival
title_short Sentinel lymph node biopsy vs. Observation in thin melanoma: A multicenter propensity score matching study
title_full Sentinel lymph node biopsy vs. Observation in thin melanoma: A multicenter propensity score matching study
title_fullStr Sentinel lymph node biopsy vs. Observation in thin melanoma: A multicenter propensity score matching study
title_full_unstemmed Sentinel lymph node biopsy vs. Observation in thin melanoma: A multicenter propensity score matching study
title_sort Sentinel lymph node biopsy vs. Observation in thin melanoma: A multicenter propensity score matching study
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Tejera-Vaquerizo, Antonio
Boada, Aram
Ribero, Simone
Puig, Susana
Paradela, Sabela
Moreno-Ramírez, David
Ferrándiz Pulido, Lara
Nagore, Eduardo
author Tejera-Vaquerizo, Antonio
author_facet Tejera-Vaquerizo, Antonio
Boada, Aram
Ribero, Simone
Puig, Susana
Paradela, Sabela
Moreno-Ramírez, David
Ferrándiz Pulido, Lara
Nagore, Eduardo
author_role author
author2 Boada, Aram
Ribero, Simone
Puig, Susana
Paradela, Sabela
Moreno-Ramírez, David
Ferrándiz Pulido, Lara
Nagore, Eduardo
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Medicina
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Melanoma
Sentinel lymph node biops
Survival
topic Melanoma
Sentinel lymph node biops
Survival
description The therapeutic value of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in thin melanoma remains controversial. The aim of this study is to determine the role of SLNB in the survival of thin melanomas (≤1 mm). A multicenter retrospective observational study was designed. A propensity score matching was performed to compare patients who underwent SLNB vs. observation. A multivariate Cox regression was used. A total of 1438 patients were matched by propensity score. There were no significant differences in melanoma-specific survival (MSS) between the SLNB and observation groups. Predictors of MSS in the multivariate model were age, tumor thickness, ulceration, and interferon treatment. Results were similar for disease-free survival and overall survival. The 5- and 10-year MSS rates for SLN-negative and -positive patients were 98.5% vs. 77.3% (p < 0.001) and 97.3% vs. 68.7% (p < 0.001), respectively. SLNB does not improve MSS in patients with thin melanoma. It also had no impact on DSF or OS. However, a considerable difference in MSS, DFS, and OS between SLN-positive and -negative patients exists, confirming its value as a prognostic procedure and therefore we recommend discussing the option of SLNB with patients.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/11441/136992
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245878
url https://hdl.handle.net/11441/136992
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245878
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10 (24), 1-14.
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/24/5878
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv MDPI
publisher.none.fl_str_mv MDPI
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
instname:Universidad de Sevilla (US)
instname_str Universidad de Sevilla (US)
reponame_str idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
collection idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869404136778235904
score 15,198674

Registros relacionados