[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.205.87.3. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Figure 1. Classification tree for the risk of sentinel lymph node involvement in patients with localized cutaneous melanoma. FGM indicates fast-growth melanoma; IGM, intermediate-growth melanoma; MS, microscopic satellitosis; RND, regional node disease; and SGM, slow-growth melanoma.

Figure 1. Classification tree for the risk of sentinel lymph node involvement in patients with localized cutaneous melanoma. FGM indicates fast-growth melanoma; IGM, intermediate-growth melanoma; MS, microscopic satellitosis; RND, regional node disease; and SGM, slow-growth melanoma.

Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier disease-free survival. A, Among patients with slow-growth melanomas (<0.10 mm/mo), intermediate-growth melanomas (0.10-0.50 mm/mo), and fast-growth melanomas (>0.50 mm/mo). B, By sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity or negativity. Disease-free survival was better in patients with slow-growth melanomas. When patients are categorized by SLN status, disease-free survival benefit is associated with growth rate. RND indicates regional node disease. P values indicate the differences in disease-free survival between the different growth rates by survival analysis.

Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier disease-free survival. A, Among patients with slow-growth melanomas (<0.10 mm/mo), intermediate-growth melanomas (0.10-0.50 mm/mo), and fast-growth melanomas (>0.50 mm/mo). B, By sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity or negativity. Disease-free survival was better in patients with slow-growth melanomas. When patients are categorized by SLN status, disease-free survival benefit is associated with growth rate. RND indicates regional node disease. P values indicate the differences in disease-free survival between the different growth rates by survival analysis.

Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier overall survival. A, Among patients with slow-growth melanomas (<0.10 mm/mo), intermediate-growth melanomas (0.10-0.50 mm/mo), and fast-growth melanomas (>0.50 mm/mo). B, By sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity or negativity. Overall survival was better in patients with slow-growth melanomas. When patients are categorized by SLN status, overall survival benefit is not associated with growth rate. P values indicate the differences in disease-free survival between the different growth rates by survival analysis.

Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier overall survival. A, Among patients with slow-growth melanomas (<0.10 mm/mo), intermediate-growth melanomas (0.10-0.50 mm/mo), and fast-growth melanomas (>0.50 mm/mo). B, By sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity or negativity. Overall survival was better in patients with slow-growth melanomas. When patients are categorized by SLN status, overall survival benefit is not associated with growth rate. P values indicate the differences in disease-free survival between the different growth rates by survival analysis.

Table 1. Clinical and Pathological Characteristics of 698 Patients With Localized Cutaneous Melanoma
Table 1. Clinical and Pathological Characteristics of 698 Patients With Localized Cutaneous Melanoma
Table 2. Univariate and Multivariate Analyses of Predictive Factors for Sentinel Lymph Node Positivity in 693 Patients With Localized Cutaneous Melanoma
Table 2. Univariate and Multivariate Analyses of Predictive Factors for Sentinel Lymph Node Positivity in 693 Patients With Localized Cutaneous Melanoma
Table 3. Predictive Value of Growth Rate and Microscopic Satellitosis for Regional Metastatic Involvement by Breslow Thickness
Table 3. Predictive Value of Growth Rate and Microscopic Satellitosis for Regional Metastatic Involvement by Breslow Thickness
Table 4. Most Relevant Studies Assessing Predictive Factors for Sentinel Lymph Node (SLN) Positivity
Table 4. Most Relevant Studies Assessing Predictive Factors for Sentinel Lymph Node (SLN) Positivity
1.
Clark WH Jr, From L, Bernardino EA, Mihm MC. The histogenesis and biologic behavior of primary human malignant melanomas of the skin.  Cancer Res. 1969;29(3):705-727PubMed
2.
Grob JJ, Richard MA, Gouvernet J,  et al.  The kinetics of the visible growth of a primary melanoma reflects the tumor aggressiveness and is an independent prognostic marker: a prospective study.  Int J Cancer. 2002;102(1):34-38PubMedArticle
3.
Tejera-Vaquerizo A, Barrera-Vigo MV, López-Navarro N, Herrera-Ceballos E. Growth rate as a prognostic factor in localized invasive cutaneous melanoma.  J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010;24(2):147-154PubMedArticle
4.
Nagore E, Martorell-Calatayud A, Botella-Estrada R, Guillén C. Growth rate as an independent prognostic factor in localized invasive cutaneous melanoma.  J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011;25(5):618-620PubMedArticle
5.
Liu W, Dowling JP, Murray WK,  et al.  Rate of growth in melanomas: characteristics and associations of rapidly growing melanomas.  Arch Dermatol. 2006;142(12):1551-1558PubMedArticle
6.
Martorell-Calatayud A, Nagore E, Botella-Estrada R,  et al.  Defining fast-growing melanomas: reappraisal of epidemiological, clinical, and histological features.  Melanoma Res. 2011;21(2):131-138PubMedArticle
7.
Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ,  et al.  Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification.  J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(36):6199-6206PubMedArticle
8.
Mraz-Gernhard S, Sagebiel RW, Kashani-Sabet M, Miller JR III, Leong SP. Prediction of sentinel lymph node micrometastasis by histological features in primary cutaneous malignant melanoma.  Arch Dermatol. 1998;134(8):983-987PubMedArticle
9.
Berk DR, Johnson DL, Uzieblo A, Kiernan M, Swetter SM. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for cutaneous melanoma: the Stanford experience, 1997-2004.  Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(8):1016-1022PubMedArticle
10.
Lowe JB, Hurst E, Moley JF, Cornelius LA. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thin melanoma.  Arch Dermatol. 2003;139(5):617-621PubMedArticle
11.
Taylor RC, Patel A, Panageas KS, Busam KJ, Brady MS. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes predict sentinel lymph node positivity in patients with cutaneous melanoma.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(7):869-875PubMedArticle
12.
Kruper LL, Spitz FR, Czerniecki BJ,  et al.  Predicting sentinel node status in AJCC stage I/II primary cutaneous melanoma.  Cancer. 2006;107(10):2436-2445PubMedArticle
13.
Paek SC, Griffith KA, Johnson TM,  et al.  The impact of factors beyond Breslow depth on predicting sentinel lymph node positivity in melanoma.  Cancer. 2007;109(1):100-108PubMedArticle
14.
Nagore E, Botella-Estrada R, Garcia-Casado Z,  et al.  Comparison between familial and sporadic cutaneous melanoma in Valencia, Spain.  J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2008;22(8):931-936PubMedArticle
15.
Nagore E, Botella-Estrada R, Requena C,  et al.  Clinical and epidemiologic profile of melanoma patients according to sun exposure of the tumor site [in Spanish].  Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2009;100(3):205-211PubMedArticle
16.
Nagore E, Pereda C, Botella-Estrada R, Requena C, Guillén C. Acral lentiginous melanoma presents distinct clinical profile with high cancer susceptibility.  Cancer Causes Control. 2009;20(1):115-119PubMedArticle
17.
Azzola MF, Shaw HM, Thompson JF,  et al.  Tumor mitotic rate is a more powerful prognostic indicator than ulceration in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of 3661 patients from a single center.  Cancer. 2003;97(6):1488-1498PubMedArticle
18.
Clark WH Jr, Elder DE, Guerry D IV,  et al.  Model predicting survival in stage I melanoma based on tumor progression.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81(24):1893-1904PubMedArticle
19.
Argenziano G, Kittler H, Ferrara G,  et al.  Slow-growing melanoma: a dermoscopy follow-up study.  Br J Dermatol. 2010;162(2):267-273PubMedArticle
20.
Reintgen D, Cruse CW, Wells K,  et al.  The orderly progression of melanoma nodal metastases.  Ann Surg. 1994;220(6):759-767PubMedArticle
21.
Stebbins WG, Garibyan L, Sober AJ. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and melanoma: 2010 update part II.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62(5):737-750PubMedArticle
22.
Sondak VK, Taylor JM, Sabel MS,  et al.  Mitotic rate and younger age are predictors of sentinel lymph node positivity: lessons learned from the generation of a probabilistic model.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11(3):247-258PubMedArticle
23.
Wong SL, Kattan MW, McMasters KM, Coit DG. A nomogram that predicts the presence of sentinel node metastasis in melanoma with better discrimination than the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12(4):282-288PubMedArticle
24.
Karakousis GC, Gimotty PA, Botbyl JD,  et al.  Predictors of regional nodal disease in patients with thin melanomas.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(4):533-541PubMedArticle
25.
Mocellin S, Ambrosi A, Montesco MC,  et al.  Support vector machine learning model for the prediction of sentinel node status in patients with cutaneous melanoma.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(8):1113-1122PubMedArticle
26.
Mandalà M, Imberti GL, Piazzalunga D,  et al.  Clinical and histopathological risk factors to predict sentinel lymph node positivity, disease-free and overall survival in clinical stages I-II AJCC skin melanoma: outcome analysis from a single-institution prospectively collected database.  Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(14):2537-2545PubMedArticle
27.
Kunte C, Geimer T, Baumert J,  et al.  Prognostic factors associated with sentinel lymph node positivity and effect of sentinel status on survival: an analysis of 1049 patients with cutaneous melanoma.  Melanoma Res. 2010;20(4):330-337PubMedArticle
28.
Mays MP, Martin RC, Burton A,  et al.  Should all patients with melanoma between 1 and 2 mm Breslow thickness undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy?  Cancer. 2010;116(6):1535-1544PubMedArticle
29.
Mitra A, Conway C, Walker C,  et al.  Melanoma sentinel node biopsy and prediction models for relapse and overall survival.  Br J Cancer. 2010;103(8):1229-1236PubMedArticle
30.
Roach BA, Burton AL, Mays MP,  et al.  Does mitotic rate predict sentinel lymph node metastasis or survival in patients with intermediate and thick melanoma?  Am J Surg. 2010;200(6):759-764PubMedArticle
31.
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. 1981;194(1):108-112PubMedArticle
32.
Kimsey TF, Cohen T, Patel A, Busam KJ, Brady MS. Microscopic satellitosis in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma: implications for nodal basin staging.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(5):1176-1183PubMedArticle
33.
Rao UN, Ibrahim J, Flaherty LE, Richards J, Kirkwood JM. Implications of microscopic satellites of the primary and extracapsular lymph node spread in patients with high-risk melanoma: pathologic corollary of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial E1690.  J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(8):2053-2057PubMedArticle
34.
Shaikh L, Sagebiel RW, Ferreira CM, Nosrati M, Miller JR III, Kashani-Sabet M. The role of microsatellites as a prognostic factor in primary malignant melanoma.  Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(6):739-742PubMedArticle
35.
Lipsker D, Engel F, Cribier B, Velten M, Hedelin G. Trends in melanoma epidemiology suggest three different types of melanoma.  Br J Dermatol. 2007;157(2):338-343PubMedArticle
36.
Liu W, Kelly JW, Trivett M,  et al.  Distinct clinical and pathological features are associated with the BRAFT1799A(V600E) mutation in primary melanoma.  J Invest Dermatol. 2007;127(4):900-905PubMedArticle
37.
Linos E, Swetter SM, Cockburn MG, Colditz GA, Clarke CA. Increasing burden of melanoma in the United States.  J Invest Dermatol. 2009;129(7):1666-1674PubMedArticle
38.
Baade PD, English DR, Youl PH, McPherson M, Elwood JM, Aitken JF. The relationship between melanoma thickness and time to diagnosis in a large population-based study.  Arch Dermatol. 2006;142(11):1422-1427PubMedArticle
39.
Liu W, McArthur GA, Trivett M, Murray WK, Wolfe R, Kelly JW. Correlation of subjective self-reported melanoma growth rate with objective tumor proliferation markers.  Arch Dermatol. 2008;144(4):555-556PubMedArticle
Study
ONLINE FIRST
May 2012

Prediction of Sentinel Lymph Node Positivity by Growth Rate of Cutaneous Melanoma

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Servicio de Dermatología, Hospital “Virgen de la Victoria,” Málaga (Drs Tejera-Vaquerizo, Herrera-Acosta, Martín-Cuevas, and Herrera-Ceballos), and Servicios de Dermatología (Drs Nagore and Martorell-Calatayud) and Anatomía Patológica (Dr Traves), Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain.

Arch Dermatol. 2012;148(5):577-584. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2011.2522
Abstract

Objective To determine whether growth rate (GR) of cutaneous melanoma predicts the histological sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity.

Design Retrospective cohort study.

Setting Two tertiary melanoma referral centers.

Patients A total of 698 patients with invasive primary cutaneous melanoma in whom the SLN was identified between January 1, 2000, and June 30, 2010.

Main Outcome Measure Based on previous studies, a surrogate measure for GR in primary invasive melanoma was calculated as the ratio of Breslow thickness to time to melanoma development.

Results The SLN was positive in 20.2% of patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that GR, Breslow thickness, and the presence of microscopic satellitosis were independently associated with SLN positivity. The probability of SLN positivity was 8.2% for slow-growth melanomas (<0.10 mm/mo) compared with 19.8% for intermediate-growth melanomas (0.10-0.50 mm/mo) and 37.7% for fast-growth melanomas (>0.50 mm/mo). Growth rate was not an independent predictive factor for survival.

Conclusion Growth rate of primary cutaneous melanoma, together with Breslow thickness and the presence of microscopic satellitosis, predicts the histological SLN positivity.

Growth rate (GR) of cutaneous melanoma, defined as the increase in Breslow thickness per unit of time, has been proposed as an important biological feature of this tumor. Clark et al1 were the first to describe differences in GR among various histological subtypes of melanoma. Grob et al2 demonstrated that GR, calculated from the evolution time as provided by the patient, was an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival (DFS). This observation has recently been corroborated in 2 other studies3,4 that demonstrated the independent prognostic value of GR in overall survival (OS) among patients with melanoma. In addition, faster GR has been associated with a more aggressive melanoma phenotype, as well as with male sex and advanced age.5,6

At present, the most significant predictive prognostic factor for recurrence and OS in patients with melanoma is the presence of sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis.7 Breslow thickness and ulceration are factors that have most consistently predicted SLN positivity in various studies.811 Other predictive factors for the SLN positivity include mitotic index12,13 and the absence of lymphocytic infiltrate.12,13 Martorell-Calatayud et al6 recently described a greater frequency of metastatic SLN involvement in melanomas with higher GR.

Because GR is a variable that seems to provide additional information about the aggressiveness of a melanoma relative to that afforded by classic histological features, such as Breslow thickness, ulceration, or mitotic index, it may be useful to predict SLN metastasis. Likewise, GR could provide extra prognostic information for patients with locoregional disease.

The main objective of this study was to determine whether GR of cutaneous melanoma predicts the histological SLN positivity. A secondary aim was to determine whether GR influences recurrence and survival in these patients.

METHODS

Study participants were selected from the databases of patients with melanoma from the following 2 participating hospitals: Hospital “Virgen de la Victoria” in Málaga, Spain, and Instituto Valenciano de Oncología in Valencia, Spain. The use of both databases is in compliance with applicable ethics regulations. The use of one of them, at Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, has been described in detail in previous publications.1416 These retrospective cohorts included all patients with a single primary melanoma and clinical stage I or II disease who underwent selective SLN biopsy between January 1, 2000, and June 30, 2010, at Instituto Valenciano de Oncología or between October 1, 2001, and January 30, 2010, at Hospital “Virgen de la Victoria.” The study was approved by the ethics commissions of both institutions.

CLINICAL AND HISTOLOGICAL FEATURES

The clinical factors evaluated were patient sex, age (≤65 vs >65 years), and tumor location. The anatomical location was identified as axial (head, neck, trunk, volar surfaces, or subungual) or extremities. We used the categorization by Kruper et al12 to classify volar and subungual melanomas as axial because the other melanomas in this location present a worse prognosis9 that could in part be related to genetic alterations differentiating them from the rest.16

Histological variables of melanomas included the following: Breslow thickness (grouped according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system [≤1.00, 1.01-2.00, 2.01-4.00, or >4.00 mm]), ulceration (present vs absent), Clark level (II, III, IV, or V), regression (present vs absent), mitotic index (expressed as the number of mitoses per square millimeter [0, 1-5, 6-10, or >10]),17 tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (absent, nonbrisk, or brisk),18 vascular invasion (present vs absent), microscopic satellitosis (defined as the presence of melanoma cell nests >0.05 mm separated from the tumor mass by a layer of collagen or subcutaneous fat ≥0.30 mm thick [present vs absent]), and perineural invasion (present vs absent).

TUMOR GR

Three patient groups were defined in accord with the initial description by Grob et al.2 In brief, this involves rates that measure volume increase per unit of time. Because no accepted method exists to measure tumor volume, Breslow thickness is used as a surrogate value. The variable time used in the calculation of GR is defined as the interval (in months) between the time that the patient or family first noticed the lesion in de novo cases or noticed changes to a previous lesion (time D1) and the time at which the lesion is removed, with its pathological report (time D2). Growth rate was calculated as the ratio of Breslow thickness to time (in months, defined as D2 minus D1) to melanoma development.

Finally, following the classification proposed by Liu et al,5 melanomas were classified as slow-growth (SGMs [<0.10 mm/mo]), intermediate-growth (IGMs [0.10-0.50 mm/mo]), or fast-growth (FGMs [≥0.50 mm/mo]) melanomas. Although dichotomization of the variable at greater than 0.40 mm/mo has been reported to have prognostic implications for survival,3 we chose to use the former classification because it considers SGMs independently, a subgroup comprising melanomas that largely follow an indolent course.19

SLN STATUS

Pathological study of SLN biopsy results was performed similarly at both centers. At Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, the study begins with macroscopic identification of the SLN and, if necessary, cleaning of perinodal fat. Once identified, the adenopathy sample is placed in 10% formaldehyde for fixation and subsequent embedding in a paraffin block. Serial cross-sections are obtained from the entire paraffin-embedded lymph node every 250 μm. Three cross-sections are obtained at each section, one of which is stained with hematoxylin-eosin, and the others are reserved for immunohistochemical staining with S-100 and HMB-45, which is performed only after verifying that there is no metastasis in the hematoxylin-eosin sections. At Hospital “Virgen de la Victoria,” 4 serial cross-sections are obtained, the first 3 for staining with hematoxylin-eosin and the fourth for immunohistochemical staining with HMB-45.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The variable “response” was SLN positivity. Factors were included as binary variables (age, sex, tumor location, ulceration, Clark level, regression, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes) or as categorical variables (Breslow thickness, mitotic index, and GR). Association of the SLN positivity with clinical and histopathological variables was performed using χ2 test or univariate logistic regression analysis. Based on the Wald method, odds ratios (95% CIs) were calculated for each variable. Forward and backward stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of SLN positivity. Using independent predictors of SLN positivity, a classification and regression tree analysis was performed with a recursive portioning algorithm. In the final tree, each group had at least 10 patients. Kaplan-Meier method was used for analysis of the distributions of DFS and OS. Log-rank test was used for univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis was performed using a forward stepwise Cox proportional hazards model. P < .05 was considered significant. The statistical analysis and the classification tree were performed using commercially available software (SPSS version 15.0; SPSS, Inc).

RESULTS

Of 1315 patients seen for melanoma at both centers during the study periods, 720 had tumors fulfilling the accepted histopathological criteria, gave informed consent, and underwent selective SLN biopsy, among whom the SLN was identified in 698 (96.9%). Of these 698 patients included in the analysis, 355 (50.9%) were women, and 343 (49.1%) were men. Their median age was 53 years (interquartile range, 40-66 years). Table 1 summarizes the clinical and pathological characteristics among these patients, stratified according to GR.

Fast-growth melanomas were more common in patients older than 65 years (P = .001) and in men (P = .03) (Table 1). They were more likely to be in an axial location. Fast-growth melanomas were associated with increased Breslow thickness (48.2% were >4.00 mm), ulceration, and mitotic index but with less regression. No association was found with the presence or absence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes or with the presence of vascular invasion, microscopic satellitosis, or perineural invasion. Results of SLN biopsy revealed the presence of metastasis in more patients having FGMs (37.7%) compared with patients having IGMs (19.8%) or SGMs (8.2%) (P < .001).

SLN STATUS

Univariate analysis showed that the following were associated with SLN metastasis: mitotic index, Breslow thickness, Clark level, the presence of ulceration, the absence of regression, the presence of vascular invasion, the presence of microscopic satellitosis, and GR (Table 2). After including these variables in a multivariate logistic regression analysis, only GR, Breslow thickness, and the presence of microscopic satellitosis were independently associated with SLN positivity.

CLASSIFICATION TREE

The independent variables (GR, Breslow thickness, and the presence of microscopic satellitosis) were used to create a prognostic tree for regional lymph node involvement (Figure 1). Breslow thickness was the first factor used to dichotomize the tumors greater than 2.00 mm. The thin tumors (≤2.00 mm) were then categorized as those without and with microscopic satellitosis, with rates of regional node involvement of 7.3% and 50.0%, respectively. The thick tumors (>2.00 mm) were categorized according to their GR, with one group of SGMs (regional node involvement rate, 18.2%) and another group of IGMs and FGMs (regional node involvement rates of 35.1% and 41.0%, respectively).

Analysis of whether GR and the presence of microscopic satellitosis remained independent predictive factors for lymph node involvement relative to each category of Breslow thickness (≤1.00, 1.01-2.00, 2.01-4.00, or >4.00 mm) showed no significant differences for any of the variables (data not shown). However, when Breslow thickness was dichotomized at greater than 2.00 mm, the presence of microscopic satellitosis remained an independent predictor for lymph node involvement in melanomas of 2.00 mm or less (Table 3). Growth rate remained an independent predictor for melanomas thicker than 2.00 mm.

DFS AND OS

The median follow-up time was 47 months (range, 1-128 months). Sixty-five patients died, and 122 patients had relapses (uncensored in the Cox proportional hazards models for DFS and OS). The most important prognostic factor for DFS and OS was SLN positivity (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Five-year DFS was 84.4% for patients with SLN negativity compared with 50.0% for patients with SLN positivity (P < .001). Five-year OS was 92.1% for patients with SLN negativity compared with 73.0% for patients with SLN positivity.

The multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was adjusted for the significant variables in univariate analysis (age, Breslow thickness, ulceration, Clark level, mitotic index, vascular invasion, microscopic satellitosis, and perineural invasion). Sentinel lymph node positivity was the most important prognostic factor for DFS (hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.20-3.76) and for OS (hazard ratio, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.67-9.53).

When the stage of the SLN was not considered, DFS at 5 years was better for SGMs (89.5%) than for IGMs (80.7%) or FGMs (58.3%) (P < .001). Similarly, when GR was not considered, OS at 5 years was better for SGMs (98.2%) than for IGMs (92.1%) or FGMs (81.5%) (P = .001). These data could not be confirmed in multivariate analysis because they did not reach statistical significance.

COMMENT

The most relevant finding in this study is that GR of primary cutaneous melanoma, together with Breslow thickness and the presence of microscopic satellitosis, predicts the SLN positivity. The concept of SLN biopsy is based on the assumption that the tumor spreads from the primary tumor first to the SLN and subsequently to the rest of the regional lymph nodes.20 Although there is insufficient evidence to assert that complete regional lymphadenectomy after determination of SLN positivity is superior in terms of survival compared with lymph node dissection after the appearance of clinically palpable nodules,21 the SLN positivity is considered the principal prognostic factor for DFS and OS.7

Therefore, it is useful to search for new factors that might help predict the SLN positivity. Breslow thickness has been the most important independent predictive factor for SLN positivity in the most important studies1113,2230 to date (Table 4). Mitotic index, the presence of ulceration, and the absence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes are other factors that are frequently related to SLN positivity.

In our study, the presence of microscopic satellitosis proved to be an independent predictive factor for SLN positivity, as it was in a study by Mocellin et al.25 The term microscopic satellites was first used by Day et al,31 and its predictive value has been demonstrated in various studies. The presence of microscopic satellitosis is classified as N2c (stage III) in the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification.7 Its inclusion in this category is in part because it has been associated with survival rates similar to those in patients with macroscopic satellitosis.3234 Microsatellitosis is considered an early stage of lymphatic metastasis; therefore, its presence is related to SLN positivity.

Growth rate has been shown to be an independent predictive factor for SLN positivity. Despite that GR is a recent concept, Clark et al1 in 1969 associated different GRs of melanoma with the various histological types. More recently, differing conclusions based on epidemiological trends led Lipsker et al35 to suggest a new classification of melanoma predicated primarily on its association with sun exposure, BRAF expression, and GR. Liu et al5 grouped these different types of melanoma according to their GRs. Therefore, type 1 consists of melanomas with a stable incidence over time and a random distribution on the body, suggesting no association with sun exposure; their GRs exceed 0.50 mm/mo. In contrast, type 2 and type 3 refer to melanomas associated with sun exposure, which have shown an epidemiological increase in recent years. Type 2 is associated more with intermittent sun exposure and BRAF expression,36 having GRs between 0.10 and 0.50 mm/mo. Type 3, consisting of melanomas associated with continuous sun exposure and without BRAF expression, have GRs of less than 0.10 mm/mo. Investigators have observed increased incidences even for thick melanomas, which shows the biological complexity of this type of tumor.37

Martorell-Calatayud et al6 recently showed that FGMs seem to demonstrate 2 different clinical profiles relative to sun exposure . These include those observed at sites that receive chronic sun exposure and those observed in areas that rarely receive sun exposure.

Notably, our classification tree showed that GR is a prognostic factor only for lesions thicker than 2.00 mm and demonstrated that important differences exist, particularly in SGMs compared with IGMs and FGMs. This may be explained by the greater number of events in thick melanomas, highlighting the biological differences of melanomas with different GRs.

The primary limitation of GR is that it is based on information provided by the patient and is subject to determinants such as tumor location and age, sex, and psychological state of the patient.2 Nevertheless, bias relative to evolution time as reported by patients seemed minimal in a small study38 that reevaluated the responses of patients a few months later. Furthermore, from a histopathological point of view, GR correlated significantly with mitotic index and with markers of cell cycle progression (Ki-67) and mitosis (phosphorylated histone H3).39

Back to top
Article Information

Correspondence: Antonio Tejera-Vaquerizo, MD, Servicio de Dermatología, Hospital “Virgen de la Victoria,” 35 Blvd Louis Pasteur, 29071 Málaga, Spain (antoniotejera@aedv.es).

Accepted for Publication: October 16, 2011.

Published Online: January 16, 2012. doi:10.1001 /archdermatol.2011.2522

Author Contributions: All authors had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Tejera-Vaquerizo. Acquisition of data: Tejera-Vaquerizo, Nagore, and Herrera-Acosta. Analysis and interpretation of data: Tejera-Vaquerizo, Nagore, Herrera-Acosta, Martorell-Calatayud, Martín-Cuevas, Traves, and Herrera-Ceballos. Drafting of the manuscript: Tejera-Vaquerizo, Nagore, and Herrara-Acosta. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Tejera-Vaquerizo, Nagore, Martorell-Calatayud, and Herrera-Ceballos. Statistical analysis: Tejera-Vaquerizo. Obtained funding: Tejera-Vaquerizo. Administrative, technical, and material support: Tejera-Vaquerizo, Nagore, and Herrera-Acosta. Study supervision: Nagore and Herrera-Ceballos.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

References
1.
Clark WH Jr, From L, Bernardino EA, Mihm MC. The histogenesis and biologic behavior of primary human malignant melanomas of the skin.  Cancer Res. 1969;29(3):705-727PubMed
2.
Grob JJ, Richard MA, Gouvernet J,  et al.  The kinetics of the visible growth of a primary melanoma reflects the tumor aggressiveness and is an independent prognostic marker: a prospective study.  Int J Cancer. 2002;102(1):34-38PubMedArticle
3.
Tejera-Vaquerizo A, Barrera-Vigo MV, López-Navarro N, Herrera-Ceballos E. Growth rate as a prognostic factor in localized invasive cutaneous melanoma.  J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010;24(2):147-154PubMedArticle
4.
Nagore E, Martorell-Calatayud A, Botella-Estrada R, Guillén C. Growth rate as an independent prognostic factor in localized invasive cutaneous melanoma.  J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011;25(5):618-620PubMedArticle
5.
Liu W, Dowling JP, Murray WK,  et al.  Rate of growth in melanomas: characteristics and associations of rapidly growing melanomas.  Arch Dermatol. 2006;142(12):1551-1558PubMedArticle
6.
Martorell-Calatayud A, Nagore E, Botella-Estrada R,  et al.  Defining fast-growing melanomas: reappraisal of epidemiological, clinical, and histological features.  Melanoma Res. 2011;21(2):131-138PubMedArticle
7.
Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ,  et al.  Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification.  J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(36):6199-6206PubMedArticle
8.
Mraz-Gernhard S, Sagebiel RW, Kashani-Sabet M, Miller JR III, Leong SP. Prediction of sentinel lymph node micrometastasis by histological features in primary cutaneous malignant melanoma.  Arch Dermatol. 1998;134(8):983-987PubMedArticle
9.
Berk DR, Johnson DL, Uzieblo A, Kiernan M, Swetter SM. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for cutaneous melanoma: the Stanford experience, 1997-2004.  Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(8):1016-1022PubMedArticle
10.
Lowe JB, Hurst E, Moley JF, Cornelius LA. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thin melanoma.  Arch Dermatol. 2003;139(5):617-621PubMedArticle
11.
Taylor RC, Patel A, Panageas KS, Busam KJ, Brady MS. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes predict sentinel lymph node positivity in patients with cutaneous melanoma.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(7):869-875PubMedArticle
12.
Kruper LL, Spitz FR, Czerniecki BJ,  et al.  Predicting sentinel node status in AJCC stage I/II primary cutaneous melanoma.  Cancer. 2006;107(10):2436-2445PubMedArticle
13.
Paek SC, Griffith KA, Johnson TM,  et al.  The impact of factors beyond Breslow depth on predicting sentinel lymph node positivity in melanoma.  Cancer. 2007;109(1):100-108PubMedArticle
14.
Nagore E, Botella-Estrada R, Garcia-Casado Z,  et al.  Comparison between familial and sporadic cutaneous melanoma in Valencia, Spain.  J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2008;22(8):931-936PubMedArticle
15.
Nagore E, Botella-Estrada R, Requena C,  et al.  Clinical and epidemiologic profile of melanoma patients according to sun exposure of the tumor site [in Spanish].  Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2009;100(3):205-211PubMedArticle
16.
Nagore E, Pereda C, Botella-Estrada R, Requena C, Guillén C. Acral lentiginous melanoma presents distinct clinical profile with high cancer susceptibility.  Cancer Causes Control. 2009;20(1):115-119PubMedArticle
17.
Azzola MF, Shaw HM, Thompson JF,  et al.  Tumor mitotic rate is a more powerful prognostic indicator than ulceration in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of 3661 patients from a single center.  Cancer. 2003;97(6):1488-1498PubMedArticle
18.
Clark WH Jr, Elder DE, Guerry D IV,  et al.  Model predicting survival in stage I melanoma based on tumor progression.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81(24):1893-1904PubMedArticle
19.
Argenziano G, Kittler H, Ferrara G,  et al.  Slow-growing melanoma: a dermoscopy follow-up study.  Br J Dermatol. 2010;162(2):267-273PubMedArticle
20.
Reintgen D, Cruse CW, Wells K,  et al.  The orderly progression of melanoma nodal metastases.  Ann Surg. 1994;220(6):759-767PubMedArticle
21.
Stebbins WG, Garibyan L, Sober AJ. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and melanoma: 2010 update part II.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62(5):737-750PubMedArticle
22.
Sondak VK, Taylor JM, Sabel MS,  et al.  Mitotic rate and younger age are predictors of sentinel lymph node positivity: lessons learned from the generation of a probabilistic model.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11(3):247-258PubMedArticle
23.
Wong SL, Kattan MW, McMasters KM, Coit DG. A nomogram that predicts the presence of sentinel node metastasis in melanoma with better discrimination than the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12(4):282-288PubMedArticle
24.
Karakousis GC, Gimotty PA, Botbyl JD,  et al.  Predictors of regional nodal disease in patients with thin melanomas.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(4):533-541PubMedArticle
25.
Mocellin S, Ambrosi A, Montesco MC,  et al.  Support vector machine learning model for the prediction of sentinel node status in patients with cutaneous melanoma.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(8):1113-1122PubMedArticle
26.
Mandalà M, Imberti GL, Piazzalunga D,  et al.  Clinical and histopathological risk factors to predict sentinel lymph node positivity, disease-free and overall survival in clinical stages I-II AJCC skin melanoma: outcome analysis from a single-institution prospectively collected database.  Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(14):2537-2545PubMedArticle
27.
Kunte C, Geimer T, Baumert J,  et al.  Prognostic factors associated with sentinel lymph node positivity and effect of sentinel status on survival: an analysis of 1049 patients with cutaneous melanoma.  Melanoma Res. 2010;20(4):330-337PubMedArticle
28.
Mays MP, Martin RC, Burton A,  et al.  Should all patients with melanoma between 1 and 2 mm Breslow thickness undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy?  Cancer. 2010;116(6):1535-1544PubMedArticle
29.
Mitra A, Conway C, Walker C,  et al.  Melanoma sentinel node biopsy and prediction models for relapse and overall survival.  Br J Cancer. 2010;103(8):1229-1236PubMedArticle
30.
Roach BA, Burton AL, Mays MP,  et al.  Does mitotic rate predict sentinel lymph node metastasis or survival in patients with intermediate and thick melanoma?  Am J Surg. 2010;200(6):759-764PubMedArticle
31.
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. 1981;194(1):108-112PubMedArticle
32.
Kimsey TF, Cohen T, Patel A, Busam KJ, Brady MS. Microscopic satellitosis in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma: implications for nodal basin staging.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(5):1176-1183PubMedArticle
33.
Rao UN, Ibrahim J, Flaherty LE, Richards J, Kirkwood JM. Implications of microscopic satellites of the primary and extracapsular lymph node spread in patients with high-risk melanoma: pathologic corollary of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial E1690.  J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(8):2053-2057PubMedArticle
34.
Shaikh L, Sagebiel RW, Ferreira CM, Nosrati M, Miller JR III, Kashani-Sabet M. The role of microsatellites as a prognostic factor in primary malignant melanoma.  Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(6):739-742PubMedArticle
35.
Lipsker D, Engel F, Cribier B, Velten M, Hedelin G. Trends in melanoma epidemiology suggest three different types of melanoma.  Br J Dermatol. 2007;157(2):338-343PubMedArticle
36.
Liu W, Kelly JW, Trivett M,  et al.  Distinct clinical and pathological features are associated with the BRAFT1799A(V600E) mutation in primary melanoma.  J Invest Dermatol. 2007;127(4):900-905PubMedArticle
37.
Linos E, Swetter SM, Cockburn MG, Colditz GA, Clarke CA. Increasing burden of melanoma in the United States.  J Invest Dermatol. 2009;129(7):1666-1674PubMedArticle
38.
Baade PD, English DR, Youl PH, McPherson M, Elwood JM, Aitken JF. The relationship between melanoma thickness and time to diagnosis in a large population-based study.  Arch Dermatol. 2006;142(11):1422-1427PubMedArticle
39.
Liu W, McArthur GA, Trivett M, Murray WK, Wolfe R, Kelly JW. Correlation of subjective self-reported melanoma growth rate with objective tumor proliferation markers.  Arch Dermatol. 2008;144(4):555-556PubMedArticle
×