[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.175.248.25. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
1.
Karia  PS, Han  J, Schmults  CD.  Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: estimated incidence of disease, nodal metastasis, and deaths from disease in the United States, 2012.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68(6):957-966.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Schmitt  AR, Brewer  JD, Bordeaux  JS, Baum  CL.  Staging for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma as a predictor of sentinel lymph node biopsy results: meta-analysis of American Joint Committee on Cancer criteria and a proposed alternative system.  JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150(1):19-24.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Renzi  C, Caggiati  A, Mannooranparampil  TJ,  et al.  Sentinel lymph node biopsy for high risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: case series and review of the literature.  Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33(3):364-369.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Coit  DG, Thompson  JA, Algazi  A,  et al.  Melanoma, version 2.2016, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology.  J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14(4):450-473.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Vermeeren  L, Van der Ent  F, Sastrowijoto  P, Hulsewé  K.  Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thin melanoma: occurrence of nodal metastases and its prognostic value.  Eur J Dermatol. 2010;20(1):30-34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Stoeckli  SJ, Huebner  T, Huber  GF, Broglie  MA.  Technique for reliable sentinel node biopsy in squamous cell carcinomas of the floor of mouth.  Head Neck. 2016;38(9):1367-1372.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Research Letter
January 2018

Underuse of the Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for High-Risk Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Skin

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Dermatology, Keck Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles
  • 2Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois
  • 3Department of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, Herbert Irving Pavilion, New York, New York
JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154(1):101. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.4169

With recent changes in staging of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SSC), we examine the underuse of the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in the management of high-risk SCC. To date, the most important determinant of mortality in SCC is the presence of lymph node metastasis.1 Recent data have led to an updated staging system for cutaneous SCC proposed by Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which emphasizes the presence or absence of high-risk features. This new staging system stratified T staging of SCC tumors based on the number of high-risk features present (>2-cm diameter, poor differentiation, perineural invasion, extension beyond subcutaneous fat). T1 tumors have no high-risk features, whereas T2a tumors have 1, T2b have 2 to 3, and T3 have all 4 or bone invasion. In a validation study by Schmitt et al,2 tumors with 2 or 3 high-risk features had an SLNB positivity rate of 29%, whereas tumors with all 4 risk features had lymph node metastasis rate of 50%. The reported positivity rate of SLNB in the setting of high-risk SCC in the literature is 12% to 44%.3 The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend discussing and offering SLNB to patients with melanoma skin cancers of stages 1B and up.4 The SLNB positivity rate for stage 1B tumors is 7% to 10%, which is lower than that of high-risk SCC tumors.5

Methods

We created a database of all high-risk patients with SCC treated at the University of Southern California, including the Keck Medical Center and Los Angeles County Hospital in Los Angeles, California, from 2006 to the present time. Patient and tumor characteristics were documented, including treatment modality and whether SLNB was performed. Keck Medicine of the University of Southern California determined that institutional review board approval or human subjects committee approval and informed consent were not required for this retrospective study. All data were deidentified.

Results

With preliminary data results from our institution spanning from 2006 to present, less than 0.1% of all patients with high-risk SCC tumors underwent SLNB procedures. Alternatively, 14.0% underwent complete lymph node dissections. A little more than half (56.7%) of these complete lymph node dissections had microscopic tumor metastasis to local lymph nodes, whereas 43.3% of them were free of metastasis.

Discussion

Overall, we found prophylactic lymph node dissection to be overused and SLNB is underused in high-risk SCC. Given the cost and morbidity associated with prophylactic lymph node dissection, patients may benefit from a less invasive SLNB procedure before considering dissection. Limitations to SLNB include false-negative rates, particularly high for tumors on the head and neck because of alternate draining routes and bifurcating anatomy. Some view this as a contraindication for performing SLNB, but the use of single-photon emission computed tomography and preoperative lymphoscintigraphy can substantially decrease this false-negative rate.6 An uncertainty to be explored is the next step in the treatment of patients with SCC and positive SLNB results. Although lymph node dissection is recommended for patients with regional lymph node disease, no significant studies have determined whether this affects overall survival for patients with melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Further questions arise about whether SLNB should be performed in all high-risk patients with clinically N0 SCC. Currently, controversy exists in melanoma literature about whether to observe patients with clinical N0 disease or to perform an SLNB. Future prospective studies are needed to further elucidate the use of SLNB in SCC.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Ashley Wysong, MD, MS, Department of Dermatology, Keck Medicine of the University of Southern California, 830 S Flower, Ste 100, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (ashley.wysong@med.usc.edu).

Published Online: November 15, 2017. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.4169

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

References
1.
Karia  PS, Han  J, Schmults  CD.  Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: estimated incidence of disease, nodal metastasis, and deaths from disease in the United States, 2012.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68(6):957-966.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Schmitt  AR, Brewer  JD, Bordeaux  JS, Baum  CL.  Staging for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma as a predictor of sentinel lymph node biopsy results: meta-analysis of American Joint Committee on Cancer criteria and a proposed alternative system.  JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150(1):19-24.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Renzi  C, Caggiati  A, Mannooranparampil  TJ,  et al.  Sentinel lymph node biopsy for high risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: case series and review of the literature.  Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33(3):364-369.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Coit  DG, Thompson  JA, Algazi  A,  et al.  Melanoma, version 2.2016, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology.  J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14(4):450-473.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Vermeeren  L, Van der Ent  F, Sastrowijoto  P, Hulsewé  K.  Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thin melanoma: occurrence of nodal metastases and its prognostic value.  Eur J Dermatol. 2010;20(1):30-34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Stoeckli  SJ, Huebner  T, Huber  GF, Broglie  MA.  Technique for reliable sentinel node biopsy in squamous cell carcinomas of the floor of mouth.  Head Neck. 2016;38(9):1367-1372.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×