SLN Biopsy in Melanoma Patients: Are we sufficiently informed to obtain an
“informed” consent?
Mac Machan, MD1 and John A. Zitelli, MD2
1
Jefferson Medical Center, Clairton, PA
2
Shadyside Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Informed consent has both legal and medical origins, but is understood to exist “if the patient,
with both substantial understanding and substantial absence of control by another, intentionally
authorizes treatment.”(1) In its simplest form, it is a process in which the physician provides
sufficient information about the patient’s condition and the recommended treatment – benefits,
risks, and alternatives—to enable the patient to make an informed decision to accept or reject the
recommendations.(2, 3) A physician’s lack of familiarity with the available data, or bias
regarding the disease or procedure for which they are considered an expert can pollute this
process.(4, 5) It is our responsibility to know the facts, and it is the patient’s right to make an
informed decision without the influence of our personal biases.(2, 4) This article is intended to
review the best available evidence with regard to sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in order to
increase provider knowledge and decrease the influence of bias from surgical dogma.
Is there a survival advantage provided by SLNB?
One of the most important facts about SLNB is that it provides no melanoma-specific or overall
survival advantage to patients.(6, 7) The final results of the Multicenter Selective
Lymphadenectomy Trial-1 (MSLT-1), the only randomized trial of SLNB ever conducted,
reported 10-year melanoma-specific survival rates of 81.4% in the SLNB group and 78.3% in the
observation group (p = 0.18, hazard ratio = 0.84 (0.64-1.09)). It should be mentioned that a subgroup analysis of patients with nodal metastases (i.e. SLN+ patients compared with observation
patients who developed clinically palpable nodal disease) showed a 10-year melanoma-specific
survival benefit for the SLNB group (62.1% vs 41.5% survival, p =0.006, hazard ratio = 0.56
(0.38-0.84)). However, this sub-analysis is a post-hoc comparison utilizing a novel, un-validated
statistical method (accelerated-failure-time latent-subgroup analysis), and is neither powered, nor
randomized to provide evidence-based conclusions. It can be used to generate theories, but not to
determine patient care. The evidence based conclusion is that SLNB is not a therapy and does
not provide a survival advantage over observation and regular lymph node exams. It is
imperative that our patients understand these facts.
Is there a prognostic value?
One of the most common misconceptions regarding SLNB is the prognostic value of the results.
Eight years ago, the 3rd interim analysis of MSLT-1 was published, and sentinel lymph node
(SLN) status was touted as the “most important prognostic indicator” for melanoma,(6) and the
MSLT-1 final report again emphasizes SLN status as the “most powerful prognostic indicator”
(p < 0.001, hazard ratio = 3.09 (2.12 – 4.49)).(7) However, these statements apply to the entire
group of 1.2-3.5 mm thick melanomas included in the trial. They ignore the fact that we are able
to provide prognostic information based on Breslow thickness (p value <0.001, hazard ratio =
1.59 (1.21 - 2.09))(7) and other factors such as ulceration and mitotic rate, which are reported on
nearly every standard pathology summary.
There have been several studies providing more detailed prognostic information using both
Breslow thickness and SLNB results. It is clear that a 1 mm thick melanoma with a positive SLN
does not have the same prognosis as a 3.5 mm thick melanoma with a positive SLN. With this in
understanding, the question we need to be asking is -- knowing a patient’s prognosis based upon
their Breslow thickness, what additional prognositic value is gained from the results of a SLNB?
Breslow thickness is unique as a prognostic indicator. It is a precise and reproducible
measurement, whereas other indicators are either qualitative (i.e. ulceration, tumor infiltrating
lymphocytes) or vulnerable to observer variability (histologic grade, mitoses/high-power
field).(8, 9) There is a proven direct relationship between Breslow thickness and survival.
Additionally, at a time when cost containment and accessibility for patients are at the forefront of
healthcare, Breslow thickness remains available to all at no additional cost, and no additional
testing.
There are two high quality, evidence-based studies evaluating the prognostic significance of SLN
status for a given Breslow thickness that help clarify the value of SLNB for prognosis. A metaanalysis by Freeman et al compares overall 5-year survival with and without SLN
stratification.(10) Although a survival difference between SLN+ and SLN- patients for tumors <
4 mm thick was seen, it was not statistically significant. Only tumors > 4 mm thick had a
statistically significant survival difference between SLN+ and SLN- patients, with a 5-year
survival of 46% for SLN+, and 68% for SLN- patients. (Table 1) The second study was a
Bayesian analysis by Rhodes which evaluated the available data using melanoma-related death
(MRD) as an outcome measure.(11) He determined that the prognostic information provided by
SLNB status may be variably useful for patients who have tumors of intermediate thickness (1-4
mm) and not very useful for patients who have thin and thick tumors. However, only 1 report
was included in his analysis of tumors > 4 mm thick, and 2 reports for intermediate thickness
tumors. (Table 1) He then concluded that “if SLNB is being offered to obtain prognostic
information, patients need to be informed how SLNB status will be used to predict melanomarelated mortality and guide treatment options.”
This question of prognostic refinement is especially pertinent for patients with thin melanoma
(<1 mm). There has been recent support of SLNB for melanoma between 0.76 mm and 1.00
mm,(12, 13) and guidelines updated by the NCCN in April 2013 appended “discuss and
consider sentinel node biopsy” for stage 1a disease > 0.75 mm.(14) 70% of newly diagnosed
melanomas are < 1mm in depth, and the incidence of SLN positivity in patients with melanoma
< 1 mm is only 4-6%.(12, 15) However, the best available evidence states that there is not
enough prognostic information to recommend SLNB for these patients. The evidence is that
patients with melanoma < 1mm thick have similar prognoses, regardless of sentinel node status,
achieve no survival benefit, and have the same chance of a positive node as receiving a result
that is falsely negative. Knowing this, there seems little to gain for these patients by performing a
SLNB. With this in mind, the Dermatology Choosing Wisely List, approved by the American
Academy of Dermatology Board of Directors in 2013 includes the statement: “Do not perform
sentinel lymph node biopsy, or other diagnostic tests for the evaluation of early, thin melanoma
because they do not improve survival.”(16)
For intermediate thickness melanoma (1-4 mm) relatively little high quality data exists, and
caution should be used when estimating prognosis in these patients. Freeman et al found that
survival percentage by Breslow thickness falls between the SLN- and SLN+ subsets, with most
studies showing worse survival in SLN+ patients although the difference was not statistically
significant.(10) Therefore, we cannot counsel patients that SLNB will provide meaningful
prognostic information when the best available evidence shows no statistically significant
difference in survival between SLN+ and SLN- patients.
Although Freeman et al found a statistically significant difference for thick melanomas (> 4mm),
the prognosis is poor regardless of sentinel node status, so only the patient can determine the
value of the prognostic information gained, especially with the pitfalls and complications
associated with the procedure.
Pitfalls and Complications
The pitfalls and complications inherent to the SLNB technique need to be recognized as well.
“False positivity,” used to describe positive sentinel nodes, in which progression to palpable
nodal disease would not have occurred even if the node had not been removed, has reported rates
between 24-34%.(6, 17) This leads to an unnecessary upgrade in staging and imprecise
prognostic information for these patients. Likewise, “false negativity” (i.e. those patients with a
negative sentinel node who go on to develop metastatic nodal disease) occurs at a rate of 35%.(18, 19) False positive and false negative rates complicate our ability to predict prognosis,
and these variables must be taken into account when evaluating prognostic values.
In addition, SLNB is accompanied by a 4-5% complication rate (including seroma, infection,
scarring, and chronic lymphedema) when performed by experienced surgeons. (18, 20) These
risks need to be understood by patients considering SLNB.
Can SLNB be used to guide therapy?
SLNB has been used to stage patients for adjuvant therapy, as is done in breast cancer.
Unfortunately, no adjuvant therapy, including interferon, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy,
has shown to provide an overall survival advantage for stage III patients.(21, 22) The
introduction of active drugs for metastatic disease (BRAF-inhibitors and check-point blockers)
provides hope that effective adjuvant therapies for SLN-positive patients will be identified in the
near future, however, until that time, SLNB as a staging procedure for recommending adjuvant
therapy in stage III malignant melanoma is premature. SLNB may still have value in the setting
of a clinical trial where refined prognostic data is needed to identify appropriate study
participants.
Are we truly informing our patients when we consent them?
As physicians and healers it is in our nature to never relent and do everything in our power for
the benefit of our patients. Unfortunately in medicine there are diseases, such as melanoma, for
which we do not have proven therapeutic options. As part of the Hippocratic Oath, we have
sworn to “do no harm” and avoid the traps of overtreatment and “therapeutic nihilism.” We are
treating individual patients, and should not expose patients to ineffective therapy simply to
“treat” our own conscience and convince ourselves that we have done the best for the patient.
We are duty-bound to present the available evidence to our patients in an unbiased, simple, and
comprehensible manner. It is then our role to allow the patient to gauge the risks, benefits and
value of the procedure, and make an autonomous decision regarding their care.
This paper attempts to fill the practice gap between the dogma of SLNB in melanoma as the
“standard of care,”(23) and the most current evidence. The best available data has been reviewed
and should guide our patient discussions regarding SLNB. Patients deserve to know that SLNB,
followed by complete lymph node dissection or observation, does not provide a melanomaspecific or overall survival advantage. SLNB in melanoma has limited value as a prognostic
indicator over and above what is already known from Breslow thickness. And SLNB cannot
“guide” evidence-based therapy because at this time no chemo-, immuno-, or radiotherapy has
been shown to provide a survival benefit.
References
1.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 3rd edn. New York:
Oxford University Press; 1989.
2.
Stoff BK, Cruze D, Swerlick RA. Reframing risk part I: Legal and ethical standards for
medical risk disclosure. J Am Acad Dermatol 2013;69:634-6.
3.
Hartlaub PP, Wolkenstein AS, Laufenburg HF. Obtaining informed consent: it is not
simply asking "do you understand?". J Fam Pract 1993;36:383-4.
4.
Shaw D, Elger B. Evidence-based persuasion: an ethical imperative. JAMA
2013;309:1689-90.
5.
Eaglstein WH. Evidence-based medicine, the research-practice gap, and biases in medical
and surgical decision making in dermatology. Arch Dermatol 2010;146:1161-4.
6.
Morton DL, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Sentinel-node biopsy or nodal observation
in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1307-17.
7.
Morton DL, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Final trial report of sentinel-node biopsy
versus nodal observation in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2014;370:599-609.
8.
Colloby PS, West KP, Fletcher A. Observer variation in the measurement of Breslow
depth and Clark's level in thin cutaneous malignant melanoma. The Journal of pathology
1991;163:245-50.
9.
Murali R, Hughes MT, Fitzgerald P, et al. Interobserver variation in the histopathologic
reporting of key prognostic parameters, particularly clark level, affects pathologic staging of
primary cutaneous melanoma. Annals of surgery 2009;249:641-7.
10.
Freeman SR, Gibbs BB, Brodland DG, et al. Prognostic Value of Sentinel Lymph Node
Biopsy Compared with that of Breslow Thickness: Implications for Informed Consent in Patients
with Invasive Melanoma. Dermatol Surg 2013;39:1800-12.
11.
Rhodes AR. Prognostic usefulness of sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients who have
clinically node negative, localized, primary invasive cutaneous melanoma: a Bayesian analysis
using informative published reports. Arch Dermatol 2011;147:408-15.
12.
Han D, Zager JS, Shyr Y, et al. Clinicopathologic Predictors of Sentinel Lymph Node
Metastasis in Thin Melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2013.
13.
Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma
staging and classification. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:6199-206.
14.
Coit DG, Andtbacka R, Anker CJ, et al. Melanoma, version 2.2013: featured updates to
the NCCN guidelines. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN
2013;11:395-407.
15.
Warycha MA, Zakrzewski J, Ni Q, et al. Meta-analysis of sentinel lymph node positivity
in thin melanoma (<or=1 mm). Cancer 2009;115:869-79.
16.
Coldiron BM, Fischoff RM. American Academy of Dermatology Choosing Wisely List:
helping dermatologists and their patients make smart decisions about their care and treatment. J
Am Acad Dermatol 2013;69:1002.
17.
Thomas JM. Prognostic false-positivity of the sentinel node in melanoma. Nature clinical
practice Oncology 2008;5:18-23.
18.
Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic
mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg 1992;127:392-9.
19.
Gershenwald JE, Colome MI, Lee JE, et al. Patterns of recurrence following a negative
sentinel lymph node biopsy in 243 patients with stage I or II melanoma. J Clin Oncol
1998;16:2253-60.
20.
Cigna E, Gradilone A, Ribuffo D, et al. Morbidity of selective lymph node biopsy for
melanoma: meta-analysis of complications. Tumori 2012;98:94-8.
21.
Eggermont AM, Testori A, Marsden J, et al. Utility of adjuvant systemic therapy in
melanoma. Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology /
ESMO 2009;20 Suppl 6:vi30-4.
22.
Kirkwood JM, Manola J, Ibrahim J, et al. A pooled analysis of eastern cooperative
oncology group and intergroup trials of adjuvant high-dose interferon for melanoma. Clinical
cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research
2004;10:1670-7.
23.
Yang JC, Sherry RM, Rosburgh SA. Melanoma: Why is sentinel lymph node biopsy the
'standard of care' for melanoma? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014 May;11(5):245-6.
Table 1
Estimating Melanoma Prognosis
(Best Available Evidence)
5- year MelanomaSpecific Survival
5- year Overall Survival
All Patients (%)A
Breslow
Thickness
(mm)
<1
1-2
2-4
>4
A
95-98
83-92
68-80
54-72
From Balch et al12
From Freeman et al9
C
From Rhodes10
B
Median (Range) (%)B
Range (%)C
SLN+
SLN-
pvalue
100
76 (58-87)
40 (22-55)
46 (19-67)
100
94 (88-96)
82 (76-90)
68 (40-89.5)
>.99
0.62
0.25
0.004
SLN+
SLN-
100-99.4
100-99.4
73.8-68.4
90.3-84.4
67.5
69.9