International Center-Level Variation in Utilization of Completion Lymph Node Dissection and Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Sentinel Lymph Node-Positive Melanoma at Major Referral Centers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine overall trends and center-level variation in utilization of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and adjuvant systemic therapy for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Based on recent clinical trials, management options for SLN-positive melanoma now include effective adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal observation instead of CLND. It is unknown how these findings have shaped practice or how these contemporaneous developments have influenced their respective utilization. METHODS: We performed an international cohort study at 21 melanoma referral centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States that treated adults with SLN-positive melanoma and negative distant staging from July 2017 to June 2019. We used generalized linear and multinomial logistic regression models with random intercepts for each center to assess center-level variation in CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, adjusting for patient and disease-specific characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1109 patients, performance of CLND decreased from 28% to 8% and adjuvant systemic therapy use increased from 29 to 60%. For both CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, the most influential factors were nodal tumor size, stage, and location of treating center. There was notable variation among treating centers in management of stage IIIA patients and use of CLND with adjuvant systemic therapy versus nodal observation alone for similar risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an overall decline in CLND and simultaneous adoption of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with SLN-positive melanoma though wide variation in practice remains. Accounting for differences in patient mix, location of care contributed significantly to the observed variation.

Active surveillance of patients who have sentinel node positive melanoma: An international, multi-institution evaluation of adoption and early outcomes after the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II (MSLT-2).

BACKGROUND: For patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive cutaneous melanoma, the Second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy trial demonstrated equivalent disease-specific survival (DSS) with active surveillance using nodal ultrasound versus completion lymph node dissection (CLND). Adoption and outcomes of active surveillance in clinical practice and in adjuvant therapy recipients are unknown. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of SLN-positive adults treated at 21 institutions in Australia, Europe, and the United States from June 2017 to November 2019, the authors evaluated the impact of active surveillance and adjuvant therapy on all-site recurrence-free survival (RFS), isolated nodal RFS, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and DSS using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Among 6347 SLN biopsies, 1154 (18%) were positive and had initial negative distant staging. In total, 965 patients (84%) received active surveillance, 189 (16%) underwent CLND. Four hundred thirty-nine patients received adjuvant therapy (surveillance, 38%; CLND, 39%), with the majority (83%) receiving anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. After a median follow-up of 11 months, 220 patients developed recurrent disease (surveillance, 19%; CLND, 22%), and 24 died of melanoma (surveillance, 2%; CLND, 4%). Sixty-eight patients had an isolated nodal recurrence (surveillance, 6%; CLND, 4%). In patients who received adjuvant treatment without undergoing prior CLND, all isolated nodal recurrences were resectable. On risk-adjusted multivariable analyses, CLND was associated with improved isolated nodal RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.88), but not all-site RFS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45-1.02). Adjuvant therapy improved all-site RFS (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.47-0.57). DSS and DMFS did not differ by nodal management or adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance has been adopted for most SLN-positive patients. At initial assessment, real-world outcomes align with randomized trial findings, including in adjuvant therapy recipients. LAY SUMMARY: For patients with melanoma of the skin and microscopic spread to lymph nodes, monitoring with ultrasound is an alternative to surgically removing the remaining lymph nodes. The authors studied adoption and real-world outcomes of ultrasound monitoring in over 1000 patients treated at 21 centers worldwide, finding that most patients now have ultrasounds instead of surgery. Although slightly more patients have cancer return in the lymph nodes with this strategy, typically, it can be removed with delayed surgery. Compared with up-front surgery, ultrasound monitoring results in the same overall risk of melanoma coming back at any location or of dying from melanoma.

Surveillance of Sentinel Node-Positive Melanoma Patients with Reasons for Exclusion from MSLT-II: Multi-Institutional Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma, two randomized trials demonstrated equivalent melanoma-specific survival with nodal surveillance vs completion lymph node dissection (CLND). Patients with microsatellites, extranodal extension (ENE) in the SLN, or >3 positive SLNs constitute a high-risk group largely excluded from the randomized trials, for whom appropriate management remains unknown. STUDY DESIGN: SLN-positive patients with any of the three high-risk features were identified from an international cohort. CLND patients were matched 1:1 with surveillance patients using propensity scores. Risk of any-site recurrence, SLN-basin-only recurrence, and melanoma-specific mortality were compared. RESULTS: Among 1,154 SLN-positive patients, 166 had ENE, microsatellites, and/or >3 positive SLN. At 18.5 months median follow-up, 49% had recurrence (vs 26% in patients without high-risk features, p < 0.01). Among high-risk patients, 52 (31%) underwent CLND and 114 (69%) received surveillance. Fifty-one CLND patients were matched to 51 surveillance patients. The matched cohort was balanced on tumor, nodal, and adjuvant treatment factors. There were no significant differences in any-site recurrence (CLND 49%, surveillance 45%, p = 0.99), SLN-basin-only recurrence (CLND 6%, surveillance 14%, p = 0.20), or melanoma-specific mortality (CLND 14%, surveillance 12%, p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: SLN-positive patients with microsatellites, ENE, or >3 positive SLN constitute a high-risk group with a 2-fold greater recurrence risk. For those managed with nodal surveillance, SLN-basin recurrences were more frequent, but all-site recurrence and melanoma-specific mortality were comparable to patients treated with CLND. Most recurrences were outside the SLN-basin, supporting use of nodal surveillance for SLN-positive patients with microsatellites, ENE, and/or >3 positive SLN.

First Eastern European experience of isolated limb infusion for in-transit metastatic melanoma confined to the limb: Is it still an effective treatment option in the modern era?

BACKGROUND: Isolated limb infusion (ILI) with cytotoxic agents is a simple and effective treatment option for patients with melanoma in-transit metastases (ITMs) confined to an extremity. Data for ILIs performed in Europe are sparse and to date no Eastern European ILI experience has been reported. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy of ILI in Estonia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data for twenty-one patients were collected and analysed. All patients had melanoma ITMs and underwent an ILI between January 2012 and May 2018. The cytotoxic drug combination of melphalan and actinomycin-D was used. Drug circulation times were 20-30 min under mildly hyperthermic conditions (38-39 °C). Primary outcome measures were treatment response and overall survival. RESULTS: Nineteen lower limb and two upper limb ILIs were performed. The female to male ratio was 18:3. The overall response rate (complete + partial response) was 76% (n = 16), with a complete response in 38% (n = 8). The overall long-term limb salvage rate was 90% (n = 19). During follow-up, eight patients (38%) died, two due to metastatic melanoma. Five-year overall survival was 57%. CONCLUSION: This first Eastern European report of ILI for melanoma ITMs shows results comparable to those from other parts of the world. In this era of effective targeted and immune therapies, ILI remains a useful treatment option, with a high overall response rate and durable responses in patients with melanoma ITMs confined to a limb.

Soft Tissue Cancer Management: Isolated Limb Infusion for Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Sarcoma is a heterogeneous group of malignancies comprising almost 80 subtypes of bone and soft tissue cancers. Previously, all subtypes were managed identically. Advancements in biological and genetic studies have revealed that sarcoma subtypes display varying characteristics and therefore require tailored treatments. Locally advanced soft tissue malignancies of both the trunk and the extremities can present significant challenges for treatment. At present, a negative surgical resection margin is the only definitive treatment despite attempts to use neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies. In patients with locally advanced non-resectable soft tissue sarcoma (STS), the current practice would advocate amputation. However, studies suggest that limb salvage may be possible with radiotherapy or regional chemotherapy using isolated limb perfusion or isolated limb infusion (ILI). An ideal treatment modality for non-resectable STS would strive for preservation of anatomy and functionality as well as improve quality of life. The aim of the study was to investigate the efficacy of isolated limb infusion as an alternative treatment modality for non-resectable locally advanced STS. METHODS: The efficacy of ILI was retrospectively investigated in 10 patients with STS. All patients received ILI with melphalan and actinomycin at the North Estonia Medical Centre Foundation, Tallinn, Estonia from September 1, 2014 to May 31, 2018. The procedures were performed in a lower extremity in 8 patients and in an upper extremity in 2 patients. The 6-month overall response rate was 78% and the overall limb salvage rate was 100%. The distant metastatis-free survival was longer for responders than for non-responders. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: ILI is an alternative treatment modality for regional disease control and limb preservation in patients with cutaneous and soft tissue malignant neoplasms of the extremities. The short-term response rates are encouraging and the median overall survival shows good results in this highly complex patient population.