Omitting Axillary Dissection in Breast Cancer with Sentinel-Node Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Trials evaluating the omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer and sentinel-lymph-node metastases have been compromised by limited statistical power, uncertain nodal radiotherapy target volumes, and a scarcity of data on relevant clinical subgroups. METHODS: We conducted a noninferiority trial in which patients with clinically node-negative primary T1 to T3 breast cancer (tumor size, T1, ≤20 mm; T2, 21 to 50 mm; and T3, >50 mm in the largest dimension) with one or two sentinel-node macrometastases (metastasis size, >2 mm in the largest dimension) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to completion axillary-lymph-node dissection or its omission (sentinel-node biopsy only). Adjuvant treatment and radiation therapy were used in accordance with national guidelines. The primary end point was overall survival. We report here the per-protocol and modified intention-to-treat analyses of the prespecified secondary end point of recurrence-free survival. To show noninferiority of sentinel-node biopsy only, the upper boundary of the confidence interval for the hazard ratio for recurrence or death had to be below 1.44. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and December 2021, a total of 2766 patients were enrolled across five countries. The per-protocol population included 2540 patients, of whom 1335 were assigned to undergo sentinel-node biopsy only and 1205 to undergo completion axillary-lymph-node dissection (dissection group). Radiation therapy including nodal target volumes was administered to 1192 of 1326 patients (89.9%) in the sentinel-node biopsy-only group and to 1058 of 1197 (88.4%) in the dissection group. The median follow-up was 46.8 months (range, 1.5 to 94.5). Overall, 191 patients had recurrence or died. The estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.5 to 91.9) in the sentinel-node biopsy-only group and 88.7% (95% CI, 86.3 to 91.1) in the dissection group, with a country-adjusted hazard ratio for recurrence or death of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.19), which was significantly (P<0.001) below the prespecified noninferiority margin. CONCLUSIONS: The omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection was noninferior to the more extensive surgery in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer who had sentinel-node macrometastases, most of whom received nodal radiation therapy. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; SENOMAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02240472.).

Current recommendations and recent progress in endometrial cancer.

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic cancer in the United States, and its incidence is rising. Although there have been significant recent advances in our understanding of endometrial cancer biology, many aspects of treatment remain mired in controversy, including the role of surgical lymph node assessment and the selection of patients for adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy. For the subset of women with microsatellite-instable, metastatic disease, anti- programmed cell death protein 1 immunotherapy (pembrolizumab) is now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and numerous trials are attempting to build on this early success.

Development and validation of a novel model to predict recurrence-free survival and melanoma-specific survival after sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with melanoma: an international, retrospective, multicentre analysis.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of adjuvant systemic treatment for patients with high-risk melanomas necessitates accurate staging of disease. However, inconsistencies in outcomes exist between disease stages as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (8th edition). We aimed to develop a tool to predict patient-specific outcomes in people with melanoma rather than grouping patients according to disease stage. METHODS: Patients older than 13 years with confirmed primary melanoma who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) between Oct 29, 1997, and Nov 11, 2013, at four European melanoma centres (based in Berlin, Germany; Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and Warsaw, Poland) were included in the development cohort. Potential predictors of recurrence-free and melanoma-specific survival assessed were sex, age, presence of ulceration, primary tumour location, histological subtype, Breslow thickness, sentinel node status, number of sentinel nodes removed, maximum diameter of the largest sentinel node metastasis, and Dewar classification. A prognostic model and nomogram were developed to predict 5-year recurrence-free survival on a continuous scale in patients with stage pT1b or higher melanomas. This model was also calibrated to predict melanoma-specific survival. Model performance was assessed by discrimination (area under the time-dependent receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC]) and calibration. External validation was done in a cohort of patients with primary melanomas who underwent SLNB between Jan 30, 1997, and Dec 12, 2013, at the Melanoma Institute Australia (Sydney, NSW, Australia). FINDINGS: The development cohort consisted of 4071 patients, of whom 2075 (51%) were female and 1996 (49%) were male. 889 (22%) had sentinel node-positive disease and 3182 (78%) had sentinel node-negative disease. The validation cohort comprised 4822 patients, of whom 1965 (41%) were female and 2857 (59%) were male. 891 (18%) had sentinel node-positive disease and 3931 (82%) had sentinel node-negative disease. Median follow-up was 4·8 years (IQR 2·3-7·8) in the development cohort and 5·0 years (2·2-8·9) in the validation cohort. In the development cohort, 5-year recurrence-free survival was 73·5% (95% CI 72·0-75·1) and 5-year melanoma-specific survival was 86·5% (85·3-87·8). In the validation cohort, the corresponding estimates were 66·1% (64·6-67·7) and 83·3% (82·0-84·6), respectively. The final model contained six prognostic factors: sentinel node status, Breslow thickness, presence of ulceration, age at SLNB, primary tumour location, and maximum diameter of the largest sentinel node metastasis. In the development cohort, for the model's prediction of recurrence-free survival, the AUC was 0·80 (95% CI 0·78-0·81); for prediction of melanoma-specific survival, the AUC was 0·81 (0·79-0·84). External validation showed good calibration for both outcomes, with AUCs of 0·73 (0·71-0·75) and 0·76 (0·74-0·78), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Our prediction model and nomogram accurately predicted patient-specific risk probabilities for 5-year recurrence-free and melanoma-specific survival. These tools could have important implications for clinical decision making when considering adjuvant treatments in patients with high-risk melanomas. FUNDING: Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute.

Micrometastases in axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer, post-neoadjuvant systemic therapy.

INTRODUCTION: The significance of minimal residual axillary disease, specifically micrometastases, following neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) remains largely unexplored. Our study aimed to elucidate the prognostic implications of micrometastases in axillary and sentinel lymph nodes following NST. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed primary breast cancer patients who underwent surgery after NST from September 2006 through February 2018. All patients received axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), either with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy. Recurrence-free survival (RFS)-associated variables were identified using a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Of the 978 patients examined, 438 (44.8%) exhibited no pathologic lymph node involvement (ypN0) after NST, while 89 (9.1%) had micrometastases (ypN1mi) and 451 (46.7%) had macrometastases (ypN+). Notably, 51.1% of the patients with sentinel lymph node micrometastases (SLNmi) had additional metastases, nearly triple that of SLN-negative patients (P < 0.001), and 29.8% of SLNmi patients were upstaged with the ALND. Although ypN1mi was not associated with RFS in patients post-NST (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.42-2.49; P = 0.958), SLNmi patients experienced significantly worse RFS compared to SLN-negative patients (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.12-4.46; P = 0.023). Additional metastases in SLNmi were more prevalent in patients with larger residual breast disease greater than 20 mm, HR-positive/HER2-negative subtype, and low Ki-67 LI (< 14%). CONCLUSIONS: SLNmi is a negative prognostic factor significantly associated with additional non-SLN metastases, while ypN1mi does not influence the prognosis compared to ypN0. Hence, additional ALND may be warranted to confirm axillary nodal status in patients with SLNmi.

Should patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and one or two positive sentinel nodes undergo axillary dissection to determine candidacy for adjuvant abemaciclib?

BACKGROUND: The monarchE trial demonstrated improved outcomes with the use of adjuvant abemaciclib in patients with high-risk hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer defined as ≥4 positive lymph nodes (+LNs) or one to three +LNs with one or more additional high-risk features (HRFs). The proportion of patients with one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes (+SLNs) without HRFs who had ≥4 +LNs at the time of completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND), and who therefore qualified for receipt of abemaciclib, was investigated. METHODS: Females with pathologically node-positive nonmetastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer stratified by the number of +SLNs and +LNs and the presence of one or more HRFs were identified from the National Cancer Database (2018-2019). The proportion of patients meeting the criteria for abemaciclib both before and after ALND was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 22,048 patients identified, 1578 patients underwent upfront surgery, had one or two +SLNs without HRFs, and went on to cALND. Only 213 (13%) of these patients had ≥4 +LNs; thus, cALND performed solely to determine abemaciclib candidacy would have constituted surgical overtreatment in 1365 patients (87%). When stratified by the number of +SLNs, only 10% of those with one +SLN and 24% of those with two +SLNs had ≥4 +LNs after cALND, which meets the criteria for abemaciclib. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with one +SLN without HRFs are unlikely to have ≥4 +LNs and should not be subjected to the morbidity of ALND in order to inform candidacy for abemaciclib. An individualized multidisciplinary discussion should be undertaken about the risk:benefit ratio of ALND and abemaciclib for those with two +SLNs.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Surveillance Ultrasound and Completion Lymph Node Dissection in Children and Adolescents With Sentinel Lymph Node-Positive Cutaneous Melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of nodal basin ultrasound (US) surveillance versus completion lymph node dissection (CLND) in children and adolescents with sentinel lymph node (SLN) positive melanoma. BACKGROUND: Treatment for children and adolescents with melanoma are extrapolated from adult trials. However, there is increasing evidence that important clinical and biological differences exist between pediatric and adult melanoma. METHODS: Patients ≤18 years diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma between 2010 and 2020 from 14 pediatric hospitals were included. Data extracted included demographics, histopathology, nodal basin strategies, surveillance intervals, and survival information. RESULTS: Of 252 patients, 90.1% (n=227) underwent SLN biopsy (SLNB), 50.9% (n=115) had at least 1 positive node. A total of 67 patients underwent CLND with 97.0% (n=65/67) performed after a positive SLNB. In contrast, 46 total patients underwent US observation of nodal basins with 78.3% (n=36/46) of these occurring after positive SLNB. Younger patients were more likely to undergo US surveillance (median age 8.5 y) than CLND (median age 11.3 y; P =0.0103). Overall, 8.9% (n=21/235) experienced disease recurrence: 6 primary, 6 nodal, and 9 distant. There was no difference in recurrence (11.1% vs 18.8%; P =0.28) or death from disease (2.2% vs 9.7%; P =0.36) for those who underwent US versus CLND, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents with cutaneous melanoma frequently have nodal metastases identified by SLN. Recurrence was more common among patients with thicker primary lesions and positive SLN. No significant differences in oncologic outcomes were observed with US surveillance and CLND following the identification of a positive SLN.

Intraoperative spectroscopic evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is a standard procedure for patients with breast cancer and normal axilla on imaging. Positive SLNs on histological examination can lead to a subsequent surgery for axillary lymph node clearance (ALNC). Here we report a non-destructive technique based on autofluorescence (AF) imaging and Raman spectroscopy for intra-operative assessment of SLNs excised in breast cancer surgery. METHODS: A microscope integrating AF imaging and Raman spectroscopy modules was built to allow scanning of lymph node biopsy samples. During AF-Raman measurements, AF imaging determined optimal sampling locations for Raman spectroscopy measurements. After optimisation of the AF image analysis and training of classification models based on data from 85 samples, the AF-Raman technique was tested on an independent set of 81 lymph nodes comprising 58 fixed and 23 fresh specimens. The sensitivity and specificity of AF-Raman were calculated using post-operative histology as a standard of reference. RESULTS: The independent test set contained 66 negative lymph nodes and 15 positive lymph nodes according to the reference standard, collected from 78 patients. For this set of specimens, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the AF-Raman technique was 0.93 [0.83-0.98]. AF-Raman was then operated in a regime that maximised detection specificity, producing a 94% detection accuracy: 80% sensitivity and 97% specificity. The main confounders for SLN metastasis were areas rich in histiocytes clusters, for which only few Raman spectra had been included in the training dataset. DISCUSSION: This preliminary study indicates that with further development and extension of the training dataset by inclusion of additional Raman spectra of histiocytes clusters and capsule, the AF-Raman may become a promising technique for intra-operative assessment of SLNs. Intra-operative detection of positive biopsies could avoid second surgery for axillary clearance.

Omission of axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer patients with three or more positive sentinel lymph nodes.

PURPOSE: The ACOSOG Z0011 (Z11) trial assessed the benefit of axillary dissection (ALND) for breast cancer patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastases; however, Z11 excluded patients with ≥ 3 positive SLNs. We analyzed trends in ALND omission in patients with ≥ 3 positive SLNs. METHODS: Women with ≥ 3 positive SLNs who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or mastectomy between 2018 and 2020 in the National Cancer Database were included using SLN codes initiated in 2018. Patients with stage IV disease, recurrent breast cancer, and who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. A multivariable logistic regression model was utilized to determine the proportion who received ALND and factors associated with ALND omission. A subgroup analysis was performed among patients who met the remainder of the Z11 inclusion criteria (BCS, T1/T2 breast cancer). RESULTS: We identified 3654 patients with ≥ 3 positive SLNs. ALND was omitted in 37% of patients, and omission significantly increased from 2018 to 2020 (29% vs. 41%, p < 0.0001). Older age, lower grade tumors, no radiation, non-academic facility, BCS, more SLNs examined and fewer positive SLNs were significantly associated with ALND omission. 942 patients with ≥ 3 positive SLNs met the remainder of the Z11 inclusion criteria. ALND was omitted in 49% of these patients, and omission increased from 2018 to 2020 (44% vs. 49%, p = 0.22). CONCLUSION: Approximately one-third of patients with ≥ 3 positive SLNs do not undergo ALND; omission of ALND increased from 2018 to 2020. Studies assessing oncologic outcomes of patients with ≥ 3 positive SLNs who do and do not receive ALND are required.

Long-term outcome in patients with nodal-positive breast cancer treated with sentinel lymph node biopsy alone after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has yet to be accepted as the standard staging procedure in node positive (cN1) breast cancer patients who had clinical complete response in the axilla (cN0) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), due to the presumed high false negative rate associated with SLNB in such scenario. This study aimed to determine whether there is a significant difference in the axillary recurrence rate (ARR) and long-term survival in this group of patients, receiving SLNB alone versus axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of cN1 patients who were rendered cN0 by NAC from January 2014 to December 2018 were identified from the Asan Medical Center database. Patients' characteristics and outcomes were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: 902 cN1 patients treated with NAC and turned cN0 were identified. 477 (52.9%) patients achieved complete pathological response in the axilla (ypN0). At a median follow up of 65 months, ARR was 3.2% in the SLNB only group and 1.8% in the ALND group (p = 0.398). DFS and OS were significantly worse in patients with ALND as compared to patients with SLNB only (p = 0.011 and 0.047, respectively). We noted more patients in the ALND group had T3-4 tumor. In the subgroup analysis, we showed that in the T1-2 subgroup (n = 377), there was no statistically significant difference in DFS and OS (p = 0.242 and 0.671, respectively) between SLNB only and ALND group. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that cN1 patients who were converted to ypN0 following NAC may be safely treated with SLNB only.

Gene expression profiles in clinically T1-2N0 ER+HER2- breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving therapy: their added value in case sentinel lymph node biopsy is not performed.

PURPOSE: Omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer treatment results in patients with unknown positive nodal status and potential risk for systemic undertreatment. This study aimed to investigate whether gene expression profiles (GEPs) can lower this risk in cT1-2N0 ER+ HER2- breast cancer patients treated with BCT. METHODS: Patients were included if diagnosed between 2011 and 2017 with cT1-2N0 ER+ HER2- breast cancer, treated with BCT and SLNB, and in whom GEP was applied. Adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations based on clinical risk status (Dutch breast cancer guideline of 2020 versus PREDICT v2.1) with and without knowledge on SLNB outcome were compared to GEP outcome. We examined missing adjuvant chemotherapy indications, and the number of GEPs needed to identify one patient at risk for systemic undertreatment. RESULTS: Of 3585 patients, 2863 (79.9%) had pN0 and 722 (20.1%) pN + disease. Chemotherapy was recommended in 1354 (37.8% guideline-2020) and 1888 patients (52.7% PREDICT). Eliminating SLNB outcome (n = 722) resulted in omission of chemotherapy recommendation in 475 (35.1% guideline-2020) and 412 patients (21.8% PREDICT). GEP revealed genomic high risk in 126 (26.5% guideline-2020) and 82 patients (19.9% PREDICT) in case of omitted chemotherapy recommendation in the absence of SLNB. Extrapolated to the whole group, this concerns 3.5% and 2.3%, respectively, resulting in the need for 28-44 GEPs to identify one patient at risk for systemic undertreatment. CONCLUSION: If no SLNB is performed, clinical risk status according to the guideline of 2020 and PREDICT predicts a very low risk for systemic undertreatment. The number of GEPs needed to identify one patient at risk for undertreatment does not justify its standard use.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of fluorescein-guided sentinel lymph node biopsy in early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of axillary lymph nodes status in cN0 axilla is performed by sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) utilizing a combination of radioactive isotope and blue dye or alternative to isotope like Indocyanine green (ICG). Both are very resource-intensive; which has prompted development of low-cost technique of Fluorescein Sodium (FS)-guided SLNB. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the diagnostic performance of FS-guided SLNB in early breast cancer. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of FS for sentinel lymph node biopsy. METHODS: Eligibility criteria: Studies where SLNB was performed using FS. INFORMATION SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library and online clinical trial registers. Risk of bias: Articles were assessed for risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: The main summary measures were pooled Sentinel Lymph Node Identification Rate (SLN-IR) and pooled False Negative Rate (FNR) using random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 45 articles were retrieved by the initial systematic search. 7 out of the 45 studies comprising a total of 332 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled SLN-IR was 93.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.97; 87% to 97%). Five validation studies were included for pooling the false negative rate and included a total of 211 patients. The pooled FNR was 5.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-9.07). CONCLUSION: Fluorescein-guided SLNB is a viable option for detection of lymph node metastases in clinically node negative patients with early breast cancer. It achieves a high pooled Sentinel Lymph Node Identification Rate (SLN-IR) of 93% with a false negative rate of 5.6% for the detection of axillary lymph node metastasis.

Value of sentinel node ultrastaging and pathologic techniques in tumoral detection.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Sentinel lymph node assessment is an option for patients with clinically early-stage vulvar cancer, endometrial cancer, cervical cancer, and, more recently, ovarian cancer. However, although ultrastaging is mandatory as part of the node evaluation, universally accepted pathology protocols are lacking. This review focuses on the current evidence for the most relevant aspects of sentinel lymph node evaluation, as well as some controversial topics like frozen section or one-step nucleic acid amplification. RECENT FINDINGS: The diagnostic accuracy of sentinel lymph node detection algorithms for patients with gynecologic neoplasms is high. However, the heterogeneity among the published studies and the absence of clear recommendations from most guidelines make it challenging to recommend one protocol over another. The minimum requirement from ultrastaging protocols (regarding the number of levels to be assessed, among others) to get the highest accuracy with a minor cost is unknown. SUMMARY: Sentinel lymph node evaluation is now part of the surgical management for most early-stage gynecologic neoplasms. However, a universally accepted ultrastaging pathology protocol is lacking in literature and clinical practice. This gap requires significant effort from the gynecologic oncology and pathology community to be closed and then to allow advancements in surgical management for early-stage gynecologic tumors to go forward.

Benefits of sentinel node detection in cervical cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a widely used technique in other gynaecological tumours but has not yet been implemented as the gold standard technique for nodal staging in cervical cancer. Since the majority of evidence is derived from retrospective studies, this review aims to summarize the most recent evidence on this relevant topic. RECENT FINDINGS: SLNB has demonstrated to be a well tolerated technique for lymph node staging in early-stage cervical cancer patients with promising future as exclusive lymph node assessment method avoiding full lymphadenectomy. Moreover, it allows ultrastaging and unfrequent drainage identification, which enables the detection of patients at a high risk of recurrence who would otherwise remain unnoticed. When compared with pelvic lymphadenectomy, SLNB is also associated with less intraoperative and postoperative complications, especially in terms of lymphedema formation. SUMMARY: The available evidence suggests that SLNB offers numerous advantages over the standard pelvic lymphadenectomy reducing morbidity rates and increasing diagnostic accuracy. Three ongoing prospective trials will likely answer the controversies over these questions.

Impact of sentinel node use in lymphedema formation among gynecologic cancer patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The most common surgical procedure associated with lymphedema formation is the regional lymphadenectomy. One of the advantages of sentinel node biopsy is the reduction of the risk of lymphedema formation. The purpose of this review is to collect and analyze the most relevant and recent evidence of the use of sentinel node biopsy and its implication on the development of postoperative lymphedema in gynecological cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: The current evidence of the use of sentinel node biopsy in cervical cancer to reduce lymphedema is heterogeneous and more data is needed to establish its role.Sentinel lymph node biopsy in endometrial cancer is a staging procedure with lower surgical complications, as well as lymphedema formation; while the results of prospective trials evaluating its impact on quality of life are still lacking.Sentinel lymph node biopsy in vulvar cancer minimizes the need for extensive dissection and reduces the incidence of complications associated with overharvesting of lymph nodes such as lymphedema without compromising oncological outcomes. SUMMARY: The prevalence of lymphedema in gynecological cancer varies based on the surgical treatment or additional therapies applied. Over the past years, one of the most important surgical modifications to decrease lymphedema formation has been implementation of sentinel lymph node technique mainly in vulvar cancer patients.

Different tracers for sentinel node detection in gynecologic oncology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In the past decade, sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping has progressively substituted full lymphadenectomies in gynecologic oncology. In this article, we review the most relevant and the latest literature on this topic. RECENT FINDINGS: In endometrial and cervical cancer, the current evidence further support the value of indocyanine green (ICG) as tracer of choice for SLN mapping. Experience in vulvar cancer is more limited, with ICG used together with technetium-99 m (Tc-99m) as a dual tracer but ICG, so far, has not been a game changer in this setting as it has been for cervical and endometrial cancer. SUMMARY: For most gynecologic cancers, ICG fluorescence imaging is considered now a days the tracer of choice for lymphatic mapping. However, in early-stage vulvar cancer, SLN biopsy with radioactive tracer continues to be the standard-of-care in lymph node status assessment.

An artificial intelligence-based model exploiting H&E images to predict recurrence in negative sentinel lymph-node melanoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification and treatment benefit prediction models are urgent to improve negative sentinel lymph node (SLN-) melanoma patient selection, thus avoiding costly and toxic treatments in patients at low risk of recurrence. To this end, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) could help clinicians to better calculate the recurrence risk and choose whether to perform adjuvant therapy. METHODS: We made use of AI to predict recurrence-free status (RFS) within 2-years from diagnosis in 94 SLN- melanoma patients. In detail, we detected quantitative imaging information from H&E slides of a cohort of 71 SLN- melanoma patients, who registered at Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II" in Bari, Italy (investigational cohort, IC). For each slide, two expert pathologists firstly annotated two Regions of Interest (ROIs) containing tumor cells alone (TUMOR ROI) or with infiltrating cells (TUMOR + INF ROI). In correspondence of the two kinds of ROIs, two AI-based models were developed to extract information directly from the tiles in which each ROI was automatically divided. This information was then used to predict RFS. Performances of the models were computed according to a 5-fold cross validation scheme. We further validated the prediction power of the two models on an independent external validation cohort of 23 SLN- melanoma patients (validation cohort, VC). RESULTS: The TUMOR ROIs have revealed more informative than the TUMOR + INF ROIs. An Area Under the Curve (AUC) value of 79.1% and 62.3%, a sensitivity value of 81.2% and 76.9%, a specificity value of 70.0% and 43.3%, an accuracy value of 73.2% and 53.4%, were achieved on the TUMOR and TUMOR + INF ROIs extracted for the IC cohort, respectively. An AUC value of 76.5% and 65.2%, a sensitivity value of 66.7% and 41.6%, a specificity value of 70.0% and 55.9%, an accuracy value of 70.0% and 56.5%, were achieved on the TUMOR and TUMOR + INF ROIs extracted for the VC cohort, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach represents a first effort to develop a non-invasive prognostic method to better define the recurrence risk and improve the management of SLN- melanoma patients.

Location-Based Oncological Outcomes of Sentinel Node Dissection in Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Our study aimed to assess the oncological outcomes of sentinel node dissection during radical prostatectomy according to nodal location in comparison to extended pelvic lymph node dissection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospectively collected data of clinically node-negative patients who underwent prostatectomy and extended lymph node dissection with or without sentinel node from January 2013 to January 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary end point was to assess oncological outcomes on the whole population. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to depict biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival. Multivariable Cox regression models assessed the impact of nodal location on single-photon emission computed tomography on oncological outcomes. Adjustment for case mix included: pathological T stage, ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) grade group, initial PSA, nodal burden, age at surgery, and surgical margin status. Secondarily, a propensity score match was performed according to age at surgery, PSA, biopsy ISUP, clinical T stage, and Briganti risk of nodal invasion. Survival and regression analyses were also performed in the matched population. RESULTS: Of the patients, 55.8% had at least 1 sentinel node outside of lymph node dissection template at single-photon emission computed tomography/CT. Log-rank test showed comparable 36-month biochemical (P = .3) and clinical recurrence-free survival (P = .6) among patients with sentinel node inside template, outside template, or extended pelvic lymph node dissection alone. At Cox regression, sentinel node location outside template was associated with lower hazard of metastases (HR 0.62; P = .04) in the overall cohort, while in the matched cohort benefits were observed only for biochemical recurrence (HR 0.57; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Wider nodal resection boundaries outside the "classic" template, driven by sentinel node procedure, have a positive impact on oncological outcomes in selected patient.

Role of Concurrent Ultrasound Surveillance of Sentinel Node-Positive Node Fields in Melanoma Patients Having Routine Cross-Sectional Imaging.

PURPOSE: In sentinel node-positive (SN+ve) melanoma patients, active surveillance with regular ultrasound examination of the node field has become standard, rather than completion lymph node dissection (CLND). A proportion of these patients now receive adjuvant systemic therapy and have routine cross-sectional imaging (computed tomography [CT] or positron emission tomography [PET]/CT). The role of concurrent ultrasound (US) surveillance in these patients is unclear. The purpose of our study was to describe the modality of detection of nodal recurrence in SN+ve node fields. METHODS: SN+ve melanoma patients who did not undergo CLND treated at a single institution from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020 were included. RESULTS: A total of 225 SN+ve patients with a median follow-up of 23 months were included. Of these, 119 (53%) received adjuvant systemic therapy. Eighty (36%) developed a recurrence at any site; 24 (11%) recurred first in the SN+ve field, of which 12 (5%) were confirmed node field recurrence only at 2 months follow-up. The nodal recurrences were first detected by ultrasound in seven (3%), CT in seven (3%), and PET/CT in seven (3%) patients. All nodal recurrences evident on US were also evident on PET/CT and vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of recurrences outside the node field and the identification of all US-detected nodal recurrences on concurrent cross-sectional imaging modalities suggest that routine concurrent ultrasound surveillance of the node-positive field may be unnecessary for SN+ve melanoma patients having routine cross-sectional imaging.

Validation of the Melanoma Institute of Australia's Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Risk Prediction Tool for Cutaneous Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: For patients with cutaneous melanoma, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is used to stage regional lymph nodes pathologically and inform prognosis, treatment, and surveillance. To reduce unnecessary surgeries, predictive tools aim to identify those at lowest risk for node-positive disease. The Melanoma Institute of Australia (MIA)'s Prediction Tool for Sentinel Node Metastasis Risk estimates risk of a positive SLNB using patient age and primary melanoma Breslow depth, histologic subtype, ulceration, mitotic rate, and lymphovascular invasion. METHODS: A single-institution validation was performed of the MIA Calculator with 982 cutaneous melanoma patients that included all relevant clinicopathologic factors and SLNB pathology outcomes. The study evaluated discrimination via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration via calibration plots, and clinical utility via decision curve analysis of the MIA model in various subgroups. The data were fit to MIA model parameters via a generalized linear model to assess the odds ratio of parameters in our dataset. RESULTS: The Calculator demonstrated limited discrimination based on ROC curves (C-statistic, 0.709) and consistently underestimated risk of SLN positivity. It did not provide a net benefit over SLNB performed on all patients or reduce unnecessary procedures in the risk domain of 0% to 16%. Compared with the original development and validation cohorts, the current study cohort had thinner tumors and a larger proportion of acral melanomas. CONCLUSIONS: The Calculator generally underestimated SLN positivity risk, including assessment in patients who would be counseled to forego SLNB based on a predicted risk lower than 5%. Recognition of the tool's current limitations emphasizes the need to refine it further for use in medical decision-making.

Using Nomograms Wisely: Predicting Sentinel Node Positivity in Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Four externally validated sentinel node biopsy (SNB) prediction nomograms exist for malignant melanoma that each incorporate different clinical and histopathologic variables, which can result in substantially different risk estimations for the same patient. We demonstrate this variability by using hypothetical melanoma cases. METHODS: We compared the MSKCC and MIA calculators. Using a random number generator, 300 hypothetical thin melanoma "patients" were created with varying age, tumor thickness, Clark level, location on the body, ulceration, melanoma subtype, mitosis, and lymphovascular invasion (LVI). The chi-square test was used to detect statistically significant differences in risk estimations between nomograms. Multivariate linear regression was used to determine the most relevant contributing pathologic features in cases where the predictions diverged by > 10%. RESULTS: Of 300 randomly generated cases, 164 were deleted as their clinical scenarios were unlikely. The MSKCC nomogram generally calculated a lower risk than the MIA (p < 0.001). The highest risk score attained for any "patient" using MSKCC calculator was 15% achieved in one of 136 patients (0.7%), whereas using the MIA nomogram, 58 of 136 patients (43%, p < 0.001) had predicted risk >15%. Regression analysis on patients with >10% difference between nomograms revealed LVI (26, p < 0.001), mitosis (14, p < 0.001), and melanoma subtype (8, p < 0.001) were the factors with high coefficients within MIA that were not present in MSKCC. CONCLUSIONS: Nomograms are useful tools when predicting SNB risk but provide risk outputs that are quite sensitive to included predictors.