Metastasectomy for metastatic melanoma in the era of effective systemic therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Effective systemic therapy (EST) in patients with metachronous metastatic melanoma (MMM) improves survival and alters surgical decision-making. Surgical metastasectomy is another treatment option, however, it is unclear if metastasectomy confers survival benefit. This study seeks to identify any survival benefit associated with surgical management of MMM. METHODS: Patients with MMM from 2009 to 2021 were grouped by receipt of metastasectomy and treatment era (pre-versus post-EST). Overall survival (OS) was calculated from date of metastasis and evaluated with Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Our dataset identified 226 patients with MMM; 32% were diagnosed pre-EST. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, OS was improved for patients undergoing treatment post-versus pre-EST (p < 0.001). In the post-EST era, metastasectomy was associated with an increase in OS compared to no resection (p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: In the post-EST group, EST paired with metastasectomy was associated with improved OS compared to the pre-EST group, suggesting persistent evidence of a survival benefit from metastasectomy.

A Clinical Decision Tool to Calculate Pretest Probability of Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Primary Cutaneous Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Although sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) status is a strong prognostic indicator for cutaneous melanoma, unnecessary SLNBs have substantial cost and morbidity burden. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to develop, validate, and present a personalized, clinical, decision-making tool using nationally representative data with clinically actionable probability thresholds (Expected Lymphatic Metastasis Outcome [ELMO]). METHODS: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Registry from 2000 to 2017 and the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004 to 2015 were used to develop and internally validate a logistic ridge regression predictive model for SLNB positivity. External validation was done with 1568 patients at a large tertiary referral center. RESULTS: The development cohort included 134,809 patients, and the internal validation cohort included 38,518 patients. ELMO (AUC 0.85) resulted in a 29.54% SLNB reduction rate and greater sensitivity in predicting SLNB status for T1b, T2a, and T2b tumors than previous models. In external validation, ELMO had an accuracy of 0.7586 and AUC of 0.7218. Limitations of this study are potential miscoding, unaccounted confounders, and effect modification. CONCLUSIONS: ELMO ( https://melanoma-sentinel.herokuapp.com/ ) has been developed and validated (internally and externally) by using the largest publicly available dataset of melanoma patients and was found to have high accuracy compared with other published models and gene expression tests. Individualized risk estimates for SLNB positivity are critical in facilitating thorough decision-making for healthcare providers and patients with melanoma.

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.

Outcomes with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with sentinel lymph node-positive melanoma without completion lymph node dissection.

Until recently, most patients with sentinel lymph node-positive (SLN+) melanoma underwent a completion lymph node dissection (CLND), as mandated in published trials of adjuvant systemic therapies. Following multicenter selective lymphadenectomy trial-II, most patients with SLN+ melanoma no longer undergo a CLND prior to adjuvant systemic therapy. A retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes in SLN+ melanoma patients treated with adjuvant systemic therapy after July 2017 was performed in 21 international cancer centers. Of 462 patients who received systemic adjuvant therapy, 326 patients received adjuvant anti-PD-1 without prior immediate (IM) CLND, while 60 underwent IM CLND. With median follow-up of 21 months, 24-month relapse-free survival (RFS) was 67% (95% CI 62% to 73%) in the 326 patients. When the patient subgroups who would have been eligible for the two adjuvant anti-PD-1 clinical trials mandating IM CLND were analyzed separately, 24-month RFS rates were 64%, very similar to the RFS rates from those studies. Of these no-CLND patients, those with SLN tumor deposit >1 mm, stage IIIC/D and ulcerated primary had worse RFS. Of the patients who relapsed on adjuvant anti-PD-1, those without IM CLND had a higher rate of relapse in the regional nodal basin than those with IM CLND (46% vs 11%). Therefore, 55% of patients who relapsed without prior CLND underwent surgery including therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND), with 30% relapsing a second time; there was no difference in subsequent relapse between patients who received observation vs secondary adjuvant therapy. Despite the increased frequency of nodal relapses, adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy may be as effective in SLN+ pts who forego IM CLND and salvage surgery with TLND at relapse may be a viable option for these patients.

The efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade for melanoma in-transit with or without nodal metastases - A multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: Guidelines addressing melanoma in-transit metastasis (ITM) recommend immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as a first-line treatment option, despite the fact that there are no efficacy data available from prospective trials for exclusively ITM disease. The study aims to analyze the outcome of patients with ITM treated with ICI based on data from a large cohort of patients treated at international referral clinics. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients treated between January 2015 and December 2020 from Australia, Europe, and the USA, evaluating treatment with ICI for ITM with or without nodal involvement (AJCC8 N1c, N2c, and N3c) and without distant disease (M0). Treatment was with PD-1 inhibitor (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) and/or CTLA-4 inhibitor (ipilimumab). The response was evaluated according to the RECIST criteria modified for cutaneous lesions. RESULTS: A total of 287 patients from 21 institutions in eight countries were included. Immunotherapy was first-line treatment in 64 (22%) patients. PD-1 or CTLA-4 inhibitor monotherapy was given in 233 (81%) and 23 (8%) patients, respectively, while 31 (11%) received both in combination. The overall response rate was 56%, complete response (CR) rate was 36%, and progressive disease (PD) rate was 32%. Median PFS was ten months (95% CI 7.4-12.6 months) with a one-, two-, and five-year PFS rate of 48%, 33%, and 18%, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, and the one-, two-, and five-year MSS rates were 95%, 83%, and 71%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Systemic immunotherapy is an effective treatment for melanoma ITM. Future studies should evaluate the role of systemic immunotherapy in the context of multimodality therapy, including locoregional treatments such as surgery, intralesional therapy, and regional therapies.

Is the presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes predictive of outcomes in patients with melanoma?

BACKGROUND: The significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in melanoma is debated. This article presents a multicenter, retrospective study assessing the predictive and prognostic value of TILs. METHODS: The Sentinel Lymph Node Working Group database was queried from 1993 to 2018 for cases with known TIL data. TILs were categorized as absent or present, which included nonbrisk (NB), brisk (B), and present but unspecified TIL levels. Clinicopathologic factors were correlated with TILs, sentinel lymph node (SLN) status, and melanoma-specific survival (MSS). RESULTS: Overall, 3203 patients were included. The median thickness was 1.5 mm, and 469 cases had SLN metastases. TILs were present in 2458 cases (76.7%), with NB, B, and unspecified TILs seen in 1691 (68.8%), 691 (28.1%), and 76 (3.1%), respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that the presence of TILs significantly predicted a negative SLN biopsy (P < .05). The median follow-up was 25.2 months. MSS was significantly better for cases with TILs than cases without TILs (P < .001). According to multivariable analysis, age, gender, thickness, mitotic rate, ulceration, lymphovascular invasion, and SLN status were significantly prognostic of MSS (all P values < .05). Although TILs were not prognostic of MSS, when multiple imputation was used and the SLN status was excluded, the presence of TILs was significantly prognostic of improved MSS (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.95; P = .0154). CONCLUSIONS: TILs are a favorable marker because their presence significantly predicts a negative SLN, and the absence of TILs may be a prognostic marker of worse survival in patients with a positive SLN but not a negative SLN. TILs may also serve as a prognostic marker of survival when the SLN status is not considered.

Is There a Relationship Between TILs and Regression in Melanoma?

BACKGROUND: The relationship between tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and regression in melanoma is unknown. This report describes a large multicenter study assessing the association between TILs and regression. METHODS: The Sentinel Lymph Node Working Group database was queried from 1993 to 2018 for cases with TILs and regression data. Clinicopathologic factors were correlated with regression and TIL status, sentinel lymph node (SLN) status, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The study enrolled 2450 patients. In 1811 cases, TILs (73.9%) were present, with regression present in 328 of these 1811 (18.1%) cases and in 49 (7.7%) of 639 cases without TILs. The presence of TILs was significantly associated with regression (p < 0.0001) as well as a negative SLN (p < 0.05). However, when TILs were stratified by regression status, only absence or presence of both TILs and regression were significantly associated with SLN metastases (p = 0.038). Although the presence of TILs was associated with OS (p < 0.05), regression status by itself was not (p = 0.2058 and 0.252, respectively). Furthermore, when TILs were stratified by regression status, only the presence of TILs with or without regression was significantly associated with improved OS (p = 0.0081 and 0.0137, respectively) versus the absence of both TILs and regression, with regression status not significantly affecting OS for patients with or without TILs (p = 0.2314 and 0.65, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Regression is highly correlated with TILs, but only TILs are significantly associated with SLN metastasis and OS in melanoma patients, whereas regression is not. The impact of regression on outcomes ultimately appears dependent upon the absence or presence of TILs.

Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy (NAST) in Patients with Melanoma: Surgical Considerations by the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC).

Exciting advances in melanoma systemic therapies have presented the opportunity for surgical oncologists and their multidisciplinary colleagues to test the neoadjuvant systemic treatment approach in high-risk, resectable metastatic melanomas. Here we describe the state of the science of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) for melanoma, focusing on the surgical aspects and the key role of the surgical oncologist in this treatment paradigm. This paper summarizes the past decade of developments in melanoma treatment and the current evidence for NAST in stage III melanoma specifically. Issues of surgical relevance are discussed, including the risk of progression on NAST prior to surgery. Technical aspects, such as the definition of resectability for melanoma and the extent and scope of routine surgery are presented. Other important issues, such as the utility of radiographic response evaluation and method of pathologic response evaluation, are addressed. Surgical complications and perioperative management of NAST related adverse events are considered. The International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium has the goal of harmonizing NAST trials in melanoma to facilitate rapid advances with new approaches, and facilitating the comparison of results across trials evaluating different treatment regimens. Our ultimate goals are to provide definitive proof of the safety and efficacy of NAST in melanoma, sufficient for NAST to become an acceptable standard of care, and to leverage this platform to allow more personalized, biomarker-driven, tailored approaches to subsequent treatment and surveillance.

Current management of melanoma patients with nodal metastases.

The management of melanoma patients with nodal metastases has undergone dramatic changes over the last decade. In the past, the standard of care for patients with a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) was a completion lymph node dissection (CLND), while patients with palpable macroscopic nodal disease underwent a therapeutic lymphadenectomy in cases with no evidence of systemic spread. However, studies have shown that SLN metastases present as a spectrum of disease, with certain SLN-based factors being prognostic of and correlated with outcomes. Furthermore, the results of key clinical trials demonstrate that CLND provides no survival benefit over nodal observation in positive SLN patients, while other clinical trials have shown that adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or targeted therapy after CLND is associated with a recurrence-free survival benefit. Given the efficacy of these systemic therapies in the adjuvant setting, these agents are now being evaluated and utilized as neoadjuvant treatments in patients with regionally-localized or resectable metastatic melanoma. Multiple options now exist to treat melanoma patients with nodal disease, and determining the best treatment course for a particular case requires an in-depth knowledge of current data and an informed discussion with the patient. This review will provide an overview of the various options for treating melanoma patients with nodal metastases and will discuss the data that supported the development of these treatment options.

Regression in melanoma is significantly associated with a lower regional recurrence rate and better recurrence-free survival.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The prognostic significance of regression in predicting melanoma recurrences is unknown. We present a large multicenter study correlating regression with recurrence. METHODS: The Sentinel Lymph Node Working Group database was queried from 1993 to 2018 for cases with regression data. Clinicopathologic factors were correlated with overall and first-site of recurrence and with recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: There were 4790 patients and the median follow-up was 39.6 months. Regression and recurrences were seen in 1081 (22.6%) and 773 (16.1%) cases, respectively. First-site locoregional and distant recurrences were seen in 412 (8.6%) and 352 (7.3%) patients, respectively. Regression was seen in 15.8% and 24.7% of all cases with and without recurrences (p < 0.0001), respectively, while regression was seen in 14.3% and 17.9% of first-site locoregional and distant recurrent cases, respectively, compared with 23.3% and 22.9% of patients with regression and without first-site locoregional and distant recurrences, respectively (p = 0.29). On multivariable analysis, after controlling for age, gender, thickness, ulceration, lymphovascular invasion, and sentinel lymph node status, regression significantly predicted improved RFS (p = 0.004) and fewer first-site regional recurrences (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that regression is a favorable prognostic marker in melanoma and predicts significantly better RFS and decreased first-site regional recurrences.

Acral Lentiginous Melanoma: A United States Multi-Center Substage Survival Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acral lentiginous melanoma is associated with worse survival than other subtypes of melanoma. Understanding prognostic factors for survival and recurrence can help better inform follow-up care. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the clinicopathologic features, melanoma-specific survival, and recurrence-free survival by substage in a large, multi-institutional cohort of primary acral lentiginous melanoma patients. METHODS: Retrospective review of the United States Melanoma Consortium database, a multi-center prospectively collected database of acral lentiginous melanoma patients treated between January 2000 and December 2017. RESULTS: Of the 433 primary acral lentiginous melanoma patients identified (median [range] age: 66 [8-97] years; 53% female, 83% white), 66% presented with stage 0-2 disease and the median time of follow-up for the 392 patients included in the survival analysis was 32.5 months (range: 0-259). The 5-year melanoma-specific survivals by stage were 0 = 100%, I = 93.8%, II = 76.2%, III = 63.4%, IIIA = 80.8%, and IV = 0%. Thicker Breslow depth ((HR) = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.05-1.21; P < .001)) and positive nodal status ((HR) = 1.79; 95% CI = 1.00-3.22; P = .050)) were independent prognostic factors for melanoma-specific survival. Breslow depth ((HR = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.07-1.20; P < .001), and positive nodal status (HR = 2.12; 95% CI = 1.38-3.80; P = .001) were also prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients, acral lentiginous melanoma was associated with poor outcomes even in early stage disease, consistent with prior reports. Stage IIB and IIC disease were associated with particularly low melanoma-specific and recurrence-free survival. This suggests that studies investigating adjuvant therapies in stage II patients may be especially valuable in acral lentiginous melanoma patients.

Regression is significantly associated with outcomes for patients with melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of regression in melanoma is debated. We present a large multicenter study correlating regression with sentinel lymph node metastasis and melanoma-specific survival. METHODS: The Sentinel Lymph Node Working Group database was reviewed from 1993 to 2018. Patients with known regression and sentinel lymph node status were included. Clinicopathologic factors were correlated with regression, sentinel lymph node status, and melanoma-specific survival. RESULTS: There were 4,790 patients; median follow-up was 39.6 months. Regression was present in 1,081 (22.6%) cases, and 798 (16.7%) patients had sentinel lymph node metastases. On multivariable analysis, male sex, truncal tumors, and decreasing thickness were significantly associated with regression (P < .05), whereas head/neck or leg tumors had lower rates of regression (P < .05). Regression was significantly correlated with a decreased risk of sentinel lymph node disease on multivariable analysis (odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.54-0.85; P = .0008). Multivariable analysis also showed that increasing age, male sex, increasing thickness, ulceration, lymphovascular invasion, microsatellitosis, and sentinel lymph node metastasis were significantly (P < .05) associated with worse melanoma-specific survival, while regression was significantly associated with better melanoma-specific survival (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.57-0.99; P = .043). CONCLUSION: This large study shows that regression is significantly associated with better outcomes in patients with melanoma and is correlated with a lower risk of sentinel lymph node metastasis and a better melanoma-specific survival.

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.

Utility of a 31-gene expression profile for predicting outcomes in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma referred for sentinel node biopsy.

BACKGROUND: A 31-gene genetic expression profile (31-GEP; Class 1 = low risk, Class 2 = high risk) developed to predict outcome in cutaneous melanoma (CM) has been validated by retrospective, industry-sponsored, or small series. METHODS: Tumor features, sentinel node biopsy (SNB) results, and outcomes were extracted from a prospective database of 383 C M patients who underwent SNB and had a 31-GEP run on their primary tumor. Groups were compared by uni- and multi-variable analysis. Relapse-free and distant metastasis-free survival (RFS, DMFS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Breslow thickness, T stage, and SNB positivity were significantly higher in Class 2 patients. Recurrence rates were higher for Class 2 vs Class 1 patients and highest in patients who were Class 2 and SNB positive. GEP class was predictive of RFS and DMFS and independently predicted relapse in AJCC "low risk" (stages IA-IIA) patients. CONCLUSIONS: 31-GEP adds prognostic information in CM patents undergoing SNB.

Re-evaluation of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Melanoma.

OPINION STATEMENT: The vast majority of patients newly diagnosed with melanoma present with clinically localized disease, and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a standard of care in the management of these patients, particularly in intermediate thickness cases, in order to provide important prognostic data. However, SLNB also has an important role in the management of patients with other subtypes of melanoma such as thick melanomas, certain thin melanomas, and specific histologic variants of melanoma such as desmoplastic melanoma. Furthermore, there have been technical advances in the SLNB technique, such as the development of newer radiotracers and use of SPECT/CT, and there is some data to suggest performing a SLNB may be therapeutic. Finally, the management of patients with a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) has undergone dramatic changes over the past several years based on the results of recent important clinical trials. Treatment options for patients with SLN metastases now include surveillance, completion lymph node dissection, and adjuvant therapy with checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy. SLNB continues to play a crucial role in the management of patients with melanoma, allowing for risk stratification, potential regional disease control, and further treatment options for patients with a positive SLN.

What is the Cost-Effective Treatment for Melanoma Patients with a Positive Sentinel Node?

BACKGROUND: Survival for positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) patients does not differ between completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and nodal observation (OBS). However, treating these patients with CLND and checkpoint inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab (PEM), improves outcomes. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of OBS, CLND, and CLND with PEM (CLND-PEM) treatments. METHODS: A Markov model was designed to simulate treatment for a theoretical cohort of 1000 positive SLN patients per therapy with a 5-year follow-up period. An intervention was cost-effective if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio among therapies was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: Compared with CLND or CLND-PEM, OBS resulted in fewer lymphedema cases but in more disease recurrences. Compared with OBS, CLND had higher costs and lower QALYs. Although CLND-PEM had a lower number of recurrences and deaths than OBS or CLND, it had higher costs and lower QALYs than OBS, and thus was not cost-effective. However, with the effects of CLND from CLND-PEM removed, allowing evaluation of PEM effects alone (PEM alone), the resulting QALYs were the highest, but PEM alone still was not cost-effective compared with OBS ($1.2 million per QALY). By reducing the drug cost to less than $14,404 per patient, PEM alone would become cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CLND, CLND-PEM, and PEM alone, OBS was cost-effective for managing positive SLN patients. Although CLND-PEM and PEM alone result in fewer recurrences and deaths, these therapies were not cost-effective due to the quality-of-life decrement of CLND and the current high drug cost of PEM.