Surgeon decision-making for management of positive sentinel lymph nodes in the post-Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II era: A survey study

Efficacy and safety of adjuvant systemic therapies in trial non-eligible resected stages III and IV melanoma patients

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant immunotherapy and targeted therapy are now the standard of care for patients with resected stage IIIA-IV melanoma. However, little is known regarding its efficacy in real-world patients who were not represented in these landmark trials.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all patients with resected stage IIIA-IV melanoma who received adjuvant systemic therapy between January 1 2018 and December 31 2020, in two Canadian academic cancer. Primary outcome was the proportion of trial non-eligible patients in the real-world setting. Survival and safety analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

Of the total 113 patient, 99 (88%) were trial non-eligible patients. Most common reasons for trial non-eligible criteria was having no baseline CLND (72%), followed by outside of treatment window >12 weeks (30%), stage IIIA (14%), unknown primary (9%), stage IV (14%), and baseline AD on immunosuppressants (3%). There were no significant RFS (P = 0.731) or OS (P = 0.110) differences in the overall population of trial eligible vs. non-eligible. Safety profiles were similar between the trial eligible vs. non-eligible groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggested a high proportion of real-world patients would have been deemed non-eligible for clinical trials. Regardless, adjuvant systemic therapy delivered similar survival and toxicity outcomes in both groups.

Adjuvant Systemic Therapies for Resected Stages III and IV Melanoma: A Multi-Center Retrospective Clinical Study

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant therapies have been approved for resected melanoma based on improved recurrence-free survival. We present early findings from a real-world study on adjuvant treatments for melanoma.

METHODS

A comprehensive chart review was conducted for patients receiving adjuvant systemic therapy for resected high-risk stages III and IV melanoma. Statistical analysis was performed to assess recurrence-free survival and subgroup differences.

RESULTS

A total of 149 patients (median age = 58.0 years, 61.1% men, 49.7% with BRAF V600E/K genotypes) were included, with 94.6% having resected stage III melanoma. Anti-PD-1 immunotherapy was received by 86.5% of patients, while 13.4% received BRAF-targeted therapy. At a median follow-up of 22.4 months, the recurrence rate was 31.5%, with 1-year and 2-year recurrence-free survival rates of 79% and 62%, respectively. Similar recurrence rates were observed between anti-PD-1 immunotherapy and BRAF-targeted therapy. Long-term toxicity affected 27.4% of patients, with endocrinopathies and late-emergent immune-related adverse events being common.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world adjuvant systemic therapy aligns with clinical trial practice. Recurrence rates remain high despite treatment, and long-term toxicities, including endocrinopathies and chronic inflammatory conditions, are not uncommon.

Recurrence Patterns and Clinical Management after a Positive Sentinel Node Biopsy in Melanoma Patients

Introduction melanoma patients who become stage III after a positive sentinel node biopsy (SNB) may have several patterns of recurrence patients and methods retrospective analysis of melanoma patients who have undergone SNB in a single institution from 2000 to 2015. Results There were 111 recurrences (45.1%) among 246 (20.3%) SNB positive patients and median DRFS was 77.7 months. After initial treatment, further recurrences occurred in 68 (77.3%) patients, regardless the site of initial recurrence conclusions multimodal strategies are recommended to achieve better results when managing stage III melanoma patients after a positive SNB.

Surgeon perspectives on the STITCH trial: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia prevention strategies related to fascial closure technique during laparotomy are well described yet poorly implemented in practice. The factors hindering the surgeon's adoption of evidence-based techniques for fascial closure are poorly understood and characterized.

METHODS

Using an exploratory sequential mixed methods design, we first collected 139 responses to a validated quantitative survey based on a Theoretical Domain Framework for adoption of healthcare practices. Mean scores from survey responses were tabulated, and the findings were used to develop an interview guide for subsequent qualitative individual semi-structured phone interviews. Fourteen practicing surgeons were purposively sampled from social media outlets and our institution. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim for coding and thematic analysis using NVivo 12 Plus. Data from the surveys and interviews were integrated using joint displays.

RESULTS

Quantitative and qualitative analyses from surveys and semi-structured interviews revealed various themes related to surgeon decision-making related to fascial closure technique. Surgeons cited limitations of prior studies, applicability of findings, anecdotal experiences, and situation-specific environments that influence their decision-making. Peer influence and lack of training also affected surgeons' perspectives on integrating small bite technique into practice.

CONCLUSION

Trial design limitations, peer influence, and patient-specific factors impacted surgeon decision-making in the choice of fascial closure technique. Future clinical trials in diverse patient populations may improve surgeons' confidence in implementing technique for fascial closure.

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.

Practice patterns for positive sentinel lymph node in head and neck melanoma

BACKGROUND

An international survey was conducted to investigate the preferences for completion lymph node dissection (CLND) in head and neck melanomas.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent through the American Society of Head & Neck Surgery (AHNS) and Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (CSO).

RESULTS

Hundred and forty-nine surgeons completed the survey. Response rate was 6.3% and 9.7% from AHNS and CSO members, respectively. When presented the scenario of a 47-year-old male with a clinical T3bN0 cheek melanoma, with 1/1 positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) with nodal deposit <2 mm, 72 of respondents (48.3%) would perform a CLND. Reasons for CLND included multiples positive SLN (64.1%), size of nodal deposits (54.2%), and perceived lack of compliance to follow-up (54.2%). Surgeons with access to immunotherapy treatment were less likely to recommend CLND (p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Following SLN biopsy, nearly half of the surveyed head and neck surgeons would recommend CLND, which contrasts with the current melanoma practice patterns in other anatomic locations. However, compared with an earlier study in the literature it does seem that there has been a shift away from completion neck dissection. Further investigation into understanding practice variations is warranted.

Unmeasured factors are associated with the use of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) in melanoma

BACKGROUND

Completion lymph node dissection (CLND) was the standard treatment for patients with melanoma with positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) until 2017 when data from the DeCOG-SLT and MLST-2 randomized trials challenged the survival benefit of this procedure. We assessed the contribution of patient, tumor and facility factors on the use of CLND in patients with surgically resected Stage III melanoma.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database, patients who underwent surgical excision and were found to have a positive SLN from 2012 to 2017 were included. A multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression model with a random intercept for the facility was used to determine the effect of patient, tumor, and facility variables on the risk of CLND. Reference effect measures (REMs) were used to compare the contribution of contextual effects (unknown facility variables) versus measured variables on the variation in CLND use.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2017, the overall use of CLND decreased from 59.9% to 26.5% (p < 0.0001). Overall, older patients and patients with government-based insurance were less likely to undergo CLND. Tumor factors associated with a decreased rate of CLND included primary tumor location on the lower limb, decreasing depth, and mitotic rate <1. However, the contribution of contextual effects to the variation in CLND use exceeded that of the measured facility, tumor, time, and patient variables.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a decrease in CLND use during the study period. However, there is still high variability in CLND use, mainly driven by unmeasured contextual effects.

Completion Lymph Node Dissection for Melanoma Before and After the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial-II in the United States

BACKGROUND

The Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial-II (MSLT-II) revealed completion lymph node dissection (CLND) after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) did not improve melanoma-specific survival compared with surveillance. Given these findings and the morbidity associated with CLND, this study investigated trends in rates and predictors of CLND after MSLT-II.

METHODS

Analysis of the National Cancer Database was performed for all patients aged ≥18 years with melanoma and a positive SLNB for 2012-2019. Rates of CLND before and after publication of MSLT-II were identified and logistic regression used to identify factors associated with CLND.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing CLND declined from 55.9% pre-MSLT-II (n = 9725) to 19.5% post-MSLT-II (n = 9419) (odds ratio [OR] 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.35). CLND was less likely in females (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.78-0.89), older patients (vs. 18-39 yr; 40-64 yr OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98; 65-79 yr OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53-0.84; >80 yr OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.30-0.49), sicker patients (Deyo category ≥2 OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-0.99), thinner primary lesions (vs. 0.01-0.79 mm; 1.01-4.00 mm OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01-1.33; ≥4.01 mm OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.08-1.59), patients from metro areas (Rural OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.00-1.70; Urban OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03-1.29), and those treated at lower-volume centers (vs. lowest-volume; highest-volume OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.14-1.50; high-volume OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.24-1.57).

CONCLUSIONS

MSLT-II has impacted clinical care; however, male gender, thicker lesions, rural/urban residence, younger age, fewer comorbidities, and treatment at higher-volume centers confer a greater likelihood of undergoing CLND. Further investigations should focus on whether these populations benefit from more aggressive surgical care.

Evidence and implementation gaps in management of sentinel node-positive melanoma in the United States

BACKGROUND

Melanoma clinical trials demonstrated that completion lymph node dissection is low value for most sentinel lymph node-positive patients. Contemporaneous trials of adjuvant systemic immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK targeted therapy showed improved recurrence-free survival in high-risk sentinel lymph node-positive patients. To better understand how oncologic evidence is incorporated into practice (implementation), we evaluated factors associated with discontinuation of completion lymph node dissection and adoption of systemic treatment at United States Commission on Cancer-accredited centers.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study of adults with sentinel lymph node-positive melanoma treated from 2012 to 2017 using the National Cancer Database, we evaluated use of completion lymph node dissection and adjuvant systemic treatment using mixed-effects logistic regression, reporting results as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Among 10,240 sentinel lymph node-positive melanoma patients, performance of completion lymph node dissection declined from 60% to 27%. Adjuvant systemic treatment increased from 29% to 43% (37% in stage IIIA patients, 46% in IIIB-C). Completion lymph node dissection was less common with lower extremity tumors (odds ratio = 0.53, 95% confidence interval = 0.44-0.64) and more common with multiple positive sentinel lymph nodes (odds ratio = 2.36, 95% confidence interval = 2.08-2.67), treatment at a high- or moderate-volume center (odds ratiohigh = 1.49, 95% confidence interval = 1.05-2.12; odds ratiomoderate = 1.32, 95% confidence interval = 1.05-1.64), and receipt of systemic therapy (odds ratio = 1.44, 95% confidence interval = 1.27-1.63). The increased likelihood of completion lymph node dissection in patients receiving adjuvant systemic treatment persisted in the most recent study years and in patients with a single positive sentinel lymph node.

CONCLUSION

At a population level, completion lymph node dissection declined and adjuvant systemic treatment increased, reflecting evidence-responsive care. Variation in persistent use of completion lymph node dissection and in provision of adjuvant treatment for lower risk patients highlights residual gaps in both evidence and implementation.