Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tumor Mitotic Rate Added to the Equation: Melanoma Prognostic Factors Changed?

A Single-Institution Database Study on the Prognostic Value of Tumor Mitotic Rate for Sentinel Lymph Node Status and Survival of Cutaneous Melanoma Patients

  • Melanomas
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to investigate the predictive value of the tumor mitotic rate per mm2 (TMR) for sentinel lymph node (SLN) status and survival in intermediate and thick cutaneous melanoma.

Methods

Patients treated for stage I and II melanoma with wide local excision and SLN biopsy between May 1995 and May 2013 were analyzed. In case of insufficient data regarding TMR, pathology slides were reanalyzed. Prognostic factors for SLN status and survival were analyzed with the emphasis on TMR, which was analyzed as a continuous variable, dichotomized (median value) and categorized by two methods.

Results

The study analyzed 453 patients with complete TMR data. The median Breslow thickness was 2.20 mm, and 31.8 % of patients had tumor-positive sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNBs). In the univariate analysis, TMR was associated with tumor-positive SLNB. This association was not significant in the multivariate analysis. Breslow thickness, primary tumor location on trunk and legs, and younger age were associated with tumor-positive SNLB. At a median follow-up of 47 months, 119 patients (26.3 %) had recurrent disease, and 92 (20.3 %) had died of melanoma. In the univariate analysis, TMR could be established as a significant prognostic factor for disease-free and disease-specific survival, but not in the multivariate analyses. Breslow thickness, ulcerated melanoma, and tumor-positive SLNB were significant prognostic factors for survival.

Conclusion

The study was unable to establish TMR as an independent prognostic factor associated with the presence of SLN metastasis. Regarding survival, increasing TMR showed a strong association with decreased survival in the univariate analysis, but this association was rendered nonsignificant by the importance of Breslow thickness and ulceration status in the multivariate model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Balch CM, Greshenwald JE, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of the 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:6199–206.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Thompson JF, Soong SJ, Balch CM, et al. Prognostic significance of mitotic rate in localized primary cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of patients in the multi-institutional American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging database. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2199–205.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sondak VK, Taylor JMG, Sabel MS, et al. Mitotic rate and younger age are predictors of sentinel lymph node positivity: lessons learned from the generation of a probabilistic model. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11:247–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Paek SC, Griffith KA, Johnson TM, et al. The impact of factors beyond Breslow depth on predicting sentinel lymph node positivity in melanoma. Cancer. 2006;109:100–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Roach BA, Burton AL, Mays MP, et al. Does mitotic rate predict sentinel lymph node metastasis or survival in patients with intermediate and thick melanoma? Am J Surg. 2010;200:759–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. De Vries M, Speijers MJ, Bastiaannet E, et al. Long-term follow-up reveals that ulceration and sentinel lymph node status are the strongest predictors for survival in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:681–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Doting MH, Hoekstra HJ, Plukker JT, et al. Is sentinel node biopsy beneficial in melanoma patients? A report on 200 patients with cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2002;28:673–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McGovern VJ, Cochran AJ, Van der Esch EP et al. The classification of malignant melanoma, its histological reporting, and registration: a revision of the 1972 Sydney classification. Pathology. 1986;18:12–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Francken AB, Shaw HM, Thompson JF, et al. The prognostic importance of tumor mitotic rate confirmed in 1,317 patients with primary cutaneous melanoma and long follow-up. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11:426–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Azzola MF, Shaw HM, Thompson JF, et al. Tumor mitotic rate is a more powerful prognostic indicator than ulceration in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of 3,661 patients from a single center. Cancer. 2003;97:1488–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Akkooi ACJ, de Wilt JHw, Verhoef C, et al. High positive sentinel identification rate by EORTC Melanoma Group Protocol: prognostic indicators of metastatic patterns after sentinel node biopsy in melanoma. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:372–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gershenwald JE, Thompson W, Mansfield PF, et al. Multi-institutional melanoma lymphatic mapping experience: the prognostic value of sentinel lymph node status in 612 stage I or II melanoma patients. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:976–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. White RL, Ayers GD, Stell VH, et al. Factors predictive of the status of sentinel lymph nodes in melanoma patients from a large multicenter database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18: 3593–600.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kruper LL, Spitz FR, Czerniekcki BJ, et al. Predicting sentinel node status in AJCC stage I/II primary cutaneous melanoma. Cancer. 2006;107:2436–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mocellin S, Ambrosi A, Montesco MC, et al. Support vector machine learning model for the prediction of sentinel node status in patients with cutaneous melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:1113–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mitra A, Conway C, Walker C, et al. Melanoma sentinel node biopsy and prediction models for relapse and overall survival. Br J Cancer. 2010;103:1229–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fairbairn NG, Orfaniotis G, Butterworth M. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in thick malignant melanoma: a 10-year single-unit experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65:1396–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Karakousis GC, Gimotty PA, Botbyl JD, et al. Predictors of regional nodal disease in patients with thin melanomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:533–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Attis MG, Vollmer RT. Mitotic rate in melanoma: a reexamination. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127:380–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ostmeier H, Fuchs B, Otto F, et al. Can immunohistochemical markers and mitotic rate improve prognostic precision in patients with primary melanoma? Cancer. 1999;85:2391–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schmid-Wendtner MH, Baumert J, Schmidt M, et al. Prognostic index for cutaneous melanoma: an analysis after follow-up of 2,715 patients. Melanoma Res. 2001;11:619–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Balch CM, Soong SJ, Gershenwald JE, Thompson JF, Coit DG, Atkins MB, et al. Age as a prognostic factor in patients with localized melanoma and regional metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3961–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Stucky CCH, Gray RJ, Dueck AC, et al. Risk factors associated with local in-transit recurrence of cutaneous melanoma. Am J Surg. 2010;200:770–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Scolyer RA, Shaw HM, Thompson JF, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of histopathologic prognostic variables in primary melanoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:1571–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Balch CM, Gerschenwald JE, Soong SJ, Thompson JF, Ding S, et al. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors among 2,313 patients with stage III melanoma: compariscon of nodal micrometastases versus macrometastases. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2452–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The project was partially supported by the Melanoma Sarcoma Groningana Foundation, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Disclosures

There are no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    M. J. Speijers MD, E. Bastiaannet PhD, S. Sloot MD & H. J. Hoekstra MD, PhD

  2. Department of Pathology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    A. J. H. Suurmeijer MD, PhD

Authors
  1. M. J. Speijers MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Bastiaannet PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Sloot MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. J. H. Suurmeijer MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. J. Hoekstra MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. J. Hoekstra MD, PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Speijers, M.J., Bastiaannet, E., Sloot, S. et al. Tumor Mitotic Rate Added to the Equation: Melanoma Prognostic Factors Changed? . Ann Surg Oncol 22, 2978–2987 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4349-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4349-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation