Annals of surgical oncology · 2022
Prophylactic Lymphaticovenous Anastomosis Performed with Lymphadenectomy is Oncologically Safe for Melanoma.
ОбзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xia Thomas Y, Cakmakoglu Cagri, Kwiecien Grzegorz J, Gastman Brian R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A major concern of lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA), which has not been studied, is increased risk of metastasis. Melanoma patients with macrometastatic lymph node disease represent a high-risk group for recurrence and metastasis. On the basis of a literature review, this present study is the first to evaluate the impact of prophylactic LVA on cancer survival and recurrence.
METHODS: This was a comparison study of patients with cutaneous melanoma who underwent therapeutic lymphadenectomy alone (comparison group) or combined with prophylactic LVA (LVA group) between 2014 and 2020. A single surgeon performed all cancer resections, therapeutic lymphadenectomies, and LVA. Exclusion criteria included non-melanoma skin cancers, stage IV cancers before lymphadenectomy, microscopic lymphatic disease (i.e., positive sentinel node biopsy was the sole indication for lymph node dissection), or follow-up time less than 12 months unless the patient died earlier owing to melanoma-related complications.
RESULTS: This study included 23 patients in the LVA group and 22 consecutive patients in the comparison group. The two groups were similar in age, sex, and cancer stages. The comparison group had longer follow-up times (median 67.62 versus 29.73 months in the LVA group; p < 0.01). Average size of largest metastatic lymph node was 45.91 ± 35.03 mm and 44.54 ± 23.32 mm in the LVA and comparison groups, respectively (p = 0.99). There were no differences in OS, DMFS, and RFS times after more than 2 years of follow-up since the index surgery.
CONCLUSION: Prophylactic LVA performed for macrometastatic melanoma is not a strong risk factor for relapse and metastasis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II Therapeutic.
METHODS: This was a comparison study of patients with cutaneous melanoma who underwent therapeutic lymphadenectomy alone (comparison group) or combined with prophylactic LVA (LVA group) between 2014 and 2020. A single surgeon performed all cancer resections, therapeutic lymphadenectomies, and LVA. Exclusion criteria included non-melanoma skin cancers, stage IV cancers before lymphadenectomy, microscopic lymphatic disease (i.e., positive sentinel node biopsy was the sole indication for lymph node dissection), or follow-up time less than 12 months unless the patient died earlier owing to melanoma-related complications.
RESULTS: This study included 23 patients in the LVA group and 22 consecutive patients in the comparison group. The two groups were similar in age, sex, and cancer stages. The comparison group had longer follow-up times (median 67.62 versus 29.73 months in the LVA group; p < 0.01). Average size of largest metastatic lymph node was 45.91 ± 35.03 mm and 44.54 ± 23.32 mm in the LVA and comparison groups, respectively (p = 0.99). There were no differences in OS, DMFS, and RFS times after more than 2 years of follow-up since the index surgery.
CONCLUSION: Prophylactic LVA performed for macrometastatic melanoma is not a strong risk factor for relapse and metastasis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II Therapeutic.