Sentinel node biopsy should not be the standard of care for patients with intermediate and thick melanomas.

S. Zagarella,M. Sladden,C. Popescu,P. Heenan,M. Bigby

Abstract:We wish to reply to the viewpoint by Spillane, Read and Thompson (AFP August 2015).1 The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines recommend that ‘patients with a melanoma greater than 1.0 mm in thickness be given the opportunity to discuss sentinel node biospsy (SNB) to provide staging and prognostic information’.2 However, the recommendation is only level C and therefore not a promotion. It is a huge and erroneous leap of faith to move from discussing SNB as a potential patient option to asserting that SNB should be ‘standard of care’. Based on current evidence, SNB should not be the ‘standard of care’.3,4 It is incomprehensible that the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial-I (MSLT-I)5 would be used to promote SNB given the trial found no survival benefit of any kind for patients undergoing SNB for melanoma. Claims made in the final MLST-I report regarding survival benefit or diseasefree survival have been comprehensively and systematically criticised and found to be misleading.6 An accompanying editorial went even further, stating that ‘MSLT-I provides no evidence of improved melanoma-specific survival associated with sentinel node biopsy and elective lymph node clearance’ and ‘The claim that SNB prolongs disease-free survival is disingenuous’, and asking ‘How did they [MSLT-I report authors] get away with this?’7 Breslow thickness, ulceration, mitotic rate, vessel invasion, tumour site, age and sex are already available as useful prognostic indicators, not requiring a separate, invasive surgical procedure.8 It is doubtful that SNB adds much value over clinical staging for most patients, especially given the added cost of anaesthesia and an acknowledged 5–10% surgical morbidity’.7 Finally, Spillane et al state the importance of SNB in the recruitment of patients for new drug trials. However, SNB is expensive, costing $15,000 per procedure in the US; has a high number of false positive (approximately 24%)9 and false negative (approximately 10%)10 results; and has significant morbidity (approximately 10% for SNB in MSLT-I, increasing to 37% for patients who proceeded to have complete lymphadenectomy).11 Using expensive and invasive screening tests to recruit patients into clinical trials is a paradigm shift in research methodology. SNB may not be the best criterion for trial recruitment. In summary, SNB does not improve mortality, may not add much value over clinical staging for most patients, and has the added cost of anaesthetic and surgical morbidity. Based on current evidence, SNB should not be the standard of care for patients with melanoma.