Premium
Surgeon decision‐making for management of positive sentinel lymph nodes in the post‐Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II era: A survey study
Author(s) -
Hui Jane Yuet Ching,
Burke Erin,
Broman Kristy K.,
Marmor Schelomo,
Jensen Eric,
Tuttle Todd M.,
Zager Jonathan S.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of surgical oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.201
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1096-9098
pISSN - 0022-4790
DOI - 10.1002/jso.26302
Subject(s) - medicine , lymphadenectomy , sentinel lymph node , dissection (medical) , general surgery , sentinel node , lymph node , surgical oncology , surgery , cancer , breast cancer
Background and Objectives Completion lymph node dissection (CLND) did not improve melanoma‐specific survival for patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN)‐positive melanoma in the second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT‐II). We assessed surgeons’ awareness of MSLT‐II and its impact on CLND recommendations. Methods An anonymous online cross‐sectional survey of the Society of Surgical Oncology membership evaluated surgeon thresholds in offering CLND using patient scenarios and clinicopathologic characteristics ranking. Results Of the 2881 e‐mails delivered, 146 surgeons (5.1%) completed all seven scenarios. Most (129 of 131, 98%) were aware of MSLT‐II and 125 (95%) found it practice‐changing. Specifically, 52% (65 of 125) always, 40% usually, 6% rarely, and 3% never offered CLND before MSLT‐II. Meanwhile, 4% always, 9% usually, 78% rarely, and 8% never offer CLND now, after MSLT‐II ( p < .0001). The most important clinicopathologic factors in determining CLND recommendations were extracapsular extension, number of positive SLN, and SLN tumor deposit size, while primary tumor mitotic index and nodal basin location were the least important. Surgical oncology fellowship training, melanoma patient volume, and academic center practice also influenced CLND recommendations. Conclusions Most surgeon respondents are aware of MSLT‐II, but its application in practice varies according to several clinicopathologic and surgeon factors.