Advertisement

Surgery for gastrointestinal metastases of malignant melanoma — a retrospective exploratory study

  • Carl Jacob HolmbergEmail author
  • Gulan Alwan
  • Lars Ny
  • Roger Olofsson Bagge
  • Dimitrios Katsarelias
Open Access
Research

Abstract

Background

Cutaneous melanoma has a rapidly increasing incidence in Sweden, and it has more than doubled in the last two decades. In recent years, new systemic treatments for patients with metastatic disease have increased overall survival. The role of surgery in the metastatic setting has been unclear, and no randomized data exist. Many surgeons still perform metastasectomies; however, the exact role probably has to be redefined. The aim of this single-institution study was to retrospectively examine the safety and efficacy of surgery in abdominal melanoma metastases and to identify prognostic and predictive factors.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of all patients with stage IV melanoma with gastrointestinal metastases that underwent abdominal surgery at a single center between January 2010 and December 2018. Fifteen patients who underwent in total 18 abdominal procedures, both acute and elective, were identified and included in the study.

Results

Out of 18 laparotomies, six (33%) were emergency procedures due to ileus (n = 4), small bowel perforation (n = 1), and abdominal abscess (n = 1). Twelve procedures (66%) were elective with the most common indication being persistent anemia (58%, n = 7), abdominal pain and anemia (33%, n = 4), and abdominal pain (8%, n = 1). All procedures were performed by laparotomy. There were 19 small bowel resections, 3 partial colon resections, and 2 omental resections. Radical resection was possible in 56% (n = 10) of cases and 67% (n = 8) when only considering elective procedures. In 17 of 18 procedures (94%), there were mild or no surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo grades 0–I). The median overall survival was 14 months with a 5-year survival of 23%.

Conclusions

Patients with abdominal melanoma metastases can safely undergo resection with a high grade of radical procedures when performed in the elective setting.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03879395. Registered 15 March 2019.

Keywords

Melanoma Abdominal metastasis Metastasectomy Tumor resection M1c 

Abbreviations

AJCC

American Joint Committee on Cancer

wt

Wild type

Background

Skin melanoma has the highest increasing incidence of all malignancies in Sweden, and it has more than doubled in the last two decades. Incidence rates are rising globally as well, with annual increases as high as 4–6% in fair-skinned populations in the last decades [1]. In 2018, the reported age-standardized incidence in Sweden was 24.7 per 100,000, compared to 3.5 per 100,000 globally, giving Sweden the sixth highest incidence in the world [2]. Thicker melanomas (Breslow thickness > 4 mm), which have a significantly higher risk for metastasis and poorer prognosis, have more than quadrupled in the same time period. However, mortality figures have remained roughly unchanged, likely in part because of simultaneous major advances in systemic treatments [3].

Melanoma most commonly develops in the skin, but can also originate in the eye and in the mucosa of the gut, respiratory tract, and urogenital organs. For cutaneous melanoma, primary tumors are most often found on the lower extremities in women and on the trunk in men [3]. When metastases occur, melanoma can spread to any location and organ of the body and is staged according to the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM classification. Melanoma with distant metastasis is staged as M1, with subclasses M1a (distant skin, subcutaneous, or nodal metastases ), M1b (lung metastases), M1c (visceral metastases), and M1d (brain metastases) [4]. Metastases in the gastrointestinal tract are found in approximately 20% of stage IV patients, but previous autopsy studies have shown a prevalence as high as 58% in deceased patients. The most common sites of metastases are in the small bowel, followed by the large bowel and the stomach [5, 6, 7].

As previously reported, resection of abdominal visceral metastases can lead to a potential survival benefit and durable disease control [6, 7], and that it is feasible both in an elective [8] and in an acute setting [9]. The treatment of metastatic melanoma took a major leap forward with the introduction of immunotherapies using CTLA-4 and PD-1 antibodies as well as targeted therapies using BRAF/MEK inhibitors [10, 11, 12, 13]. These treatments have opened up potentially new perspectives regarding the role of surgery for metastatic disease, and the role of surgery will have to be redefined.

The aim of this single-institution study was to retrospectively examine the safety and efficacy of surgery in abdominally metastatic (M1c) melanoma and to define possible prognostic and predictive factors, in order to identify stage IV melanoma patients that could benefit from surgery in the modern era of systemic therapies.

Methods and patients

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of all patients with stage IV melanoma with gastrointestinal metastases (M1c) that underwent abdominal surgery at a single institution between January 2010 and December 2018. The local database for registration and planning of surgeries was searched for patients with an ICD-10 code for melanoma combined with any code designating abdominal surgery. Both acute and elective surgeries were included. Pre- and postoperative data were gathered from our prospectively kept database and completed with data from the Swedish Cancer Registry and the Swedish Cause of Death Registry. Data were collected on patient demographics, timeline of diagnosis, primary tumor biology, staging, performance status, surgical interventions, surgical complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification [14], pre- and postoperative systemic treatments, and survival. Tumors were staged according to the 8th edition of the AJCC staging system. Survival was defined as the time from surgery of abdominal metastasis to death or end of the study period (December 2018). Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. All work is reported in line with the STROCSS criteria [15].

Results

Patient characteristics

During the 6-year period, a consecutive series of 15 patients underwent a total of 18 laparotomies (three patients underwent surgery at two separate occasions) including a total of 30 different surgical procedures (Table 1). The majority of the patients were male (80%, n = 12). The median age at diagnosis of the primary melanoma was 65 years (range 28–75), and the most common site of the primary melanoma was the torso (40%, n = 6). The median time from diagnosis of the primary melanoma to metastases was 45 months (range 0–173) and a median time of 3.6 months (range 0.5–46.9) until surgery. The median age at the time of surgery was 69.1 years (range 35.4–85.7), and 67% (n = 12) of the patients received preoperative systemic treatment. A BRAF-V600E/K mutation was identified in 47% (n = 7) of the patients.
Table 1

Collected patient data

No.

Gender

Age

TNM at surgery

Primary site

BRAF status

Time diagnosis to M1c

Pre-op treatment

Time M1c to surgery

Surgery

Radicality

Indication

Elective/emergency

WHO performance status

Complication (Clavien-Dindo), type

Length of stay (days)

Stay at ICU (days)

Post-op treatment

Status

Survival from surgery

Survival from M1c

1

Male

63

T0N3M1c

Unknown

V600E/K

25

C, I, R (lumbar spine)

4.2

Enterectomy + fistula and abscess

R0

Sepsis, abscess

Emergency

1

II, antibiotics postop

11

0

R (brain)

DWD

3.9

8.1

2

Male

73

T3bN0M1c

Back

wt

40

0

2.8

Enterectomy, part. colectomy

R0

Bleeding, anemia

Elective

1

0

8

0

R (brain)

DWD

17.1

19.9

3

Female

51

T2aN0M1c

Left leg

V600E/K

94

0

0.5

Enterectomy

R2

Pain, bleeding

Elective

1

0

7

0

C, I

DWD

14.9

15.4

4

Male

72

T3bN1aM1c(0)

Back

wt

50

C

4.1

Enterectomy x 2

R2

Pain, anemia

Elective

1

I, long time to oral intake

8

0

C

AWD

58.6

62.7

4 (2nd)

*

*

T3bN1aM1c(0)

*

wt

50

C

19.1

Enterectomy, appendectomy

R0

Pain, anemia

Elective

0

0

4

0

I

ANED

43.6

62.7

5

Male

39

T4aN0M1c(0)

Left arm

wt

23

0

0.8

Enterectomy

R0

Pain, anemia

Elective

1

0

5

0

0

ANED

55.4

56.2

6

Male

71

T1bN0M1c

Back

wt

139

0

1.6

Enterectomy x 2

R0

Anemia

Elective

1

I, bradycardia

8

0

0

DWD

43.3

44.9

6 (2nd)

*

*

T1bN0M1c

*

wt

173

0

36.8

Part. colectomy + omentum

R0

Anemia

Elective

2

IIIb, wound rupture and reoperation

16

0

0

DWD

8.1

44.9

7

Male

68

T0N3bM1d(0)

Unknown

wt

4

C

4.6

Enterectomy

R2

Ileus, pain, anemia

Emergency

1

0

9

0

C

DWD

12.8

17.5

8

Male

75

T0N2cM1c(1)

Unknown

wt

0

C

1.3

Enterectomy x 2

R2

Small bowel perforation

Emergency

2

II, antibiotics postop

25

1

0

DWD

1.0

2.3

9

Female

28

T1aN1aM1c(1)

Back

V600E/K

52

C, I

34.7

Debulking of small bowel mesentery

R2

Ileus, pain

Emergency

2

I, PCA pump

15

0

C, I

DWD

18.5

53.3

9 (2nd)

*

*

T1bN1aM1c(1)

*

V600E/K

52

C, I

46.9

Enterectomy x 2, debulking

R2

Pain, anemia

Emergency

2

I

14

0

C, I

DWD

6.3

53.3

10

Male

52

T0N2bM1c(1)

Unknown

wt

0

C, I, R (axilla)

8.0

Part. colectomy + abdominal wall

R1

Pain

Elective

1

I

8

0

C, I

DWD

13.9

21.9

11

Male

69

T4bN1aM1c(1)

Back

V600E/K

36

0

1.5

Enterectomy x 2

R2

Anemia, bleeding

Elective

3

I

21

0

I

DWD

3.8

5.3

12

Male

52

T4bN2M1c(0)

Right temple

wt

3

C, I

37.7

Enterectomy

R0

Anemia

Elective

0

0

6

0

I

ANED

16.7

54.5

13

Female

58

T3aN3bM1c(1)

Right arm

V600E/K

63

C, ILP, I

46.0

Enterectomy

R0

Ileus, pain, anemia, bleeding

Emergency

3

0

13

0

C

DWD

13.7

59.7

14

Male

63

T4bN0M1c(0)

Right leg

wt

84

C, I, R (lung)

0.8

Enterectomy

R0

Anemia, bleeding

Elective

1

I, gastric retention

7

0

C, I

AWD

11.3

12.1

15

Male

67

T1aN2bM1c(0)

Thorax

V600E/K

14

R (axilla)

3.1

Enterectomy + omentum

R0

Anemia, bleeding

Elective

1

II, blood transfusion

5

0

0

ANED

2.9

6.0

Time measured in months unless stated otherwise

2nd patients’ second surgery, WT wild type, R radiotherapy, C chemotherapy, I immunotherapy, ILP isolated limb perfusion, DWD dead with disease, AWD alive with disease, ANED alive, no evidence of disease

*Same as above. Indicating that the patient/information is the same as the one above it

Indications

Out of the 18 laparotomies, 33.3% (n = 6) were emergency procedures and 66.6% (n = 12) were elective procedures. The most common primary indication for emergency surgery was ileus (n = 4), followed by small bowel perforation (n = 1) and abdominal abscess (n = 1). The most common primary indication for elective surgery was persistent anemia (58%, n = 7), followed by abdominal pain and anemia (33%, n = 4) and abdominal pain (8%, n = 1). The most common symptoms overall were persistent anemia (72%, n = 13), abdominal pain (50%, n = 9), and acute rectal bleeding (33%, n = 6). The three patients that underwent surgery at two separate occasions did so because of recurrence of symptomatic intraabdominal tumors.

Type of surgery

All 18 operations were performed as open laparotomies, and there were a total of 30 separate intraabdominal procedures. The most common surgical procedures were small bowel resection (Fig. 1) (n = 19), followed by partial colectomy (n = 3) and omental resection (n = 2). Primary anastomosis was feasible in 20 of the 22 enterectomies (91%). Seven patients underwent more than one resection, and more than one bowel anastomoses were performed at the same time. The operation was considered radical (R0) in 56% (n = 10) of the procedures, as stated by both macroscopically evident intraabdominal tumor removal and microscopically free margins. In 70% (n = 7) of those R0 operations, the resected tumors were the only known metastases and surgery was thereby performed with the intention to achieve a disease-free status. In one patient, the resection was deemed macroscopically radical but re-categorized as non-radical after histopathological analysis showed tumor-positive margins (R1). In the remaining cases (39%, n = 7), tumor infiltration was too extensive to allow for anything but debulking (R2).
Fig. 1

Perioperative photo of small bowel melanoma metastasis

Complications

The median length of postoperative stay was 8.0 days (range 4–25). Only one patient was admitted to the intensive care unit for a duration of 1 day. This was also the only patient who died in the immediate postoperative period, due to precarious conditions before surgery which was performed acutely, and this death was therefore not regarded as a surgery-related complication. The majority of procedures (88%, n = 16) resulted in no or mild surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo grades 0, I, or II), and only one case resulted in a complication requiring re-operation (Clavien-Dindo grade III) because of wound dehiscence.

Survival

Of the 15 patients included, ten died of recurrent disease, one is alive with recurrent disease, and four are alive with no evidence of disease. The median overall survival was 13.8 months (range 1.0–58.6), and the 5-year survival was 22.5% (Fig. 2). The median survival from diagnosis of M1c-status was 33.4 months (range 2.3–62.7).
Fig. 2

Overall survival after abdominal surgery

Elective surgery, absence of BRAF wt (wild type), and radical resections were all associated with longer survival. Patients undergoing emergency procedures had lower survival rates compared to patients undergoing elective procedures, with a 1-year survival of 82% vs 50% and a median survival of 16 months vs 10 months (Fig. 3). Patients with a BRAF V600E/K mutation (n = 6) had significantly lower survival compared to the wild-type phenotype, with 1-year survival of 50% vs 82% and median survival of 6 months vs 17 months (Fig. 4). Patients undergoing surgery with radical resections (R0 and R1) had higher survival rates compared to patients undergoing debulking of metastasis (R2), with 1-year survival of 78% vs 57% and a median survival of 15 vs 13 months (Fig. 5).
Fig. 3

Survival of patients undergoing elective vs emergency surgery

Fig. 4

Survival of patients with BRAF wild-type vs. V600E/K mutation

Fig. 5

Survival of patients by radicality, R0 vs. R1+R2. R0, radical resection; R1, macroscopically clear but microscopically non-radical; R2, macroscopically non-radical tumor debulking

Discussion

In this exploratory single institutional retrospective case series, we have shown that patients with abdominal metastases of melanoma can safely undergo metastasectomy in both an emergency and an elective setting. By resection of intraabdominal tumors, symptoms could be alleviated and oncological treatment could in many cases be continued, thus offering patients an adequate palliative procedure with higher chance of prolonged survival.

There were no significant logistical delays for patients necessitating surgery, and as such, the median time from M1c-status to surgery is accurately reflecting the time from metastatic disease symptoms to surgical intervention. Most patients were in an overall good health status at the time of surgery, with two thirds (n = 12) having a WHO Performance Status of 0–1.

BRAF mutation was associated with lower survival, which is in accordance with previously reported data from larger studies [16]. However, in this series, there was a significant overlap in the groups with BRAF wt tumors and elective procedures with nine out of 12 patients undergoing elective surgery being BRAF wt, which may explain the difference in survival. Patients with BRAF wt tumors, undergoing elective surgery with radical resection of the metastasis, generally had the best outcome in this study. In view of these findings, BRAF wt, elective surgery, and radical resection were identified as prognostic factors for survival; however, the study is small, and thus, no definitive conclusions can be drawn.

The median overall survival from surgery in our material (13.8 months) is lower than, e.g., what Sosman et al. [17] found in their SWOG-trial (21 months). Possible explanations are that the patients in our study were generally in poorer condition with a worse performance status and higher median age at the time of surgery, that a significant part of our surgeries was performed acutely as opposed to only electively, and that we had a lower frequency of complete tumor resections. Furthermore, systemic therapy regimes are also likely to vary greatly between the two studies, confounding any direct comparison. Our finding that the most common symptoms in this patient group are anemia, bleeding, and abdominal pain is in line with what has been previously reported by, e.g., Ollila et al. [6].

This study has several limitations, foremost the small sample size. As such, although surgery of abdominal metastasis has been deemed safe in this cohort, it is not possible to generalize this conclusion to the all stage IV melanoma patients. Furthermore, we have limited the scope of the study to resection of symptomatic metastases, and no conclusions can be drawn regarding the resection of asymptomatic tumors. Patients in this study underwent surgery mainly to reduce symptoms, but secondary also in order to allow for continued oncological treatment. A possible survival benefit of metastatic surgery alone is not possible to infer in the absence of a control group.

The future role of melanoma metastasectomy in an era of effective systemic treatments is not yet clear. Palliative symptomatic tumor resections will continue to be of value in advanced disease. The use of surgery in patients with isolated or oligometastatic disease that do not respond to systemic treatments will likely increase in the coming years and needs to be explored in a systematic fashion. Also, as the personalized targeted cancer treatments seen in the last decade continue to develop, the need for surgical biopsies of tumor tissues for analysis will develop with it [18, 19].

Further studies are needed to better understand the role of metastatic surgery in treating abdominal stage IV malignant melanoma. Randomized trials investigating the combination of surgery and modern effective systemic treatments would be required to fully establish the role of surgery in the future, but that requires the surgical oncology community to develop such protocols in tight collaboration with medical oncologists.

Conclusions

Patients with abdominal melanoma metastases can safely undergo resection with a high grade of radical procedures when performed in the elective setting. Further studies are needed to better guide clinical surgical decisions in patients with abdominal melanoma metastases.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

CJH contributed to the design of the study; the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data; and drafting and revision of the manuscript. GA contributed to the acquisition and analysis of data. LN contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data and revision of the manuscript. ROB contributed to the conception and design of the study, the interpretation of data, and revision of the manuscript. DK contributed to the conception and design of the study, the interpretation of data, and revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded by the Department of Surgery at Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. These funding bodies had no part in the study design, in the interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the regional ethical review board in Gothenburg, Sweden (Dnr 949-18).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

ROB has received research grants from Astra Zeneca and speaker honorarium from Roche and Pfizer and has served on advisory boards for Amgen, BMS, and MSD.

LN has received research grants (Inst) from MSD and Syndax Pharmaceuticals and speaker honorarium from AstraZeneca, BMS, and MSD and has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Matthews NH, L.W., Qureshi AA, et al., Epidemiology of melanoma. In: Ward WH, Farma JM, editors. Cutaneous melanoma: etiology and therapy [Internet]. 2017, Brisbane (AU): Codon Publications.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bray F, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cancerincidens i Sverige 2017, Nya diagnostiserade cancerfall år 2017, Sveriges officiella statistik, Socialstyrelsen. [Cancer incidens in Sweden 2017, New diagnosed cancer cases in 2017, Sweden’s official statistics, The National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden]. 2018.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gershenwald JE, et al. Melanoma staging: evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(6):472–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dasgupta TK, Brasfield RD. Metastatic melanoma of the gastrointestinal tract. Arch Surg. 1964;88:969–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ollila DW, et al. Surgical resection for melanoma metastatic to the gastrointestinal tract. Archives of Surgery. 1996;131(9):975–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deutsch GB, et al. Association of surgical treatment, systemic therapy, and survival in patients with abdominal visceral melanoma metastases, 1965-2014: Relevance of Surgical Cure in the Era of Modern Systemic Therapy. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(7):672–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    He M, et al. Post-operative survival following metastasectomy for patients receiving BRAF inhibitor therapy is associated with duration of pre-operative treatment and elective indication. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111(8):980–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mantas D, et al. Abdominal emergencies in patients with stage IV melanoma: the role of surgery: a single-centre experience. Anticancer Res. 2018;38(6):3713–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chapman PB, et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Eng J Med. 2011;364(26):2507–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flaherty KT, et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. N Eng J Med. 2012;367(18):1694–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flaherty KT, et al. Improved survival with MEK inhibition in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Eng J Med. 2012;367(2):107–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hodi FS, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Eng J Med. 2010;363(8):711–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Agha RA, et al. The STROCSS statement: strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery. Int J Surg. 2017;46:198–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ny L, et al. BRAF mutation as a prognostic marker for survival in malignant melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(15_suppl):e21566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sosman JA, et al. A phase II trial of complete resection for stage IV melanoma: results of Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) Clinical Trial S9430. Cancer. 2011;117(20):4740–06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Helgadottir H, Drakensjö IRT, Girnita A. Personalized medicine in malignant melanoma: towards patient tailored treatment. Front Oncol. 2018;8:202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jespersen H, et al. Clinical responses to adoptive T-cell transfer can be modeled in an autologous immune-humanized mouse model. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical SciencesSahlgrenska Academy at the University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical SciencesSahlgrenska Academy at the University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  4. 4.Department of Oncology, Sahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  5. 5.Wallenberg Centre for Molecular and Translational MedicineUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations