Advertisement

Robotic-Assisted Pelvic Lymphadenectomy for Metastatic Melanoma Results in Durable Oncologic Outcomes

  • John T. Miura
  • Lesly A. Dossett
  • Ram Thapa
  • Youngchul Kim
  • Aishwarya Potdar
  • Hala Daou
  • James Sun
  • Amod A. Sarnaik
  • Jonathan S. ZagerEmail author
Melanoma

Abstract

Background

Robotic pelvic lymphadenectomy (rPLND) has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective minimally invasive approach for patients with metastatic melanoma to the iliac nodes. However, the long-term oncologic benefit of this procedure remains poorly defined.

Methods

A single-institutional study comparing perioperative outcomes and survival [recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS)] between rPLND and open PLND (oPLND) for metastatic melanoma was conducted.

Results

From 2006 to 2018, a total of 63 PLND cases were identified: 22 rPLND and 41 oPLND. Evidence of isolated pelvic metastasis was the most common indication for PLND in both groups (rPLND: 64%, oPLND: 85%). There was no difference in median pelvic lymph node yield (11 vs. 9 nodes, p = 0.65). Neither treatment group experienced a Clavien-Dindo complication ≥ 3. rPLND was associated with a shorter length of stay compared with oPLND (2 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001). With a median follow-up of 37 months, there was no difference in RFS (14.4 vs. 9.6 months, p = 0.47) and OS (43 vs. 50 months, p = 0.58) between rPLND and oPLND, respectively. In basin recurrence was low with 1 (4.5%) and 3 (7.3%) patients in the rPLND and oPLND cohorts, respectively, experiencing an event (p = 0.9).

Conclusions

rPLND for metastatic melanoma is a safe, minimally invasive treatment strategy that appears to result in similar intermediate term recurrence and survival rates as oPLND but shorter hospital stays.

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Mozzillo N, Pasquali S, Santinami M, et al. Factors predictive of pelvic lymph node involvement and outcomes in melanoma patients with metastatic sentinel lymph node of the groin: a multicentre study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41:823–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Faut M, Kruijff S, Hoekstra HJ, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection in metastatic melanoma to the groin should not be abandoned yet. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44:1779–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oude Ophuis CM, van Akkooi AC, Hoekstra HJ, et al. Risk factors for positive deep pelvic nodal involvement in patients with palpable groin melanoma metastases: can the extent of surgery be safely minimized? A retrospective, multicenter cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22 Suppl 3:S1172–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Niebling MG, Wevers KP, Suurmeijer AJ, et al. Deep lymph node metastases in the groin significantly affects prognosis, particularly in sentinel node-positive melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:279–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swords DS, Andtbacka RHI, Bowles TL, et al. Routine retrieval of pelvic sentinel lymph nodes for melanoma rarely adds prognostic information or alters management. Melanoma Res. 2018.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Melanoma. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2017.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dossett LA, Castner NB, Pow-Sang JM, et al. Robotic-assisted transperitoneal pelvic lymphadenectomy for metastatic melanoma: early outcomes compared with open pelvic lymphadenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222:702–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gandaglia G, Abdollah F, Hu J, et al. Is robot-assisted radical prostatectomy safe in men with high-risk prostate cancer? Assessment of perioperative outcomes, positive surgical margins, and use of additional cancer treatments. J Endourol. 2014;28:784–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herlemann A, Cowan JE, Carroll PR, et al. Community-based Outcomes of Open versus Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2018;73:215–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eifler JB, Cookson MS: Best evidence regarding the superiority or inferiority of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41:493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suardi N, Larcher A, Haese A, et al. Indication for and extension of pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis of five European institutions. Eur Urol. 2014;66:635–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salehi S, Avall-Lundqvist E, Legerstam B, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopy versus laparotomy for infrarenal paraaortic lymphadenectomy in women with high-risk endometrial cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2017;79:81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ponce J, Barahona M, Pla MJ, et al. Robotic transperitoneal infrarenal para-aortic lymphadenectomy with double docking: technique, learning curve, and perioperative outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:622–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coronado PJ, Fasero M, Magrina JF, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost between robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopy for transperitoneal infrarenal para-aortic lymphadenectomy (TIPAL). J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:674–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sohn W, Finley DS, Jakowatz J, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal pelvic lymphadenectomy and metastasectomy for melanoma: initial report of two cases. J Robot Surg. 2010;4:129–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ross AD, Kumar P, Challacombe BJ, et al. The addition of the surgical robot to skin cancer management. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2013;95:70–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pellegrino A, Damiani GR, Strippoli D, et al. Robotic transperitoneal ilioinguinal pelvic lymphadenectomy for high-risk melanoma: an update of 18-month follow-up. J Robot Surg. 2014;8:189–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pellegrino A, Damiani GR, Terruzzi M, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal deep pelvic lymphadenectomy for metastatic melanoma of the lower limb: initial report of four cases and outcomes at 1-year follow-up. Updates Surg. 2013;65:339–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spillane AJ, Haydu L, McMillan W, et al. Quality assurance parameters and predictors of outcome for ilioinguinal and inguinal dissection in a contemporary melanoma patient population. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:2521–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Egger ME, Brown RE, Roach BA, et al. Addition of an iliac/obturator lymph node dissection does not improve nodal recurrence or survival in melanoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219:101–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Romano E, Scordo M, Dusza SW, et al. Site and timing of first relapse in stage III melanoma patients: implications for follow-up guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3042–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Essner R, Scheri R, Kavanagh M, et al. Surgical management of the groin lymph nodes in melanoma in the era of sentinel lymph node dissection. Arch Surg. 2006;141:877–82; discussion 882-4.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Faries MB, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Completion dissection or observation for sentinel-node metastasis in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2211–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leiter U, Stadler R, Mauch C, et al. Complete lymph node dissection versus no dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node biopsy positive melanoma (DeCOG-SLT): a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:757–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karakousis GC, Pandit-Taskar N, Hsu M, et al. Prognostic significance of drainage to pelvic nodes at sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with extremity melanoma. Melanoma Res. 2013;23:40–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, et al. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors among 2,313 patients with stage III melanoma: comparison of nodal micrometastases versus macrometastases. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2452–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gershenwald JE, Scolyer RA, Hess KR, et al. Melanoma staging: evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:472–92.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Badgwell B, Xing Y, Gershenwald JE, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection is beneficial in subsets of patients with node-positive melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2867–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • John T. Miura
    • 1
  • Lesly A. Dossett
    • 2
  • Ram Thapa
    • 3
  • Youngchul Kim
    • 3
  • Aishwarya Potdar
    • 1
  • Hala Daou
    • 1
  • James Sun
    • 1
  • Amod A. Sarnaik
    • 1
  • Jonathan S. Zager
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research InstituteUniversity of South Florida School of MedicineTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryRogel Cancer Center University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biostatistics and BioinformaticsMoffitt Cancer Center and Research InstituteTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations