This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Men's Health  • Men's Health, Other  • Prognosis/ Outcomes  • Oncology  • Head & Neck Cancer  • Aging/ Geriatrics  • Neoplasms of Head & Neck  • Dermatology  • Melanoma  • Alert me on articles by topic

Doreen M. Agnese, MD; Rebecca Maupin, BS; Bryan Tillman, MD; Rodney D. Pozderac, MD; Cynthia Magro, MD; Michael J. Walker, MD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133(11):1121-1124.

Objective  To determine whether, in the era of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy, head and neck melanoma (HNM) has a poorer outcome than melanomas at other sites (OMS).

Design  Prospective database, 1994 to 2004. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with HNM vs those with OMS were analyzed by Fisher test, paired t test, and ² test.

Setting  Tertiary referral center.

Patients  A total of 755 patients with melanoma who had undergone SLN biopsy.

Main Outcome Measures  Differences between patients with HNM and those with OMS.

Results  A total of 17.4% of patients had HNM vs 82.6% with OMS. There was a male HNM preponderance: 68.7% vs 50.3% for females (P < .01). Patients with HNM were older (mean [SD] age, 57.1 [16.6] years vs 53.3 [16.2] years; P < .01). There were fewer cases of superficial spreading melanoma in patients with HNM (29.0% vs 53.7%; P < .01). There were more diagnoses of lentigo maligna in patients with HNM (26.0% vs 1.9%; P < .01). The mean thickness of the primary lesion was 2.32 (1.9) mm vs 2.31 (2.9) mm; P = .49. Fewer patients with HNM had Clark level involvement lower than level IV (13.3% vs 24.0%; P < .01). More SLNs were harvested from patients with HNM (3.72 [3.2] vs 2.89 [2.6]; P < .01), but a lower percentage of positive SLNs was found (9.2% vs 16.0%; P < .05). There was no difference in local, regional, or distant recurrence (5.3%, 6.9%, and 5.3%, respectively, in patients with HNM and 3.4%, 5.5%, and 6.7%, respectively, in patients with OMS). The 2- and 5-year survival rates for patients with HNM were 96.2% and 72.6%, respectively, vs 93.6% and 79.0%, respectively, in patients with OMS (P = .40).

Conclusions  Most patients with HNM are older males with more SLNs harvested. They do not seem to have poorer outcome than patients with OMS.

Author Affiliations: Departments of Surgery (Drs Agnese, Tillman, and Walker and Ms Maupin), Radiology (Dr Pozderac), and Pathology (Dr Magro), Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute at The Ohio State University, Columbus.