title: Outcome after therapeutic lymph node dissection in patients with unknown primary melanoma site.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and outcome of melanoma of unknown primary site (MUP) after therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) of palpable nodal melanoma metastases. Disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) time of MUP patients were analyzed and compared to patients undergoing a TLND for known primary melanomas (MKP).
  
  
  METHODS
  This single institution retrospective study analyzed 342 consecutive patients who were treated with 415 TLNDs for palpable nodal disease from 1982 to 2009. Univariate and multivariate analyses included: MUP versus MKP, gender, Breslow thickness, ulceration of primary tumor, site of primary tumor, site of dissection, extracapsular extension, number of collected nodes, number of positive nodes and the node positive ratio.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 47 MUP were identified in 342 patients (13.7%). In univariate analysis, a trend was seen toward better survival for MUP patients compared to MKP patients having 5-year OS rates of 40% and 27%, respectively (P = 0.06). Multivariate analysis for OS showed two highly significant factors associated with worse prognosis: extracapsular extension and N3 status (both P < 0.001). Two factors were associated with a significant better prognosis: MUP (P = 0.03) and a neck dissection (P = 0.04).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Patients with MUP showed a statistically significant better OS compared to patients with melanoma metastases from known primary tumors. Presence of extracapsular extension and an increased number of positive nodes are statistically significantly negative prognostic factors for OS. The absence of a primary melanoma in stage III melanoma patients does not preclude surgery.
authors: Erasmus University Medical Center, Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
authors: Sebastiaan P
authors: SP
authors: Prens
authors: Augustinus P T
authors: AP
authors: van der Ploeg
authors: Alexander C J
authors: AC
authors: van Akkooi
authors: Cornelis A G M
authors: CA
authors: van Montfort
authors: Albertus N
authors: AN
authors: van Geel
authors: Johannes H W
authors: JH
authors: de Wilt
authors: Alexander M M
authors: AM
authors: Eggermont
authors: Cornelis
authors: C
authors: Verhoef
references: J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jul 1;24(19):3164-71
references: 16809739
references: Melanoma Res. 2005 Jun;15(3):179-84
references: 15917699
references: Cancer. 2006 May 1;106(9):2012-20
references: 16568458
references: Oncogene. 2003 May 19;22(20):3180-7
references: 12789294
references: Melanoma Res. 2005 Feb;15(1):77-82
references: 15714125
references: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Sep 20;23(27):6747-55
references: 16170182
references: CA Cancer J Clin. 1999 Mar-Apr;49(2):101-16, 65
references: 11198885
references: Cancer. 1998 Oct 15;83(8):1664-78
references: 9781962
references: Cancer. 1997 May 1;79(9):1816-21
references: 9129001
references: Br J Dermatol. 2008 Jun;158(6):1224-9
references: 18341656
references: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Jun;19(6):1453-9
references: 20501769
references: Br J Surg. 2000 Jul;87(7):892-901
references: 10931025
references: J Clin Oncol. 2010 May 10;28(14):2452-9
references: 20368546
references: Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007 Feb;33(1):102-8
references: 17161577
references: CA Cancer J Clin. 2010 Sep-Oct;60(5):301-16
references: 20671054
references: Dermatol Surg. 2010 Jun;36(6):868-76
references: 20482725
references: Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Jun;17(6):1475-7
references: 20300965
references: Lancet. 2008 Jul 12;372(9633):117-26
references: 18620949
references: J Clin Oncol. 2001 Aug 15;19(16):3622-34
references: 11504744
references: Melanoma Res. 2010 Dec;20(6):459-67
references: 20938360
references: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 1;26(4):535-41
references: 18235114
references: Lancet. 2005 Oct 1;366(9492):1189-96
references: 16198768