Sentinel−Node Biopsy vs. Nodal Monitoring in Melanoma

Sarkis Meterissian^*
*Correspondence: Sarkis Meterissian, Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, Email:

Introduction

Malignant melanoma that starts in the small intestine is extremely uncommon. The literature describes only a small number of cases. Metastatic tumors originating from other primary lesions typically affect the small intestine. A 68-year-old male with an ulcerated and bleeding mass in the jejunum 40 centimeters from the Treitz band was diagnosed with primary malignant melanoma. For our situation the determination was affirmed at laparotomy and enterectomy. Histology uncovered a neoplastic invasion including the whole gastrointestinal mucosa, with atypia of neoplastic cells and immunoreactivity to HMB45(+), Melan A(+) and S100(+), affirming the conclusion of melanoma. The post-operative examination did not reveal any primary lesions in the skin, eye, anus, rectum, or any other area. A close follow-up after eleven months has not revealed any metastases. As a result, a primary malignant melanoma diagnosis was made.

Discussion

For individualized treatment of regional lymph nodes, lymphatic mapping and sentinel-node biopsy were introduced due to dissatisfaction with both elective lymphadenectomy and nodal observation. Blue dye and radiolabeled colloids are used in the procedure known as "sentinel-node biopsy," which is a low-risk, minimally invasive staging method. It determines which of the regional basin's first (or sentinel) nodes receive lymph from the primary melanoma site. The tumor status of the sentinel node can accurately predict the tumor status of other lymphatic basin nodes because it is the initial site of regional metastasis. Other regional nodes will probably also be negative in the event that focused pathological examination of the sentinel node reveals no metastases.

Melanoma is primarily found in the skin, eyes and gastrointestinal mucosa and is caused by melanocytes. The majority of metastases originate from skin lesions. However, the literature has reported mucosal, meningeal, or ocular sites of origin. The majority of patients are treated with local excision because they have localized disease at the time of diagnosis. In any case, a few patients foster far off metastases. It is theoretically possible to have primary malignant melanoma of the gallbladder (MMG). It is simple to explain why the gallbladder contains melanoma cells. Melanin-producing cells migrate from the neural crest to the endoderm during embryogenesis. The first case of primary MMG was reported in 1907, making it a rare condition; Walsh reported the first primary MMG case with histological evidence in 1957.

RLNs are the most well-known first metastatic site among patients with cutaneous melanoma. Patients with metastatic disease in RLNs and/or nonnodal locoregional sites fall under the N category of the 8e. The 5-year MSS of patients with stage III melanoma ranges from 32% to 93% depending on the primary tumor, tumor burden within RLNs, number of involved RLNs and presence of nonnodal locoregional metastases. As a result, the wide range of outcomes found in stage III subgroups should be taken into consideration when planning future clinical trials of adjuvant therapy.

In spite of the fact that melanoma most regularly emerges in the skin, essential melanoma can likewise begin from the gastrointestinal lot. Theories of ectodermal differentiation and tumor regression dominate the pathogenesis of primary colonic melanoma. There are currently no evidence-based guidelines for diagnosing primary melanoma in locations where it rarely occurs. Comprehensive physical examinations and imaging studies are required because the majority of gastrointestinal melanomas are metastatic in origin. Metastatic lesions must be excluded from primary cutaneous or ocular melanoma. Consequently, a comprehensive dermatological and ophthalmic examination is essential when there is no previous history of melanoma. In this instance, the absence of previous cutaneous melanomas, the absence of other metastatic presentations and an in situ change in the gastrointestinal epithelium all support the diagnosis of primary colonic melanoma. We know that this is the first case of a large primary colonic melanoma invading the stomach that has been reported. We speculate that local invasion and the rapid growth of primary colonic melanoma are the root causes of gastric involvement. Despite the fact that chemotherapy is proposed because of metastasis of pericolic lymph hubs, this patient downfalls this suggestion [1-3].

The study looked at a group of 94 people who had cutaneous malignant melanoma of the head and neck. 53 of the patients had local lymph hub analyzations performed and the outcomes in 37 performed over quite a while back are introduced. Although the data in this limited series do not support the policy of elective lymph node dissection for invasive melanoma of the head and neck, it is strongly recommended. For diagnosis, a total excisional biopsy should be performed whenever possible. All melanomas should be classified according to Clark and Mihm and the degree of invasion should also be determined. The clinical evaluation of lymph nodes for metastases makes a significant error. For invasive melanoma (levels III, IV and V), elective regional lymph node dissections are generally recommended. A review of the literature on cutaneous melanoma of the head and neck has been conducted, with an emphasis on the surgical and pathological issues that are unique to these lesions [4,5].

Conclusion

Laparoscopic gallbladder resection was chosen for the 68-year-old patient in this instance. Regarding treatment, other retrospective studies in the literature confirmed that patients with stage IV melanoma who underwent metastasectomy had a better 5-year overall survival rate than those who were ineligible for resection. These reports, on the other hand, came from specialized, isolated institutions.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest by author.

References

1. Kordan, Yakup, Daniel A. Barocas, Hernan O. Altamar and Peter E. Clark, et al. "Comparison of transfusion requirements between open and robotic‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy." BJU international 106 (2010): 1036-1040.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Laurila, Timo AJ, Wei Huang and David F. Jarrard. "Robotic-assisted laparoscopic and radical retropubic prostatectomy generate similar positive margin rates in low and intermediate risk patients." BJU international 27 (2009) 529-533.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Philippou, Prodromos, Elizabeth Waine and Edward Rowe. "Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open: comparison of the learning curve of a single surgeon." J Endourol 26 (2012): 1002-1008.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Wang, Rou, David P. Wood Jr, Brent K. Hollenbeck and Amy Y. Li, et al. "Risk factors and quality of life for post-prostatectomy vesicourethral anastomotic stenoses." Urology 79 (2012): 449-457.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Krambeck, Amy E., David S. DiMarco, Laureano J. Rangel and Eric J. Bergstralh, et al. "Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot‐assisted techniques." BJU international 103 (2009): 448-453.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at