Wide versus narrow excision margins for high-risk, primary cutaneous melanomas: long-term follow-up of survival in a randomised trial

Andrew J Hayes, Lauren Maynard, Gillian Coombes, Julia Newton-Bishop, Michael Timmons, Martin Cook, Jeffrey Theaker, Judith M Bliss, J Meirion Thomas, UK Melanoma Study Group, British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons, and the Scottish Cancer Therapy Network, Andrew J Hayes, Lauren Maynard, Gillian Coombes, Julia Newton-Bishop, Michael Timmons, Martin Cook, Jeffrey Theaker, Judith M Bliss, J Meirion Thomas, UK Melanoma Study Group, British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons, and the Scottish Cancer Therapy Network

Abstract

Background: The necessary margin of excision for cutaneous melanomas greater than 2 mm in thickness is controversial. At a median follow-up of 5 years, findings from our previously published randomised trial of narrow (1 cm) versus wide (3 cm) excision margins in patients with thick cutaneous melanomas showed that narrow margins were associated with an increased frequency of locoregional relapse, but no significant difference in overall survival was apparent. We now report a long-term survival analysis of that trial.

Methods: We did a randomised, open-label multicentre trial in 59 hospitals--57 in the UK, one in Poland, and one in South Africa. Patients with one primary localised cutaneous melanoma greater than 2 mm in Breslow thickness on the trunk or limbs (excluding palms or soles) were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally to receive surgery with either a 1 cm or 3 cm excision margin following an initial surgery. The randomisation lists were generated with random permuted blocks and stratified by centre and extent of initial surgery. The endpoints of this analysis were overall survival and melanoma-specific survival. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial was not registered because it predated mandatory trial registration.

Findings: Between Dec 16, 1992, and May 22, 2001, we randomly assigned 900 patients to surgery with either a 1 cm excision margin (n=453) or a 3 cm excision margin (n=447). At a median follow-up of 8·8 years (106 months [IQR 76-135], 494 patients had died, with 359 of these deaths attributed to melanoma. 194 deaths were attributed to melanoma in the 1 cm group compared with 165 in the 3 cm group (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·24 [95% CI 1·01-1·53]; p=0·041). Although a higher number of deaths overall occurred in the 1 cm group compared with the 3 cm group (253 vs 241), the difference was not significant (unadjusted HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·96-1·36]; p=0·14). Surgical complications were reported in 35 (8%) patients in the 1 cm excision margin group and 65 (15%) patients in the 3 cm group.

Interpretation: Our findings suggest that a 1 cm excision margin is inadequate for cutaneous melanoma with Breslow thickness greater than 2 mm on the trunk and limbs. Current guidelines advise a 2 cm margin for melanomas greater than 2 mm in thickness but only a 1 cm margin for thinner melanomas. The adequacy of a 1 cm margin for thinner melanomas with poor prognostic features should be addressed in future randomised studies.

Funding: Cancer Research UK, North Thames National Health Service Executive, Northern and Yorkshire National Health Service Executive, British United Provident Association Foundation, British Association of Plastic Surgeons, the Meirion Thomas Cancer Research Fund, and the National Institute for Health and Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust.

Copyright © 2016 Hayes et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial profile *Initial excision by the proposed pathway. †Initial excision by the alternative pathway.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overall survival (A) and melanoma-specific survival (B) HR=hazard ratio.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Univariable subgroup analyses of overall survival (A) and melanoma-specific survival (B) The dotted line shows the hazard ratio for all patients. Data excludes patients with unknown values for each variable. TBT=total Breslow thickness. *95% CIs presented for all patients; 99% CIs presented for subgroups.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Cumulative incidence for death due to melanoma (A) and death due to other causes (B) HR=hazard ratio.

References

    1. Thompson JF, Soong SJ, Balch CM. Prognostic significance of mitotic rate in localized primary cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of patients in the multi-institutional American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging database. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2199–2205.
    1. Soong SJ, Ding S, Coit D. Predicting survival outcome of localized melanoma: an electronic prediction tool based on the AJCC Melanoma Database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2006–2014.
    1. Cohn-Cedermark G, Rutqvist LE, Andersson R. Long term results of a randomised study by the Swedish Melanoma Study Group on 2-cm versus 5-cm resection margins for patients with cutaneous melanoma with a tumor thickness of 0·8–2·0 mm. Cancer. 2000;89:1495–1501.
    1. Balch CM, Soong SJ, Smith T. Long-term results of a prospective surgical trial comparing 2 cm vs. 4 cm excision margins for 740 patients with 1–4 mm melanomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8:101–108.
    1. Khayat D, Rixe O, Martin G. Surgical margins in cutaneous melanoma (2 cm versus 5 cm for lesions measuring less than 2·1-mm thick) Cancer. 2003;97:1941–1946.
    1. Gillgren P, Drzewiecki KT, Niin M. 2-cm versus 4-cm surgical excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma thicker than 2 mm: a randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;378:1635–1642.
    1. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Adamus J. Thin stage I primary cutaneous malignant melanoma. Comparison of excision with margins of 1 or 3 cm. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1159–1162.
    1. Handley WS. The pathology of melanotic growths in relation to their operative treatment. Lancet. 1907;169:996–1003.
    1. Olsen G. The malignant melanoma of the skin. New theories based on a study of 500 cases. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1966;365:1–222.
    1. Thomas JM, Newton-Bishop J, A'Hern R. Excision margins in high risk malignant melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:757–766.
    1. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–481.
    1. Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc B. 1972;34:187–220.
    1. Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94:496–509.
    1. Gray RJ. A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16:1141–1154.
    1. Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:6199–6206.
    1. Hudson LE, Maithel SK, Carlson GW. 1 or 2 cm margins of excision for T2 melanomas: do they impact recurrence or survival? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:346–351.
    1. Cascinelli N, Morabito A, Santinami M. Immediate or delayed dissection of regional nodes in patients with melanoma of the trunk: a randomised trial. WHO Melanoma Programme. Lancet. 1998;351:793–796.
    1. Coates AS, Ingvar CI, Petersen-Schaefer K. Elective lymph node dissection in patients with primary melanoma of the trunk and limbs treated at the Sydney Melanoma Unit from 1960 to 1991. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180:402–409.
    1. Sim FH, Taylor WF, Pritchard DJ, Soule EH. Lymphadenectomy in the management of stage I malignant melanoma: a prospective randomised study. Mayo Clin Proc. 1986;61:697–705.
    1. Balch CM, Soong SJ, Ross MI. Long-term results of a multi-institutional randomized trial comparing prognostic factors and surgical results for intermediate thickness melanomas (1·0 to 4·0 mm). Intergroup Melanoma Surgical Trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7:87–97.
    1. Veronesi U, Adamus J, Bandiera DC. Inefficacy of immediate node dissection in stage 1 melanoma of the limbs. N Engl J Med. 1977;297:627–630.
    1. Morton DL, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ. Final report of sentinel-node biopsy versus nodal observation in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:599–609.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться