Journal Information
Vol. 115. Issue 6.
Pages T632-T635 (June 2024)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 115. Issue 6.
Pages T632-T635 (June 2024)
Carta científico-clínica
Full text access
Thirty-Five-Case Retrospective Observational Study of Lentigo Maligna and Acral Lentiginous Melanoma Surgically Treated With a Modified Spaghetti Technique>
Estudio observacional retrospectivo de 35 casos de lentigo maligno y melanoma lentiginoso acral tratados quirúrgicamente mediante una técnica de espagueti modificada
Visits
1694
E. Samaniego Gonzáleza,c,
Corresponding author
, M.A. González Moránb, V. Onecha Vallejoa, A.I. de la Hera Magallanesb, M. Navedo de las Herasa, M.Á. Rodríguez Prietoa
a Servicio de Dermatología, Complejo Asistencial de León, León, Spain
b Servicio de Anatomía Patológica, Complejo Asistencial de León, León, Spain
c Institute of Biomedicine (IBIOMED), Universidad de León, León, Spain
Related content
E. Samaniego González, M.A. González Morán, V. Onecha Vallejo, A.I. de la Hera Magallanes, M. Navedo de las Heras, M.Á. Rodríguez Prieto
This item has received
Article information
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (2)
Tables (1)
Table 1. Cases of lentigo maligna and acral lentiginous melanoma treated at Complejo Asistencial Universitario de León with the modified spaghetti technique (January 2014 through December 2022).
Full Text
To the Editor,

Surgery is the treatment of choice for lentigo maligna (LM) and acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM). However, in these types of lentiginous melanomas, poor delineation and subclinical extension are common findings, which can lead to recurrence after incomplete excision.1

Multiple studies have shown that the 5mm margins recommended by the National Institutes of Health are insufficient. Thus, the rates of recurrence after conventional surgery can be as high as 20%.2,3

Surgery with margin control under the microscope, whether frozen or in paraffin, is the optimal type of surgery for these lesions, as it allows for lower rates of recurrence and preserves healthy tissue in functionally and aesthetically compromised locations.4

Several authors consider paraffin variants, deferred Mohs/slow Mohs, or mapped serial excision, to be the therapies of choice for melanoma.5 These techniques offer the advantage of better interpretation of atypical melanocytes at the lesion margins. However, they require longer procedures that can go on for days, during which the defect remains open until clear margins have been achieved.

One of the variants is the spaghetti technique. In its original description, it involves resecting a 2mm strip (spaghetti) at the periphery of the lesion, 3mm to 5mm away from the clinical margin. Tumor delineation can be improved with dermoscopy, Wood's light, or even confocal microscopy. The created defect is sutured directly, avoiding open wounds. The spaghetti strip is divided into several segments that are later analyzed through vertical sections along its longitudinal axis at the outer margin. This process is repeated until clear margins are obtained, at which point the central tumor is excised. The central tumor specimen is processed conventionally to identify possible invasive components.6

Since 2014, the spaghetti technique has been used in LM and ALM at the Dermatology Service of Complejo Asistencial Universitario de León, Spain, with some changes added compared to the initial technique: we obtain a single piece or “ring” or “ringlet” (instead of an actual spaghetti), which is incised at a 45-degree angle only on its outer margin to flatten it and make horizontal cuts. The ring is referenced on 2 different areas with sutures. The surgical bed is referenced on these same areas slightly away from the edge of the defect that will later be sutured. The pathologist immediately marks the obtained piece with colored inks only at 4 points at 12, 6, 3, and 9 o’clock positions including it as whole in a macroblock.

By processing the specimen through horizontal cuts, the pathologist still has a single ring in the macrocarrier, with a simple mapping and representation of the complete epidermis. That is how we avoid having to make and assess vertical cuts of one/several segments, saving time and facilitating the location of a possible residual tumor. In addition to evaluating 100% of the lateral margin, evaluating a portion of the deep margin has allowed us to detect a few cases of microinvasion (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1.

A) Recurrence of acral melanoma on the left heel confirmed by partial biopsy of in situ ALM (red arrow). Note dermoscopy with parallel ridge pattern. The image shows the scar of an adjacent excision of in situ melanoma (asterisk). B) Treatment with the spaghetti technique using the enlargement of the other completely excised adjacent in situ melanoma as negative control. Excision at 45 degrees of both spaghetti and reference at 2 points with silk. C) The defects are sutured directly. D and E) Pathologist's marking of the specimens at 12, 3, 9, and 6 positions and inclusion in macroblocks. F) Histological image (hematoxylin eosin 10x) of the 1st positive stage with atypical melanocytic hyperplasia. G) Histological image (hematoxylin eosin 10x) of the negative control. H) Performance of the second stage in positive areas at 12-1 o’clock and 6-9 o’clock positions, which turned out negative.

ALM, acral lentiginous melanoma.

(0.18MB).
Figure 2.

A) Spaghetti fully included in macroblock; B) comparison with conventional. C) Histological section of spaghetti on a macrocarrier; D) Comparison with conventional.

(0.1MB).

Sometimes, contralateral skin is used as a negative control (Figure 1 corresponding to cases #1 and #2 of Table 1). We believe that using a negative control can be useful to help the pathologist interpret the margins of acral locations with low melanocyte density.

Table 1.

Cases of lentigo maligna and acral lentiginous melanoma treated at Complejo Asistencial Universitario de León with the modified spaghetti technique (January 2014 through December 2022).

No.  Sex  Year  Age  Sizecm2  Histological type  Location  Primary/Relapse  No. of stages  Reconstruction  Follow-upmonths  Progression  Invasion 
Female  2014  71  12.25  ALM  Heel  Primary  Graft  101  Without relapse  No 
Female  2014  71  1.60  ALM  Heel  Relapse  Graft  101  Without relapse  No 
Male  2017  80  3.20  LM  Forehead  Primary  Flap  36  Without relapse  No 
Male  2017  80  2.40  LM  Perioral  Primary  Flap  36  Without relapse  No 
Female  2019  78  2.00  LMM  Periocular  Primary  Direct suture  36  Without relapse  No 
Female  2020  70  3.00  LM  Cheek  Primary  Direct suture  21  Without relapse  No 
Female  2016  84  6.25  LM  Cheek  Primary  Flap  79  Without relapse  No 
Female  2018  60  0.50  LM  Perioral  Primary  Flap  10  Without relapse  No 
Female  2019  66  6.25  LM  Cheek  Primary  Flap  36  Without relapse  No 
10  Female  2018  58  1.35  LM  Cheek  Primary  Direct suture  57  Without relapse  No 
11  Female  2017  69  1.00  LM  Cheek  Primary  Flap  70  Without relapse  No 
12  Female  2022  76  11.52  LM  Upper limb  Primary  Graft  Without relapse  No 
13  Female  2016  54  0.70  LM  Cheek  Primary  Direct suture  82  Without relapse  No 
14  Female  2018  74  12.00  LM  Forehead  Primary  Flap  59  Without relapse  No 
15  Male  2017  70  1.20  LM  Periocular  Primary  Direct suture  63  Without relapse  No 
16  Male  2019  74  4.35  LM  Forehead  Primary  Flap  40  Without relapse  No 
17  Female  2018  65  4.00  LM  Cheek  Primary  Flap  55  Without relapse  No 
18  Female  2018  88  2.04  LM  Cheek  Primary  Flap  59  Without relapse  No 
19  Male  2019  81  3.75  LM  Cheek  Primary  Direct suture  41  Without relapse  No 
20  Female  2018  62  2.25  LM  Cheek  Primary  Flap  54  Without relapse  No 
21  Female  2018  73  0.50  LM  Cheek  Primary  Flap  20  Without relapse  Yes 
22  Male  2017  70  4.00  LM  Cheek  Primary  Direct suture  67  Recidiva  No 
23  Female  2019  84  3.00  LMM  Cheek  Relapse  Flap  13  Without relapse  No 
24  Female  2017  82  8.00  LM  Cheek  Primary  Direct suture  60  Without relapse  No 
25  Female  2018  67  0.50  LM  Cheek  Primary  Direct suture  56  Without relapse  No 
26  Male  2019  78  25.00  LM  Upper limb  Relapse  Graft  Without relapse  No 
27  Female  2020  80  8.00  LM  Cheek  Relapse  Graft  34  Without relapse  No 
28  Female  2017  79  2.80  LM  Cheek  Primary  Flap  12  Without relapse  No 
29  Male  2019  48  0.60  LM  Cheek  Primary  Flap  38  Without relapse  No 
30  Male  2022  77  12.00  LM  Cheek  Primary  Graft  Without relapse  No 
31  Male  2017  85  4.84  LM  Forehead  Primary  Graft  66  Without relapse  No 
32  Female  2014  75  7.50  LM  Perioral  Primary  Flap  99  Without relapse  Yes 
33  Female  2018  90  2.00  LM  Cheek  Primary  Flap  50  Without relapse  No 
34  Male  2019  73  5.72  LMM  Cheek  Primary  Flap  Without relapse  No 
35  Male  2022  58  4.00  LM  Perioral  Relapse  Flap  Without relapse  No 

ALM, acral lentiginous melanoma; LM, lentigo maligna; LMM, minimally invasive lentigo maligna melanoma.

Size: clinical size of the lesion in cm2.

Histological type: histological type after initial biopsy.

Primary vs relapse after previous treatments.

Follow-up in months.

Invasion: identification of invasive component in the analysis of the central tumor specimen.

Year: year of intervention.

We conducted a retrospective and observational study on LM and ALM treated at our center with the modified spaghetti technique from January 2014 through December 2022. During this period, a total of 35 lesions in 33 patients were treated. Twenty-two patients were women (66.7%). The median age of the patients was 74 years (range, 48-90), 33 lesions were LM and 2, ALM. A total of 5 cases (14.3%) were recurrences after previous treatment, and 3 were minimally invasive lentigo maligna melanoma (LMM) in the initial biopsy. A total of 31 tumors (85.7%) were located on the face, 21 of which were on the cheek (60%). The median clinical size was 3.2cm2 (range, 0.5-25). In 11 cases (31.4%), 2 passes were necessary to obtain clear margins. Overall, 70% of final defect reconstructions were performed using grafts or flaps. An invasive LMM component was detected in 2 cases after conventional analysis of the central specimen. After a median follow-up of 41 months (range, 1-101), the rate of tumor control was 97.1%, with only 1 recurrence (2.9%) being reported at the 60-month follow-up (Table 1).

Unlike others which are performed later, the spaghetti technique has the advantage of not leaving an open wound during successive stages, which reduces the risk of infection and patient discomfort, simplifies care, avoids hospital stays, and can be performed outpatiently.

However, being a deferred technique means that it requires multiple patient visits to complete the stages required for excision, and that tumor analysis could be delayed for days or even weeks. Sometimes, this analysis may reveal an invasive component, as it occurred in 2 of our cases. This finding is present in 9% of the lesions initially diagnosed as LM via partial biopsy.7 The presence of an invasive component can be anticipated if the histopathological examination of the initial biopsy shows melanocytes forming rows or an artifact groove, especially if > 25% of melanocytes are forming nests, pagetoid extension, and a prominent inflammatory infiltrate. Also, if dermoscopy reveals the presence of irregular spots, obliterated follicular openings and black color, or more than 5 colors, pigmented and erythematous rhomboidal structures added to the aforementioned follicular obliteration.5,8–10

In contrast, flash freezing of conventional Mohs surgery to treat LM/ALM would have the advantage of shortening the entire process to just 1 day, using rapid immunohistochemical staining techniques to address margin interpretation issues.5 However, flash freezing of conventional Mohs surgery requires specific infrastructure that is not always available in all the centers. In addition, it requires trained personnel (dermatologic surgeon, pathologist, and technician). Additionally, the immunohistochemical stains used cannot distinguish malignant from benign melanocytes.

For all these reasons, we believe that the spaghetti technique has several advantages that make it feasible for most centers. In our experience, the change made simplifies the procedure by saving time with the examination of a single sample without losing complete margin evaluation.

Our series lacks long-term follow-up, and the rate of recurrence is similar to the one reported in the original technique and subsequent series. Longer follow-up studies would be necessary, though, as recurrences, if they occur, tend to be slow and late. We wish to emphasize that this is a simple technique that, unlike conventional Mohs surgery, does not require any special infrastructure, except for macrocarriers, or specific training.

Funding

This study has not received specific support from public sector agencies, the commercial sector or non-profit entities.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

References
[1]
T.M. Shin, J.R. Etzkorn, J.F. Sobanko, D.J. Margolis, J.M. Gelfand, E.Y. Chu, et al.
Clinical factors associated with subclinical spread of in situ melanoma.
J Am Acad Dermatol., 76 (2017), pp. 707-713
[2]
J.H. Kunishige, D.G. Brodland, J.A. Zitelli.
Surgical margins for melanoma in situ.
J Am Acad Dermatol., 66 (2012), pp. 438-444
[3]
J.H. Kunishige, L. Doan, D.G. Brodland, J.A. Zitelli.
Comparison of surgical margins for lentigo maligna versus melanoma in situ.
J Am Acad Dermatol., 81 (2019), pp. 204-212
[4]
A.N. Sharma, D.P. Foulad, L. Doan, P.K. Lee, N. Atanaskova Mesinkovska.
Mohs surgery for the treatment of lentigo maligna and lentigo maligna melanoma - a systematic review.
J Dermatolog Treat., 32 (2021), pp. 157-163
[5]
C. Requena, E. Manrique, E. Nagore.
Update on Lentigo Maligna: Diagnostic Signs and Treatment.
Actas Dermosifiliogr., 114 (2023), pp. 413-424
[6]
C. Gaudy-Marqueste, A.S. Perchenet, A.M. Taséi, N. Madjlessi, G. Magalon, M.A. Richard, et al.
The spaguetti technique: an alternative to Mohs surgery or staged surgery for problematic lentiginous melanoma (lentigo maligna and acral lentiginous melanoma).
J Am Acad Dermatol., 64 (2011), pp. 113-118
[7]
J. Zoutendijk, D. Tio, S. Koljenovic, R.R. Van den Bos.
Nine per cent of biopsy-proven lentigo maligna lesions are reclassified as lentigo maligna melanoma after surgery.
Br J Dermatol., 181 (2019), pp. 383-384
[8]
A. Moreno, E. Manrique-Silva, A. Virós, C. Requena, O. Sanmartín, V. Traves, et al.
Histologic Features Associated With an Invasive Component in Lentigo Maligna Lesions.
JAMA Dermatol., 155 (2019), pp. 782-788
[9]
L. Peruilh-Bagolini, Z. Apalla, R. González-Cuevas, K. Lallas, C. Papageorgiou, M. Bobos, et al.
Ioannides D, lentigo maligna melanoma: A retrospective observational study.
J Am Acad Dermatol., 83 (2020), pp. 269-271
[10]
P. Pralong, E. Bathelier, S. Dalle, N. Poulalhon, S. Debarbieux, L. Thomas.
Dermoscopy of lentigo maligna melanoma: report of 125 cases.
Br J Dermatol., 167 (2012), pp. 280-287
Copyright © 2024. AEDV
Download PDF
Idiomas
Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas
Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?