The effect of sentinel node tumor burden on non-sentinel node status and recurrence rates in breast cancer.
ABSTRACT Routine axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after selective sentinel lymphadenectomy (SSL) in the treatment of breast cancer remains controversial. We sought to determine the need for routine ALND by exploring the relationship between sentinel lymph node (SLN) and non-SLN (NSLN) status. We also report our experience with disease relapse in the era of SSL and attempt to correlate this with SLN tumor burden.
This was a retrospective study of 390 patients with invasive breast cancer treated at a single institution who underwent successful SSL from November 1997 to November 2002.
Of the 390 patients, 115 received both SSL and ALND. The percentage of additional positive NSLNs in the SLN-positive group (34.2%) was significantly higher than in the SLN-negative group (5.1%; P = .0004). The SLN macrometastasis group had a significantly higher rate of positive NSLNs (39.7%) compared with the SLN-negative group (5.1%; P = .0001). Sixteen patients developed recurrences during follow-up, including 6.1% of SLN-positive and 3.3% of SLN-negative patients. Among the SLN macrometastasis group, 8.7% had recurrence, compared with 2.2% of SLN micrometastases over a median follow-up period of 31.1 months. One regional failure developed out of 38 SLN-positive patients who did not undergo ALND.
ALND is recommended for patients with SLN macrometastasis because of a significantly higher incidence of positive NSLNs. Higher recurrence rates are also seen in these patients. However, the role of routine ALND in patients with a low SLN tumor burden remains to be further determined by prospective randomized trials.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: Sentinel lymph node biopsy is a standard method for the evaluation of axillary status in patients with T1-2N0M0 breast cancers. Aims: To determine the prognostic significance of primary tumour-related clinico-histopathological factors on axillary and non-sentinel lymph node involvement of patients who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy. Study design: Retrospective clinical study. Methods: In the present study, 157 sentinel lymph node biopsies were performed in 151 consecutive patients with early stage breast cancer between June 2008 and December 2011. Results: Successful lymphatic mapping was obtained in 157 of 158 procedures (99.4%). The incidence of larger tumour size (2.543 +/- 1.21 vs. 1.974 +/- 1.04), lymphatic vessel invasion (70.6% vs. 29.4%), blood vessel invasion (84.2% vs. 15.8%), and invasive lobular carcinoma subtype (72.7% vs. 27.3%) were statistically significantly higher in patients with positive SLNs. Logistic stepwise regression analysis disclosed tumour size (odds ratio: 1.51, p=0.0021) and lymphatic vessel invasion (odds ratio: 4.68, p=0.001) as significant primary tumour-related prognostic determinants of SLN metastasis. Conclusion: A close relationship was identified between tumour size and lymphatic vessel invasion of the primary tumour and axillary lymph node involvement. However, the positive predictive value of these two independent variables is low and there is no compelling evidence to recommend their use in routine clinical practice.Balkan Journal of Medical Genetics 12/2013; 30(4):415-21. DOI:10.5152/balkanmedj.2013.9591 · 0.17 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: An increasingly early diagnosis for discovering breast cancer, an improvement of surgical procedures with refining techniques for research and study of sentinel node, currently allow a more conservative surgical approach. Association with suitable chemo-radiotherapy allows a good control of breast disease. Our study, although modest, was carried out on 63 patients suffering from breast cancer, who underwent surgical treatment with assessment of sentinel lymph node. Aim of study was to establish the most correct strategy in the presence of isolated tumor cells (ITC) and/or micro-metastases of sentinel lymph node. Many studies have been carried out to find which was the most appropriate treatment, nevertheless, in the absence of univocal guidelines, we prefer to proceed to axillary dissection, though the topic is very debated and controversial. Following this strategy we obtained quite satisfactory results.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) was introduced 2 decades ago and thereafter validated for routine surgical management of breast cancer, including cases treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. As the number of lymph nodes for staging has decreased, pathologists have scrutinized SLN with a combination of standard hematoxylin and eosin, levels, immunohistochemistry (IHC), and molecular methods. An epidemic of small-volume metastases thereby arose, leading to modifications in the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging to accommodate findings such as isolated tumor cells (ITC) and micrometastases. With the goal of determining the significance of these findings, retrospective followed by prospective trials were performed, showing mixed results. The ACOSOG Z10 and NSABP B-32 trials both independently showed that ITC and micrometastases were not significant and thus discouraged the use of levels and IHC for detecting them. However, the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database showed that patients with micrometastases had an overall decreased survival. In addition, the MIRROR (Micrometastases and ITC: Relevant and Robust or Rubbish?) trial, showed that patients with ITC and micrometastases treated with adjuvant therapy had lower hazard ratios compared with untreated patients. Subsequently, the ACOSOG Z0011 trial randomized patients with up to 2 positive SLN to axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) or not, all treated with radiation and chemotherapy, showing no difference in survival or recurrence rates between the 2 groups and causing a shift from ALND. As the rate of ALND has declined, the necessity of performing levels, IHC, frozen section, and molecular studies on SLN needs to be revisited.Advances in Anatomic Pathology 11/2014; 21(6):433-442. DOI:10.1097/PAP.0000000000000041 · 3.10 Impact Factor