The impact of nonvisualization of sentinel nodes on lymphoscintigraphy in breast cancer.

Service of Nuclear Medicine, René Gauducheau Cancer Center Nantes-Saint Herblain, Boulevard Monod, 44805 Saint Herblain Cedex, France.
Annals of Surgical Oncology (Impact Factor: 4.12). 08/2005; 12(7):533-8. DOI: 10.1245/ASO.2005.07.014
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study aimed at evaluating the relationship between the nonvisualization of sentinel nodes (SNs) at lymphoscintigraphy and the intraoperative detection rate, radioactive counts in vivo, and histological status of SNs.
Two hundred eighty patients with infiltrating breast carcinoma (T0, T(1)/T(2)) underwent preoperative lymphoscintigraphy before gamma probe-guided SN biopsy.
The surgical identification rate with a gamma probe was 84.6% (56 of 280) in lymphoscintigraphy-negative patients and 93.2% (224 of 280) in lymphoscintigraphy-positive patients (P < .05) after two subdermal periareolar injections. The average number of SNs per patient was 1.7 in lymphoscintigraphy-negative patients and 2.2 in lymphoscintigraphy-positive patients (P < .01), as assessed by gamma detection. The mean age of lymphoscintigraphy-negative patients was 62 +/- 10 years, versus 55 +/- 13 years for lymphoscintigraphy-positive patients (P < .001). The median radioactive count in dissected SNs identified by gamma detection was 204 cps (range, 4-618 cps) in lymphoscintigraphy-negative patients, versus 606 cps (range, 43-16,928 cps) in lymphoscintigraphy-positive patients (P < .001). The rate of macrometastatic SNs was 40% in lymphoscintigraphy-negative patients, versus 30% in lymphoscintigraphy-positive patients (not significant), whereas the size of involved SNs was 16.6 mm in lymphoscintigraphy-negative patients, versus 13.1 in lymphoscintigraphy-positive patients (P < .05). The micrometastasis detection rate in SNs from lymphoscintigraphy-negative patients was 6.25%, versus 23.3% in lymphoscintigraphy-positive patients (P < .01).
Negative lymphoscintigraphy was observed in 20% of patients and was more frequent in elderly patients. Negative lymphoscintigraphy was predictive of a lower surgical identification rate and fewer detected SNs. These SNs had fewer micrometastases, were fairly large, and tended to harbor metastases.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate roles of preoperative lymphoscintigraphy for sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer patients. Five hundred and sixty-five consecutive breast cancer patients were prospectively randomized into groups with or without preoperative lymphoscintigraphy. In a group with lymphoscintigraphy, 238 patients had sentinel lymph nodes spotted in lymphoscintigram. The visualization of sentinel lymph nodes in lymphoscintigram was not associated with patients' age, primary tumor size and location, histopathologic type and time interval from injection of radiocolloid to lymphoscintigraphy. However, patients with axillary metastasis had a lower identification rate of sentinel lymph nodes by lymphoscintigraphy than those without metastasis (P = 0.003). The identification rate of axillary sentinel lymph nodes was 99.3% in the group and the rate was similar whether there was sentinel lymph nodes spotted in axillary in lymphoscintigram or not (99.6% vs. 98.1%, P = 0.327). The false-negative rate in this group was 4.2%. While in a group without lymphoscintigraphy, the identification rate and the false-negative rate were 99.6% and 4.8%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the identification rate of axillary sentinel lymph nodes (P = 0.594) and in the false-negative rate (P = 1.00). Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy could neither improve the identification rate nor reduce the false-negative rate of breast cancer sentinel lymph node biopsy, and it is not necessary for sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer patients.
    Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 08/2010; 40(8):722-5. · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Axillary node status is the most important prognostic indicator for patients with invasive breast cancer. Sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) is widely accepted and the preferred procedure for identifying lymph-node metastasis. SLNB allows focused excision and pathological examination of the most likely axillary lymph nodes to receive tumor metastases while avoiding morbidities associated with complete axillary nodal dissection. Since its introduction in the early 1990s, the process of SLNB has undergone continual modification and refinement; however, the procedure varies between institutions and controversies remain. In this review, we examine the technical issues that influence the success of lymph node mapping, discuss the controversies, and summarize the indications and contraindications for axillary node mapping and biopsy in clinical practice.
    European Journal of Nuclear Medicine 03/2011; 38(3):562-75. · 4.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the use of portfolios is widespread within healthcare education, agreement on their purpose, content, assessment and value is still debated. The objective of this study was to achieve consensus on quality criteria for clinical practice portfolios that would act as guidance for students and lecturers. A Delphi survey was undertaken to seek consensus on the opinions of 23 'expert participants' through a series of rounds of structured questionnaires. The Delphi tool was produced as an on-line survey questionnaire and panel experts were invited to score statements using a discrete 7 point visual analogue scale. The statements were written as quality criteria relating to portfolio development which had been identified from the literature and by the research team. The survey employed three rounds of feedback and consensus was measured as 80% agreement for each quality criteria scoring 5 and above. Consensus was reached on 31 quality criteria which were categorised into 4 areas: structured collection of labelled evidence; nature of evidence; critical reflection; and assessment and judgement. Mean scores for the final wording of the quality criteria ranged from 5.3 to 6.8 with the standard deviation for all of the mean scores being below 1.5. There was consensus that these quality criteria were relevant to health and social care professionals involved in developing clinical practice portfolios. The Delphi process facilitated exchange of ideas amongst panel 'experts' about the content and evaluation of clinical practice portfolios, with most debate relating to judgement of competence and rewarding originality and creativity. These issues illustrate the tensions between educational values and professional constraints. The Delphi process proved to be an effective method for achieving consensus on quality criteria for clinical practice portfolios and enabled the development of validated guidelines.
    Nurse education today 02/2011; 31(8):872-6. · 0.91 Impact Factor