R F M Schapers

VieCuri Medical Center Noord-Limburg, Venloo, Limburg, Netherlands

Are you R F M Schapers?

Claim your profile

Publications (6)15.98 Total impact

  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Internationally, there is no consensus on the pathology protocol to be used to examine the sentinel lymph node (SN) in breast cancer patients. Previously, we reported that ultra-staging led to more axillary lymph node dissections (ALND). The question was, whether ultra-staging is effective in reducing the risk of regional relapse. METHODS: From January 2002 to July 2003, 541 patients from 4 hospitals were prospectively registered when they underwent a SN biopsy. In hospitals A, B, and C, 3 levels of the SN were examined pathologically, whereas in hospital D at least 7 additional levels were examined. Patients with a positive SN, including isolated tumor cells, underwent an ALND. This analysis focuses on the 341 patients with a negative SN. Primary endpoint was 5-year regional recurrence rate. RESULTS: In hospital D 34% of the patients had a negative SN as compared to 71% in hospitals A, B, and C combined (p < 0.001). At 5 years follow-up, 9 (2.6%) patients had developed a regional lymph node relapse. In hospital D none of the patients had a regional recurrence, as compared to 9 (2.9%) cases of recurrence in hospitals A, B, and C. CONCLUSION: The less intensified SN pathology protocol appeared to be associated with a slightly increased risk of regional recurrence. The absolute risk was still less than 3%, and does not seem to justify the intensified SN pathology protocol of hospital D.
    European journal of surgical oncology: the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology 02/2013; · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is accepted as a standard surgical staging procedure for determining the tumour status of the regional lymph nodes. Until September 2000 we performed SLNB in general anaesthesia. Since 1999, after validation of the SLNB concept, axillary dissection was omitted in SLN-negative patients. This study presents our data after SLNB under local anaesthesia after a follow-up of at least 5 years. Between September 2000 and May 2003, 356 SLNBs were performed under local anaesthesia without sedation in patients with proven breast cancer (T4-tumours and small in situ carcinomas excluded) and without clinically or ultrasound guided cytological evidence of axillary node involvement. Lymphatic mapping and SLN identification were performed through the combination of blue dye and 99m Tc-nanocolloid. All positive SLNs were followed by an axillary dissection up to level three. SLN-negative patients were followed without axillary clearance. In 353/356 SLNBs at least one sentinel node was found. 254/353 SLNs were tumour free. After a median follow-up of 73 months loco-regional and distant events were encountered in 10/353 SLNBs. Four patients (SLN-negative) showed tumour localization in the residual breast or chest wall (1.1%). Three patients (SLN-negative) presented with supraclavicular metastases (0.8%). In three patients (one SLN-negative and two SLN-positive followed by ALND) an axillary recurrence was encountered (0.8%). This survey confirms the safety of the SLNB under local anaesthesia in selecting patients for axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer.
    European journal of surgical oncology: the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology 10/2008; 35(2):159-63. · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this multi-institutional prospective study, we evaluated whether we could identify risk factors predictive for non-sentinel lymph node (non-SN) metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel lymph node (SN). In this multi-institutional study, 541 eligible breast cancer patients were included prospectively. The occurrence of non-SN metastases was related to the size of the SN metastasis (P = .02), primary tumor size (P = .001), and lymphovascular invasion (P = .07). The adjusted odds ratio was 3.1 for SN micro-metastasis compared with SN isolated tumor cells, 4.0 for SN macro-metastasis versus SN isolated tumor cells, 3.1 for tumor size (>3.0 cm compared with </=3.0 cm), and 2.0 for lymphovascular invasion (yes versus no). There were no positive non-SNs when the primary tumor size was </=1.0 cm (n = 24) [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0%-14.0%]. The proportion of positive non-SNs ranged in a prognostic logistic regression model from 9.7% (95% CI 4.0%-23.0%) for patients with SN isolated tumor cells, tumor size of 1.1-3.0 cm, and without vessel invasion, to 72.6% (95% CI 47.0%-89.0%) for patients with SN macro-metastasis, tumor size >3.0 cm, and with vessel invasion. We identified three predictive factors for non-SN metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive SN: size of the SN metastasis; primary tumor size; and vessel invasion. We were not able to identify a specific group of patients with a positive SN in whom the risk for non-SN metastases was less than 5%.
    Annals of Surgical Oncology 01/2007; 14(1):181-9. · 4.12 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Internationally, there is no consensus on the pathology protocol to be used to examine the sentinel lymph node (SN). At present, therefore, various hospitals use different SN pathology protocols of which the effect has not been fully elucidated. We hypothesized that differences between hospitals in SN pathology protocols affect subsequent surgical treatment strategies. Patients from four hospitals (A-D) were prospectively registered when they underwent an SN biopsy. In hospitals A, B, and C, three levels of the SN were examined pathologically, whereas in hospital D, at least seven additional levels were examined. In the absence of apparent metastases with hematoxylin and eosin examination, immunohistochemical examination was performed in all four hospitals. In total, 541 eligible patients were included. In hospital D, more patients were diagnosed with a positive SN (P < .001) as compared with hospitals A, B, and C, mainly because of increased detection of isolated tumor cells. This led to more completion axillary lymph node dissections in hospital D (66.3% of patients (P < .0001), compared with 29.0% in hospitals A, B, and C combined). Positive non-SNs were detected in 13.9% of patients in hospital D, compared with 9.7% in hospitals A, B, and C (P = .70). That is, in 52.4% of patients in hospital D, a negative completion axillary lymph node dissection was performed, compared with 19.3% of patients in hospitals A, B, and C combined. Differences in SN pathology protocols between hospitals do have a substantial effect on SN findings and subsequent surgical treatment strategies. Whether ultrastaging and, thus, additional surgery can offer better survival remains to be determined.
    Annals of Surgical Oncology 11/2006; 13(11):1466-73. · 4.12 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) may permit reliable identification of patients with axillary node involvement. The aim of this study was to report our experience with this procedure under local anaesthesia. One hundred and sixty-two patients underwent a sentinel node procedure under local anaesthesia without sedation. The SLN was identified by (99m)Tc-nano-colloid and patent blue. Immediate histopathologic examination and immunohistochemistry was performed. Patients with positive SLNs proceded to axillary dissection under general anaesthesia. In all 162 patients the SLN ('s) were found using blue dye and gamma-probe. The SLN was positive in 55/162 patients (34%). Five of these were detected using immunohistochemistry only. A 100% detection rate of sentinel nodes in early breast cancer harvested under local anaesthesia was achieved without serious morbidity. This allows the surgeon to select preoperatively the treatment given to the patient.
    European Journal of Surgical Oncology 06/2003; 29(4):383-5. · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • European Journal of Cancer - EUR J CANCER. 01/2001; 37.