OBJECTIVE: To evaluate credentialing issues for sentinel lymphatic mapping for breast cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The sentinel lymph node (SLN) is defined as the first lymph node receiving lymphatic drainage from a tumor. The SLN accurately reflects the status of the axillary nodes in patients with early-stage breast cancer, and SLN mapping is gaining widespread acceptance. Few of the many published feasibility studies of lymphatic mapping for breast cancer have adequate numbers to assess credentialing issues for this new procedure. METHODS: Five hundred consecutive SLN biopsies were performed at one institution, over a 20-month period, by eight surgeons, using isosulfan blue dye and technetium-labeled sulfur colloid. The authors reviewed each surgeon's success rate in finding the SLN, and false-negative rate, relative to level of experience with the technique. RESULTS: Lymphatic mapping performed by an experienced surgeon (surgeon A, B, or C) was associated with a higher success rate (94%) than when it was performed by one with less experience (86%). Ten failed mapping procedures occurred in the first 100 cases. For each of the ensuing 100 cases, there were eight, six, six, and four failed mapping procedures, suggesting that increasing experience does not eradicate failed mapping procedures completely. The false-negative rate among 104 patients in whom axillary dissection was planned in advance was 10.6% (5/47). Most false-negative results occurred early in the surgeon's experience: when the first six cases of every surgeon were excluded, the false-negative rate fell to 5.2% (2/38). CONCLUSIONS: With increasing experience, failed SLN localizations and false-negative SLN biopsies occur less often. Combined dye and isotope localization, enhanced histopathology, a backup axillary dissection, and judicious case selection are required to avoid the high false-negative rate of one's early experience.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate credentialing issues for sentinel lymphatic mapping for breast cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The sentinel lymph node (SLN) is defined as the first lymph node receiving lymphatic drainage from a tumor. The SLN accurately reflects the status of the axillary nodes in patients with early-stage breast cancer, and SLN mapping is gaining widespread acceptance. Few of the many published feasibility studies of lymphatic mapping for breast cancer have adequate numbers to assess credentialing issues for this new procedure. METHODS: Five hundred consecutive SLN biopsies were performed at one institution, over a 20-month period, by eight surgeons, using isosulfan blue dye and technetium-labeled sulfur colloid. The authors reviewed each surgeon's success rate in finding the SLN, and false-negative rate, relative to level of experience with the technique. RESULTS: Lymphatic mapping performed by an experienced surgeon (surgeon A, B, or C) was associated with a higher success rate (94%) than when it was performed by one with less experience (86%). Ten failed mapping procedures occurred in the first 100 cases. For each of the ensuing 100 cases, there were eight, six, six, and four failed mapping procedures, suggesting that increasing experience does not eradicate failed mapping procedures completely. The false-negative rate among 104 patients in whom axillary dissection was planned in advance was 10.6% (5/47). Most false-negative results occurred early in the surgeon's experience: when the first six cases of every surgeon were excluded, the false-negative rate fell to 5.2% (2/38). CONCLUSIONS: With increasing experience, failed SLN localizations and false-negative SLN biopsies occur less often. Combined dye and isotope localization, enhanced histopathology, a backup axillary dissection, and judicious case selection are required to avoid the high false-negative rate of one's early experience.
Authors: R Pijpers; S Meijer; O S Hoekstra; G J Collet; E F Comans; R P Boom; P J van Diest; G J Teule Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: U Veronesi; G Paganelli; V Galimberti; G Viale; S Zurrida; M Bedoni; A Costa; C de Cicco; J G Geraghty; A Luini; V Sacchini; P Veronesi Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-06-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: B J O'Hea; A D Hill; A M El-Shirbiny; S D Yeh; P P Rosen; D G Coit; P I Borgen; H S Cody Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: J J Albertini; G H Lyman; C Cox; T Yeatman; L Balducci; N Ku; S Shivers; C Berman; K Wells; D Rapaport; A Shons; J Horton; H Greenberg; S Nicosia; R Clark; A Cantor; D S Reintgen Journal: JAMA Date: 1996-12-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J M Barnwell; M A Arredondo; D Kollmorgen; J F Gibbs; D Lamonica; W Carson; P Zhang; J Winston; S B Edge Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Boon Chua; Ivo A Olivotto; James C Donald; Allen H Hayashi; Noelle Davis; Conrad H Rusnak Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Tina W F Yen; Purushottam W Laud; Liliana E Pezzin; Emily L McGinley; Erica Wozniak; Rodney Sparapani; Ann B Nattinger Journal: Med Care Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Igor Langer; Ulrich Guller; Carsten T Viehl; Holger Moch; Edward Wight; Felix Harder; Daniel Oertli; Markus Zuber Journal: Indian J Surg Oncol Date: 2010-08-07
Authors: Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Fady Khoury-Collado; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Robert A Soslow; Fanny Dao; Yukio Sonoda; Douglas A Levine; Carol L Brown; Dennis S Chi; Richard R Barakat; Mary L Gemignani Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Elizabeth R Berger; Karl Y Bilimoria; Christine V Kinnier; Christina A Minami; Kevin P Bethke; Nora M Hansen; Ryan P Merkow; David P Winchester; Anthony D Yang Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 3.454