BACKGROUND: Among the advocates of blue dye, isotope, or combined dye-isotope mapping of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) for breast cancer, there is no universal consensus as to which technique is optimal and whether the relative value of each method changes with increasing experience. The objective of this study was to examine the relative contributions of blue dye and radioisotope to successful identification of the SLN as the SLN-mapping technique evolved over our first 2,000 consecutive cases. STUDY DESIGN: Using the first 2,000 consecutive SLN biopsy procedures for breast cancer, performed by eight surgeons (none previously experienced in SLN techniques) at one institution, using a combined technique of blue dye and isotope mapping, we report the institutional learning curve and the relative contributions of dye and isotope to identifying both the SLN and the positive SLN, by increments of 500 cases. RESULTS: Comparing the first 500 with the most recent 500 cases, success in identifying the SLN by blue dye did not improve with experience, although success in isotope localization steadily increased, from 86% to 94% (p < 0.00005). With the increasing success of isotope mapping, the marginal benefit of blue dye (the proportion of cases in which the SLN was identified by blue dye alone) steadily declined, from 9% to 3% (p = 0.0001). Parallel to this trend, the proportion of positive SLNs identified by blue dye did not change with experience (89% to 90%), but isotope success steadily increased, from 88% to 98% (p = 0.0015). The proportion of positive SLNs identified by blue dye alone declined from 12% to 2% (p = 0.0015). CONCLUSIONS: Using a combined technique of blue dye and radioisotope mapping, and with refinement of the radioisotope technique, we report 97% success identifying the SLN. Although we continue to recommend the use of both methods in SLN mapping for breast cancer, we observe with experience a declining marginal benefit for blue dye.
BACKGROUND: Among the advocates of blue dye, isotope, or combined dye-isotope mapping of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) for breast cancer, there is no universal consensus as to which technique is optimal and whether the relative value of each method changes with increasing experience. The objective of this study was to examine the relative contributions of blue dye and radioisotope to successful identification of the SLN as the SLN-mapping technique evolved over our first 2,000 consecutive cases. STUDY DESIGN: Using the first 2,000 consecutive SLN biopsy procedures for breast cancer, performed by eight surgeons (none previously experienced in SLN techniques) at one institution, using a combined technique of blue dye and isotope mapping, we report the institutional learning curve and the relative contributions of dye and isotope to identifying both the SLN and the positive SLN, by increments of 500 cases. RESULTS: Comparing the first 500 with the most recent 500 cases, success in identifying the SLN by blue dye did not improve with experience, although success in isotope localization steadily increased, from 86% to 94% (p < 0.00005). With the increasing success of isotope mapping, the marginal benefit of blue dye (the proportion of cases in which the SLN was identified by blue dye alone) steadily declined, from 9% to 3% (p = 0.0001). Parallel to this trend, the proportion of positive SLNs identified by blue dye did not change with experience (89% to 90%), but isotope success steadily increased, from 88% to 98% (p = 0.0015). The proportion of positive SLNs identified by blue dye alone declined from 12% to 2% (p = 0.0015). CONCLUSIONS: Using a combined technique of blue dye and radioisotope mapping, and with refinement of the radioisotope technique, we report 97% success identifying the SLN. Although we continue to recommend the use of both methods in SLN mapping for breast cancer, we observe with experience a declining marginal benefit for blue dye.
Authors: A Sanjuàn; S Vidal-Sicart; G Zanón; J Pahisa; M Velasco; P L Fernández; G Santamaría; B Farrús; M Muñoz; J Albanell; F Pons; J A Vanrell Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-03-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mohammed Keshtgar; John J Zaknun; Durre Sabih; Graciela Lago; Charles E Cox; Stanley P L Leong; Giuliano Mariani Journal: World J Surg Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Taewoo Kang; Min Yi; Kelly K Hunt; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gildy V Babiera; Henry Kuerer; Isabelle Bedrosian; Rosa F Hwang; Anthony Lucci; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-09-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Roland Reitsamer; Florentia Peintinger; Lukas Rettenbacher; Eva Prokop; Felix Sedlmayer Journal: World J Surg Date: 2003-10-28 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Iris M C van der Ploeg; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Bin B R Kroon; Emiel J T Rutgers; Omgo E Nieweg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-08-20 Impact factor: 9.236