AIMS: To evaluate aspects of the current practice of sentinel lymph node (SLN) pathology in breast cancer via a questionnaire based survey, to recognise major issues that the European guidelines for mammography screening should address in the next revision. METHODS: A questionnaire was circulated by mail or electronically by the authors in their respective countries. Replies from pathology units dealing with SLN specimens were evaluated further. RESULTS: Of the 382 respondents, 240 European pathology units were dealing with SLN specimens. Sixty per cent of these units carried out intraoperative assessment, most commonly consisting of frozen sections. Most units slice larger SLNs into pieces and only 12% assess these slices on a single haematoxylin and eosin (HE) stained slide. Seventy one per cent of the units routinely use immunohistochemistry in all cases negative by HE. The terms micrometastasis, submicrometastasis, and isolated tumour cells (ITCs) are used in 93%, 22%, and 71% of units, respectively, but have a rather heterogeneous interpretation. Molecular SLN staging was reported by only 10 units (4%). Most institutions have their own guidelines for SLN processing, but some countries also have well recognised national guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Pathological examination of SLNs throughout Europe varies considerably and is not standardised. The European guidelines should focus on standardising examination. They should recommend techniques that identify metastases > 2 mm as a minimum standard. Uniform reporting of additional findings may also be important, because micrometastases and ITCs may in the future be shown to have clinical relevance.
AIMS: To evaluate aspects of the current practice of sentinel lymph node (SLN) pathology in breast cancer via a questionnaire based survey, to recognise major issues that the European guidelines for mammography screening should address in the next revision. METHODS: A questionnaire was circulated by mail or electronically by the authors in their respective countries. Replies from pathology units dealing with SLN specimens were evaluated further. RESULTS: Of the 382 respondents, 240 European pathology units were dealing with SLN specimens. Sixty per cent of these units carried out intraoperative assessment, most commonly consisting of frozen sections. Most units slice larger SLNs into pieces and only 12% assess these slices on a single haematoxylin and eosin (HE) stained slide. Seventy one per cent of the units routinely use immunohistochemistry in all cases negative by HE. The terms micrometastasis, submicrometastasis, and isolated tumour cells (ITCs) are used in 93%, 22%, and 71% of units, respectively, but have a rather heterogeneous interpretation. Molecular SLN staging was reported by only 10 units (4%). Most institutions have their own guidelines for SLN processing, but some countries also have well recognised national guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Pathological examination of SLNs throughout Europe varies considerably and is not standardised. The European guidelines should focus on standardising examination. They should recommend techniques that identify metastases > 2 mm as a minimum standard. Uniform reporting of additional findings may also be important, because micrometastases and ITCs may in the future be shown to have clinical relevance.
Authors: G Cserni; I Amendoeira; N Apostolikas; J P Bellocq; S Bianchi; G Bussolati; W Boecker; B Borisch; C E Connolly; T Decker; P Dervan; M Drijkoningen; I O Ellis; C W Elston; V Eusebi; D Faverly; P Heikkila; R Holland; H Kerner; J Kulka; J Jacquemier; M Lacerda; J Martinez-Penuela; C De Miguel; J L Peterse; F Rank; P Regitnig; A Reiner; A Sapino; B Sigal-Zafrani; A M Tanous; S Thorstenson; E Zozaya; C A Wells Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Rosa F Hwang; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Kelly K Hunt; Nadeem Mirza; Frederick C Ames; Barry Feig; Henry M Kuerer; S Eva Singletary; Gildy Babiera; Funda Meric; Jeri S Akins; Jessica Neely; Merrick I Ross Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Christian Schem; Nicolai Maass; Dirk O Bauerschlag; Martin H Carstensen; Thomas Löning; Christian Roder; Olivera Batic; Walter Jonat; Katharina Tiemann Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2008-12-20 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Thorsten Heilmann; Micaela Mathiak; Jakob Hofmann; Christoph Mundhenke; Marion van Mackelenbergh; Ibrahim Alkatout; Antonia Wenners; Christel Eckmann-Scholz; Christian Schem Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Eva V E Madsen; Jan van Dalen; Joost van Gorp; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Thijs van Dalen Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: S P Somashekhar; Zahoor Ahmed Naikoo; Shabber S Zaveri; Soumya Holla; Suresh Chandra; Suniti Mishra; R V Parameswaran Journal: Indian J Surg Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 0.656