BACKGROUND: The goal of intraoperative sentinel lymph node (SLN) examination is to avoid reoperation for a positive SLN, but the ideal method of intraoperative SLN examination remains unclear, and published results vary widely. METHODS: We evaluated the sensitivity of intraoperative frozen section (FS), touch preparation (TP), and cytological smear (CS) in 305 SLNs from 133 breast cancer patients. Each SLN was received fresh and cut into 2- to 3-mm slices; TP and CS from each cut surface and an FS of the entire SLN were obtained. Postoperative evaluation of the SLN consisted of 1 hematoxylin and eosin-stained section and of one hematoxylin and eosin-stained and one immunohistochemically stained section for cytokeratin from each of two levels 50 microm apart. Tumor cells found by any method, including immunohistochemistry, identified a positive SLN. Three pathologists blinded to the final SLN diagnosis reviewed all TP, CS, and FS; the consensus diagnosis (concordance of two or more) was used for the study. RESULTS: FS, TP, and CS had comparable sensitivities (59%, 57%, and 59%, respectively). Each method was more sensitive in detecting macrometastases (>2 mm; 96%, 93%, and 93%, respectively) than micrometastases (< or =2 mm; 27%, 27%, and 30%, respectively). The combination of methods only marginally improved the intraoperative sensitivity. TP and CS were each responsible for a single false-positive result. CONCLUSIONS: FS, TP, and CS are comparable for the intraoperative detection of SLN metastases, and each method is substantially better at detecting micrometastases than micrometastases. The combination of two or more techniques only marginally improves the sensitivity over that achieved by a single method.
BACKGROUND: The goal of intraoperative sentinel lymph node (SLN) examination is to avoid reoperation for a positive SLN, but the ideal method of intraoperative SLN examination remains unclear, and published results vary widely. METHODS: We evaluated the sensitivity of intraoperative frozen section (FS), touch preparation (TP), and cytological smear (CS) in 305 SLNs from 133 breast cancerpatients. Each SLN was received fresh and cut into 2- to 3-mm slices; TP and CS from each cut surface and an FS of the entire SLN were obtained. Postoperative evaluation of the SLN consisted of 1 hematoxylin and eosin-stained section and of one hematoxylin and eosin-stained and one immunohistochemically stained section for cytokeratin from each of two levels 50 microm apart. Tumor cells found by any method, including immunohistochemistry, identified a positive SLN. Three pathologists blinded to the final SLN diagnosis reviewed all TP, CS, and FS; the consensus diagnosis (concordance of two or more) was used for the study. RESULTS: FS, TP, and CS had comparable sensitivities (59%, 57%, and 59%, respectively). Each method was more sensitive in detecting macrometastases (>2 mm; 96%, 93%, and 93%, respectively) than micrometastases (< or =2 mm; 27%, 27%, and 30%, respectively). The combination of methods only marginally improved the intraoperative sensitivity. TP and CS were each responsible for a single false-positive result. CONCLUSIONS: FS, TP, and CS are comparable for the intraoperative detection of SLN metastases, and each method is substantially better at detecting micrometastases than micrometastases. The combination of two or more techniques only marginally improves the sensitivity over that achieved by a single method.
Authors: Julia Park; Jane V Fey; Arpana M Naik; Patrick I Borgen; Kimberly J Van Zee; Hiram S Cody Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Dayalan Clarke; Edmund Leung; Naresh Chachlani; David Rowlands; Jayanthi Simon; Isabel Hero; David England Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Walter P Weber; Mitchel Barry; Michelle M Stempel; Manuela J Junqueira; Anne A Eaton; Sujata M Patil; Monica Morrow; Hiram S Cody Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sheldon Feldman; Savitri Krishnamurthy; William Gillanders; Mark Gittleman; Peter D Beitsch; Peter R Young; Christian J Streck; Pat W Whitworth; Edward A Levine; Susan Boolbol; Linda K Han; Robert Hermann; Dave S B Hoon; Armando E Giuliano; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-01-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Richard J Bleicher; Martin J O'Sullivan; Vincenzo Ciocca; Robin M Ciocca; L Allen Perkins; Eric Ross; Tianyu Li; Arthur S Patchefsky; Elin R Sigurdson; Natalie E Joseph; Linda Sesa; Monica Morrow Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Mike Visser; Mehdi Jiwa; Anja Horstman; Antoinette A T P Brink; Rene P Pol; Paul van Diest; Peter J F Snijders; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 7.396