Literature DB >> 15838690

Impact of axillary nodal metastases on lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node identification rate in patients with early stage breast cancer.

Ettore Pelosi1, Ada Ala, Marilena Bellò, Anastasios Douroukas, Giuseppe Migliaretti, Ester Berardengo, Teresio Varetto, Riccardo Bussone, Gianni Bisi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to define the impact of the presence of axillary nodal metastases on lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node (SLN) identification rate in patients with early breast cancer.
METHODS: Two hundred and forty-six lymphatic mapping procedures were performed with both labelled nanocolloid and blue dye, followed by SLN biopsy and/or complete axillary dissection. The following parameters were recorded: patient's age, tumour laterality and location, tumour size, tumour histology, tumour stage, tumour grade, lymphovascular invasion, radiotracer injection site (subdermal-peritumoural/peri-areolar), SLN visualisation at lymphoscintigraphy, SLN metastases (presence/absence, size) and other axillary metastases (presence/absence, number). Discriminant analysis was used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: SLNs were identified by labelled nanocolloid alone in 94.7% of tumours, by blue dye alone in 93.5% and by the combined technique in 99.2%. Discriminant analysis showed the gamma probe SLN identification rate to be significantly limited by the presence of axillary nodal metastases. In particular, the size of SLN metastases and the number of other axillary metastases were the most important variables in reducing the gamma probe SLN identification rate (p = 0.004 and p = 0.002, respectively). On the other hand, high tumour grade was the only parameter limiting the blue dye SLN identification rate.
CONCLUSION: The accuracy of lymphatic mapping with labelled nanocolloid is limited by the presence of axillary nodal metastases, and particularly by the degree of SLN tumoural invasion and the presence and number of other axillary nodal metastases. Neither of these elements seems to interfere with the blue dye identification rate. The combination of the two tracers maximises the SLN identification rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15838690     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-005-1797-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  24 in total

1.  Lessons learned from 500 cases of lymphatic mapping for breast cancer.

Authors:  A D Hill; K N Tran; T Akhurst; H Yeung; S D Yeh; P P Rosen; P I Borgen; H S Cody
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  C E Cox; S S Bass; C R McCann; N N Ku; C Berman; K Durand; M Bolano; J Wang; E Peltz; S Cox; C Salud; D S Reintgen; G H Lyman
Journal:  Annu Rev Med       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 13.739

3.  The hidden sentinel node in breast cancer.

Authors:  P J Tanis; J W van Sandick; O E Nieweg; R A Valdés Olmos; E J T Rutgers; C A Hoefnagel; B B R Kroon
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Sentinel lymph node mapping in breast cancer using subareolar injection of blue dye.

Authors:  K A Kern
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 6.113

5.  Meta-analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer.

Authors:  D M Miltenburg; C Miller; T B Karamlou; F C Brunicardi
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  1999-06-15       Impact factor: 2.192

6.  Sentinel-node biopsy to avoid axillary dissection in breast cancer with clinically negative lymph-nodes.

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

7.  Subareolar versus peritumoral injection for location of the sentinel lymph node.

Authors:  V S Klimberg; I T Rubio; R Henry; C Cowan; M Colvert; S Korourian
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Age and body mass index may increase the chance of failure in sentinel lymph node biopsy for women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Charles E Cox; Elisabeth Dupont; George F Whitehead; Mark D Ebert; Keoni Nguyen; Eric S Peltz; Darian Peckham; Alan Cantor; Douglas S Reintgen
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.431

9.  Axillary dissection after unsuccessful sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer.

Authors:  J M Guenther
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 0.688

10.  Sentinel lymph node detection in patients with early-stage breast cancer: comparison of periareolar and subdermal/peritumoral injection techniques.

Authors:  Ettore Pelosi; Marilena Bellò; Monica Giors; Ada Ala; Roberto Giani; Riccardo Bussone; Gianni Bisi
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  9 in total

1.  The influence of wire localisation for non-palpable breast lesions on visualisation of the sentinel node.

Authors:  J E Jansen; J Bekker; M J de Haas; F A van der Weel; G H M Verberne; L M Budel; L G B A Quekel; J M H de Klerk
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-06-28       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Results of preoperative lymphoscintigraphy for breast cancer are predictive of identification of axillary sentinel lymph nodes.

Authors:  Frédéric Marchal; Philippe Rauch; Olivier Morel; Jean Claude Mayer; Pierre Olivier; Agnès Leroux; Jean Luc Verhaeghe; François Guillemin
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Quantum dot-NanoLuc bioluminescence resonance energy transfer enables tumor imaging and lymph node mapping in vivo.

Authors:  Anyanee Kamkaew; Haiyan Sun; Christopher G England; Liang Cheng; Zhuang Liu; Weibo Cai
Journal:  Chem Commun (Camb)       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 6.222

4.  Impact of patient- and disease-specific factors on SLNB in breast cancer patients. Are current guidelines justified?

Authors:  A Bembenek; J Fischer; H Albrecht; E Kemnitz; S Gretschel; U Schneider; S Dresel; P M Schlag
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  In vivo imaging of sentinel nodes using fluorescent silica nanoparticles in living mice.

Authors:  Yong Hyun Jeon; Young-Hwa Kim; Kihwan Choi; Jing Yu Piao; Bo Quan; Yun-Sang Lee; Jae Min Jeong; June-Key Chung; Dong Soo Lee; Myung Chul Lee; Jaetae Lee; Doo Soo Chung; Keon Wook Kang
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 3.488

6.  Sentinel node identification rate and nodal involvement in the EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial.

Authors:  Marieke E Straver; Philip Meijnen; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Robert E Mansel; Jan Bogaerts; Nicole Duez; Luigi Cataliotti; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Helen A Westenberg; Huub van der Mijle; Marko Snoj; Coen Hurkmans; Emiel J T Rutgers
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-03-19       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and triangulated patient body marking are important parts of the sentinel node process in breast cancer.

Authors:  Borys R Krynyckyi; Suk Chul Kim; Chun K Kim
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2005-08-24       Impact factor: 2.754

8.  The sentinel node in breast cancer: an update.

Authors:  Conor D Collins
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2005-11-23       Impact factor: 3.909

Review 9.  The sentinel node in breast cancer.

Authors:  Conor D Collins
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2008-10-04       Impact factor: 3.909

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.