SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have suggested a variety of factors that may affect the false negative (FN) rate for sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in breast cancer. Because FN results are relatively rare, no prior studies have had sufficient sample size to allow detailed statistical analysis of factors predicting FN results. METHODS: Patients with clinical stage T1-2, N0 invasive breast cancer were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter study. All patients underwent SLN biopsy, followed by planned completion axillary dissection regardless of the SLN results, to assess the FN rate. SLN biopsy was performed using radioactive colloid injection in combination with isosulfan blue dye in 94% of cases. Dermal, subdermal, peritumoral, or subareolar radioactive colloid injection techniques were used at the discretion of each institution. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with a FN result. RESULTS: SLNs were identified in 3870 of 4117 patients (94%). There were 1243 true positive, 2521 true negative, and 106 FN results. Age, histologic subtype, the number of non-SLN removed, tumor palpability, type of breast biopsy, and SLN injection technique were not significant factors. On multivariate analysis, tumor size <2.5 cm, upper outer quadrant tumor location, removal of only a single SLN, minimal surgeon experience, presence of a single positive axillary LN, and use of immunohistochemistry (IHC) for SLN analysis were independently associated with an increased risk of FN results. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon experience, tumor size and location, and the number of SLN removed are preoperative and intraoperative factors that independently predict the risk of a FN result. In contrast to suggestions from other smaller studies, age does not affect the likelihood of a FN result; a lesser, rather than greater, number of positive axillary nodes was associated with an increased likelihood of a FN result; and IHC analysis of the SLN increases, rather than decreases, the risk of FN results.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have suggested a variety of factors that may affect the false negative (FN) rate for sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in breast cancer. Because FN results are relatively rare, no prior studies have had sufficient sample size to allow detailed statistical analysis of factors predicting FN results. METHODS:Patients with clinical stage T1-2, N0 invasive breast cancer were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter study. All patients underwent SLN biopsy, followed by planned completion axillary dissection regardless of the SLN results, to assess the FN rate. SLN biopsy was performed using radioactive colloid injection in combination with isosulfan blue dye in 94% of cases. Dermal, subdermal, peritumoral, or subareolar radioactive colloid injection techniques were used at the discretion of each institution. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with a FN result. RESULTS: SLNs were identified in 3870 of 4117 patients (94%). There were 1243 true positive, 2521 true negative, and 106 FN results. Age, histologic subtype, the number of non-SLN removed, tumor palpability, type of breast biopsy, and SLN injection technique were not significant factors. On multivariate analysis, tumor size <2.5 cm, upper outer quadrant tumor location, removal of only a single SLN, minimal surgeon experience, presence of a single positive axillary LN, and use of immunohistochemistry (IHC) for SLN analysis were independently associated with an increased risk of FN results. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon experience, tumor size and location, and the number of SLN removed are preoperative and intraoperative factors that independently predict the risk of a FN result. In contrast to suggestions from other smaller studies, age does not affect the likelihood of a FN result; a lesser, rather than greater, number of positive axillary nodes was associated with an increased likelihood of a FN result; and IHC analysis of the SLN increases, rather than decreases, the risk of FN results.
Authors: James W Jakub; Nils M Diaz; Mark D Ebert; Alan Cantor; Douglas S Reintgen; Elisabeth L Dupont; Alan R Shons; Charles E Cox Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.565
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: K M McMasters; S L Wong; R C Martin; C Chao; T M Tuttle; R D Noyes; D J Carlson; A L Laidley; T Q McGlothin; P B Ley; C M Brown; R L Glaser; R E Pennington; P S Turk; D Simpson; P B Cerrito; M J Edwards Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: A E Giuliano; P I Haigh; M B Brennan; N M Hansen; M C Kelley; W Ye; E C Glass; R R Turner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K M McMasters; T M Tuttle; D J Carlson; C M Brown; R D Noyes; R L Glaser; D J Vennekotter; P S Turk; P S Tate; A Sardi; P B Cerrito; M J Edwards Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M E Hammond; P L Fitzgibbons; C C Compton; D J Grignon; D L Page; L P Fielding; D Bostwick; T F Pajak Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: I Bedrosian; C Reynolds; R Mick; L S Callans; C S Grant; J H Donohue; D R Farley; R Heller; E Conant; S G Orel; T Lawton; D L Fraker; B J Czerniecki Journal: Cancer Date: 2000-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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: 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: Montserrat Solà; Mireia Recaj; Eva Castellà; Pere Puig; Josep Maria Gubern; Juan Francisco Julian; Manel Fraile Journal: J Breast Health Date: 2016-04-01
Authors: Stephen P Povoski; Ryan L Neff; Cathy M Mojzisik; David M O'Malley; George H Hinkle; Nathan C Hall; Douglas A Murrey; Michael V Knopp; Edward W Martin Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Habib Rahbar; Jane L Conlin; Sana Parsian; Wendy B DeMartini; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 3.173