BACKGROUND: Although sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is widely accepted as a minimally invasive method of nodal staging, failure to identify an SLN mandates a level I/II axillary node dissection. The purpose of this study was to elucidate factors that independently predict failure to identify an SLN. METHODS: Using a large multicenter prospective study of SLN biopsy for patients with invasive breast cancer, we performed univariate and multivariate regression analyses to determine clinicopathologic factors predictive of failure to identify an SLN. RESULTS: Of the total 4131 patients in the study, an SLN was not identified in 249 (6.0%). Tumor location (P = .409), biopsy type (P = .079), surgery type (P = .380), and histologic subtype (P = .999) were not significant predictors of failure to identify an SLN. On multivariate analysis, age greater than 60 years (OR = 1.469; 95% CI, 1.116-1.934, P = .006), nonpalpable tumors (OR = 0.639; 95% CI, 0.479-0.852, P = .002), injection technique with blue dye alone (OR = 0.389, 95% CI, 0.259-5.86, P < .001), and surgical experience of less than 10 SLN biopsy cases (OR = 1.886; 1.428-2.492, P < .001) were significant independent predictors of failure to identify an SLN. Optimal SLN biopsy technique using an intradermal and/or subareolar injection of radioactive colloid and blue dye can improve SLN identification rates regardless of patient and tumor characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Patient age and tumor palpability significantly affect the ability to identify an SLN in patients with breast cancer. Optimal injection technique can significantly improve sentinel node identification rate regardless of these factors.
BACKGROUND: Although sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is widely accepted as a minimally invasive method of nodal staging, failure to identify an SLN mandates a level I/II axillary node dissection. The purpose of this study was to elucidate factors that independently predict failure to identify an SLN. METHODS: Using a large multicenter prospective study of SLN biopsy for patients with invasive breast cancer, we performed univariate and multivariate regression analyses to determine clinicopathologic factors predictive of failure to identify an SLN. RESULTS: Of the total 4131 patients in the study, an SLN was not identified in 249 (6.0%). Tumor location (P = .409), biopsy type (P = .079), surgery type (P = .380), and histologic subtype (P = .999) were not significant predictors of failure to identify an SLN. On multivariate analysis, age greater than 60 years (OR = 1.469; 95% CI, 1.116-1.934, P = .006), nonpalpable tumors (OR = 0.639; 95% CI, 0.479-0.852, P = .002), injection technique with blue dye alone (OR = 0.389, 95% CI, 0.259-5.86, P < .001), and surgical experience of less than 10 SLN biopsy cases (OR = 1.886; 1.428-2.492, P < .001) were significant independent predictors of failure to identify an SLN. Optimal SLN biopsy technique using an intradermal and/or subareolar injection of radioactive colloid and blue dye can improve SLN identification rates regardless of patient and tumor characteristics. CONCLUSIONS:Patient age and tumor palpability significantly affect the ability to identify an SLN in patients with breast cancer. Optimal injection technique can significantly improve sentinel node identification rate regardless of these factors.
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
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Vera J Suman; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Bret Taback; A Marilyn Leitch; Teresa S Flippo-Morton; Henry M Kuerer; Monet Bowling; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Andrea Papadia; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Alessandro Buda; Michael D Mueller Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 4.553
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: Joost J Pouw; Maarten R Grootendorst; Roland Bezooijen; Caroline A H Klazen; Wieger I De Bruin; Joost M Klaase; Margaret A Hall-Craggs; Michael Douek; Bennie Ten Haken Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 3.039
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
Authors: Anne M Wallace; Carl K Hoh; Karl K Limmer; Denise D Darrah; Gery Schulteis; David R Vera Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: S van Esser; M Hobbelink; J W Van Isselt; W P Th M Mali; I H M Borel Rinkes; R van Hillegersberg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 9.236