BACKGROUND: Controversy exists in sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping in breast cancer regarding the appropriate number of nodes to remove and the best technique for identification of the SLNs. METHODS: A retrospective chart review from January of 1999 to January of 2004 was performed for all patients undergoing a SLN biopsy examination who had at least 1 positive SLN. RESULTS: We identified 167 patients. A mean of 4.4 SLNs were removed per patient. All of the positive SLNs were identified by node 6. Radiotracer used alone identified 19 positive nodes (11.4%) and blue dye used alone identified 14 positive nodes (8.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that 100% of positive SLNs are found by 6 nodes removed, thereby supporting the concept that the SLN dissection may not be complete by removing only 1 or 2 nodes or only the hottest node. The use of blue dye or radiotracer alone can contribute to the overall false-negative rate.
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists in sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping in breast cancer regarding the appropriate number of nodes to remove and the best technique for identification of the SLNs. METHODS: A retrospective chart review from January of 1999 to January of 2004 was performed for all patients undergoing a SLN biopsy examination who had at least 1 positive SLN. RESULTS: We identified 167 patients. A mean of 4.4 SLNs were removed per patient. All of the positive SLNs were identified by node 6. Radiotracer used alone identified 19 positive nodes (11.4%) and blue dye used alone identified 14 positive nodes (8.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that 100% of positive SLNs are found by 6 nodes removed, thereby supporting the concept that the SLN dissection may not be complete by removing only 1 or 2 nodes or only the hottest node. The use of blue dye or radiotracer alone can contribute to the overall false-negative rate.
Authors: Maria Luisa Gasparri; Donatella Caserta; Pierluigi Benedetti Panici; Andrea Papadia; Michael D Mueller Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 4.553
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: Min Yi; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Merrick I Ross; Jeri S Akins; Rosa F Hwang; Anthony Lucci; Henry M Kuerer; Gildy V Babiera; Michael Z Gilcrease; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrea Papadia; Sara Imboden; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Franziska Siegenthaler; Anja Fink; Michael D Mueller Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-18 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Eun Jeong Ban; Jun Sang Lee; Ja Seung Koo; Seho Park; Seung Il Kim; Byeong-Woo Park Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2011-12-27 Impact factor: 3.588
Authors: Stephen P Povoski; Donn C Young; Michael J Walker; William E Carson; Lisa D Yee; Doreen M Agnese; William B Farrar Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2007-02-09 Impact factor: 2.754