BACKGROUND: A standard intra-operative procedure for assessing sentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients has not yet been established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and thirty-eight patients with stage I breast cancer who underwent sentinel node biopsy using both imprint cytology and frozen section were analyzed. RESULTS: Seventeen of the 138 patients had sentinel node involvement. Results of imprint cytology included nine false negative cases (sensitivity, 47.1%). In contrast, only two cases of false negatives were found on frozen section (sensitivity, 88.2%). There were two false positive cases identified by imprint cytology (specificity, 98.3%). On the other hand, frozen section had 100% specificity. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that frozen section is superior to imprint cytology for the intra-operative determination of sentinel lymph node metastasis in stage I breast cancer patients.
BACKGROUND: A standard intra-operative procedure for assessing sentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancerpatients has not yet been established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and thirty-eight patients with stage I breast cancer who underwent sentinel node biopsy using both imprint cytology and frozen section were analyzed. RESULTS: Seventeen of the 138 patients had sentinel node involvement. Results of imprint cytology included nine false negative cases (sensitivity, 47.1%). In contrast, only two cases of false negatives were found on frozen section (sensitivity, 88.2%). There were two false positive cases identified by imprint cytology (specificity, 98.3%). On the other hand, frozen section had 100% specificity. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that frozen section is superior to imprint cytology for the intra-operative determination of sentinel lymph node metastasis in stage I breast cancerpatients.
Authors: Tehillah S Menes; Paul Ian Tartter; Howard Mizrachi; Sharon Rosenbaum Smith; Alison Estabrook Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Antonia D'Errico; Alberto Grassigli; Elisa Gruppioni; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Barbara Corti; Elena Gabusi; Antonio Maria Morselli-Labate; Walter Franco Grigioni Journal: Surgery Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Marjut Hannele Kristiina Leidenius; Leena Anneli Krogerus; Terttu Sinikka Toivonen; Karl Johan Albert Von Smitten Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: M Koizumi; E Nomura; Y Yamada; T Takiguchi; K Tanaka; M Yoshimoto; M Makita; G Sakamoto; F Kasumi; E Ogata Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Janez Zgajnar; Snjezana Frkovic-Grazio; Nikola Besic; Marko Hocevar; Barbara Vidergar-Kralj; Andrej Gerljevic; Ana Pogacnik Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Umberto Veronesi; Giovanni Paganelli; Giuseppe Viale; Alberto Luini; Stefano Zurrida; Viviana Galimberti; Mattia Intra; Paolo Veronesi; Chris Robertson; Patrick Maisonneuve; Giuseppe Renne; Concetta De Cicco; Francesca De Lucia; Roberto Gennari Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-07 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Thalia Petropoulou; Antonia Kapoula; Aikaterini Mastoraki; Aikaterini Politi; Eleni Spanidou-Karvouni; Ioannis Psychogios; Ioannis Vassiliou; Nikolaos Arkadopoulos Journal: Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) Date: 2017-05-05
Authors: Rohanna Ali; Ann M Hanly; Peter Naughton; Constantino F Castineira; Rob Landers; Ronan A Cahill; R Gordon Watson Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2008-06-26 Impact factor: 2.754