A Bembenek1, J Fischer, H Albrecht, E Kemnitz, S Gretschel, U Schneider, S Dresel, P M Schlag. 1. Department of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Robert-Rössle-Klinik at the "HELIOS Klinikum Berlin-Buch", University Medicine Berlin, Charité Campus Buch, Lindenbergerweg 80, Berlin, 13125, Germany. andreas.bembenek@charite.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evidence on which to base guidelines for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer is still limited. In order to facilitate the further implementation of renewed guidelines, we evaluated patient- and disease-specific factors for their impact on the results of SLNB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective data acquisition from patients undergoing surgery for primary invasive breast cancer was performed. All patients underwent SLNB using the radiocolloid or the combined technique. The association of patient- and disease-specific factors to detection rate and false-negative rate was calculated using univariate and multivariate analyses (P < 0.05 considered as significant). Calculation of the false-negative rate was based on patients who underwent a backup axillary dissection. RESULTS: Among 455 consecutively enrolled patients, a significant inverse association to the detection rate was found for extracapsular extension of non-SLN metastases, body mass index (BMI), number of involved lymph nodes, pT category, tumor size, and age. A significant association to the false-negative rate to identify macrometastases was found for pT category, tumor size, and grading. Other factors, such as prior surgery, multicentric tumor growth, or vascular invasion, showed no influence. A cut-point analysis revealed that a tumor size of 2 cm separated the collective of patients with the highest significance in regard to the false-negative rate (9% vs. 25%). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that SLNB can be safely used in elderly and obese patients with multicentric tumors and those having undergone prior surgery for benign breast disease. However, the method should be applied with caution in patients with tumors larger than 2 cm.
BACKGROUND: The evidence on which to base guidelines for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer is still limited. In order to facilitate the further implementation of renewed guidelines, we evaluated patient- and disease-specific factors for their impact on the results of SLNB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective data acquisition from patients undergoing surgery for primary invasive breast cancer was performed. All patients underwent SLNB using the radiocolloid or the combined technique. The association of patient- and disease-specific factors to detection rate and false-negative rate was calculated using univariate and multivariate analyses (P < 0.05 considered as significant). Calculation of the false-negative rate was based on patients who underwent a backup axillary dissection. RESULTS: Among 455 consecutively enrolled patients, a significant inverse association to the detection rate was found for extracapsular extension of non-SLNmetastases, body mass index (BMI), number of involved lymph nodes, pT category, tumor size, and age. A significant association to the false-negative rate to identify macrometastases was found for pT category, tumor size, and grading. Other factors, such as prior surgery, multicentric tumor growth, or vascular invasion, showed no influence. A cut-point analysis revealed that a tumor size of 2 cm separated the collective of patients with the highest significance in regard to the false-negative rate (9% vs. 25%). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that SLNB can be safely used in elderly and obesepatients with multicentric tumors and those having undergone prior surgery for benign breast disease. However, the method should be applied with caution in patients with tumors larger than 2 cm.
Authors: Thorsten Kuehn; Andreas Bembenek; Thomas Decker; Dieter Ludwig Munz; Marie-Luise Sautter-Bihl; Michael Untch; Diethelm Wallwiener Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: S L Wong; C Chao; M J Edwards; 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; K M McMasters Journal: Am Surg Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Sandra L Wong; Michael J Edwards; Celia Chao; Todd M Tuttle; R Dirk Noyes; David J Carlson; Alison L Laidley; Terre Q McGlothin; Philip B Ley; C Matthew Brown; Rebecca L Glaser; Robert E Pennington; Peter S Turk; Diana Simpson; Kelly M McMasters Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: J A Olson; J Fey; J Winawer; P I Borgen; H S Cody; K J Van Zee; J Petrek; A S Heerdt Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 6.113
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
Authors: T Kuehn; F D Vogl; G Helms; S V Pueckler; H Schirrmeister; R Strueber; K Koretz; R Kreienberg Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Julia Krammer; Anja Dutschke; Clemens G Kaiser; Andreas Schnitzer; Axel Gerhardt; Julia C Radosa; Joachim Brade; Stefan O Schoenberg; Klaus Wasser Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240