INTRODUCTION: The clinical impact of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in colon cancer is still controversial. The purpose of this prospective multicenter trial was to evaluate its clinical value to predict the nodal status and identify factors that influence these results. METHODS: Colon cancer patients without prior colorectal surgery or irradiation were eligible. The sentinel lymph node (SLN) was identified intraoperatively by subserosal blue dye injection around the tumor. The SLN underwent step sections and immunohistochemistry (IHC), if classified free of metastases after routine hematoxylin and eosin examination. RESULTS: At least one SLN (median, n = 2) was identified in 268 of 315 enrolled patients (detection rate, 85%). Center experience, lymphovascular invasion, body mass index (BMI), and learning curve were positively associated with the detection rate. The false-negative rate to identify pN+ patients by SLNB was 46% (38 of 82). BMI showed a significant association to the false-negative rate (P < 0.0001), the number of tumor-involved lymph nodes was inversely associated. If only slim patients (BMI < or =24) were investigated in experienced centers (>22 patients enrolled), the sensitivity increased to 88% (14 of 16). Moreover, 21% (30 of 141) of the patients, classified as pN0 by routine histopathology, revealed micrometastases or isolated tumor cells (MM/ITC) in the SLN. CONCLUSIONS: The contribution of SLNB to conventional nodal staging of colon cancer patients is still unspecified. Technical problems have to be resolved before a definite conclusion can be drawn in this regard. However, SLNB identifies about one fourth of stage II patients to reveal MM/ITC in lymph nodes. Further studies must clarify the clinical impact of these findings in terms of prognosis and the indication of adjuvant therapy.
INTRODUCTION: The clinical impact of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in colon cancer is still controversial. The purpose of this prospective multicenter trial was to evaluate its clinical value to predict the nodal status and identify factors that influence these results. METHODS:Colon cancerpatients without prior colorectal surgery or irradiation were eligible. The sentinel lymph node (SLN) was identified intraoperatively by subserosal blue dye injection around the tumor. The SLN underwent step sections and immunohistochemistry (IHC), if classified free of metastases after routine hematoxylin and eosin examination. RESULTS: At least one SLN (median, n = 2) was identified in 268 of 315 enrolled patients (detection rate, 85%). Center experience, lymphovascular invasion, body mass index (BMI), and learning curve were positively associated with the detection rate. The false-negative rate to identify pN+ patients by SLNB was 46% (38 of 82). BMI showed a significant association to the false-negative rate (P < 0.0001), the number of tumor-involved lymph nodes was inversely associated. If only slim patients (BMI < or =24) were investigated in experienced centers (>22 patients enrolled), the sensitivity increased to 88% (14 of 16). Moreover, 21% (30 of 141) of the patients, classified as pN0 by routine histopathology, revealed micrometastases or isolated tumor cells (MM/ITC) in the SLN. CONCLUSIONS: The contribution of SLNB to conventional nodal staging of colon cancerpatients is still unspecified. Technical problems have to be resolved before a definite conclusion can be drawn in this regard. However, SLNB identifies about one fourth of stage II patients to reveal MM/ITC in lymph nodes. Further studies must clarify the clinical impact of these findings in terms of prognosis and the indication of adjuvant therapy.
Authors: R Broll; V Schauer; H Schimmelpenning; M Strik; A Woltmann; R Best; H P Bruch; M Duchrow Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Anton J Bilchik; Dean T Nora; Leslie H Sobin; Roderick R Turner; Steven Trocha; David Krasne; Donald L Morton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A J Bilchik; D Nora; R A E M Tollenaar; C J H van de Velde; T Wood; R Turner; D L Morton; D S B Hoon Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Monica Bertagnolli; Brent Miedema; Mark Redston; Jeannette Dowell; Donna Niedzwiecki; James Fleshman; Jiri Bem; Robert Mayer; Michael Zinner; Carolyn Compton Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Robert Rosenberg; Jan Friederichs; Ralf Gertler; Axel Hoos; James Mueller; Jorg Nahrig; Hjalmar Nekarda; Joerg-Ruediger Siewert Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2004-01-10 Impact factor: 2.571
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: A Carrara; M Motter; D Amabile; L Pellecchia; P Moscatelli; R Pertile; M Barbareschi; N L Decarli; M Ferrari; G Tirone Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Helene Schou Andersen; Astrid Louise Bjørn Bennedsen; Stefan Kobbelgaard Burgdorf; Jens Ravn Eriksen; Susanne Eiholm; Anders Toxværd; Lene Buhl Riis; Jacob Rosenberg; Ismail Gögenur Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Hannes J Larusson; Urs von Holzen; Carsten T Viehl; Farid Rezaeian; Hans-Martin Riehle; Daniel Oertli; Ulrich Guller; Markus Zuber Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2014-04-25 Impact factor: 2.571