PURPOSE: Identification of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) for small mammary tumours (cT1N0) sometimes leads to detection of internal mammary chain (IMC) drainage. This information is often ignored by physicians. The present study sought to determine the frequency with which an internal mammary SLN was identified by peritumoral injection of radioactive tracer, and then to determine the patients in whom identification of an internal mammary SLN could have an impact on the radiation treatment plan. MATERIALS: Between March 2002 and March 2008, 622 SLN biopsies performed in a cohort of 608 patients were analysed. Technetium-labelled nanocolloids were administered via three peritumoral injections, completed by a deep prepectoral injection, with the entire procedure performed under echographic guidance. RESULTS: The SLN was identified in 607 of the 622 patients, including 174 (28.7%) in the IMC. A total of 161 successful internal mammary biopsies were performed. Of the 622 patients, 18 showed SLN involvement in the IMC. In 7 of these patients, only the internal mammary SLN was affected. Prophylactic irradiation of the IMC was indicated in 376 patients, but only in 18 (4.8%) of these patients was there effectively IMC involvement; internal mammary SLN biopsy failed in 7 patients (1.9%). CONCLUSION: SLN detection by peritumoral injection, combined with the systematic removal of the internal mammary SLN, enabled the involvement of this region to be found in a nonnegligible number of patients. Such information should make it possible to personalize treatment for patients with stage cT1 mammary cancer and thereby avoid needless internal mammary radiation therapy in a large number of patients (93.4% in our study).
PURPOSE: Identification of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) for small mammary tumours (cT1N0) sometimes leads to detection of internal mammary chain (IMC) drainage. This information is often ignored by physicians. The present study sought to determine the frequency with which an internal mammary SLN was identified by peritumoral injection of radioactive tracer, and then to determine the patients in whom identification of an internal mammary SLN could have an impact on the radiation treatment plan. MATERIALS: Between March 2002 and March 2008, 622 SLN biopsies performed in a cohort of 608 patients were analysed. Technetium-labelled nanocolloids were administered via three peritumoral injections, completed by a deep prepectoral injection, with the entire procedure performed under echographic guidance. RESULTS: The SLN was identified in 607 of the 622 patients, including 174 (28.7%) in the IMC. A total of 161 successful internal mammary biopsies were performed. Of the 622 patients, 18 showed SLN involvement in the IMC. In 7 of these patients, only the internal mammary SLN was affected. Prophylactic irradiation of the IMC was indicated in 376 patients, but only in 18 (4.8%) of these patients was there effectively IMC involvement; internal mammary SLN biopsy failed in 7 patients (1.9%). CONCLUSION: SLN detection by peritumoral injection, combined with the systematic removal of the internal mammary SLN, enabled the involvement of this region to be found in a nonnegligible number of patients. Such information should make it possible to personalize treatment for patients with stage cT1 mammary cancer and thereby avoid needless internal mammary radiation therapy in a large number of patients (93.4% in our study).
Authors: G Paganelli; V Galimberti; G Trifirò; L Travaini; C De Cicco; G Mazzarol; M Intra; P Rocca; G Prisco; U Veronesi Journal: Q J Nucl Med Date: 2002-06
Authors: Iris M C van der Ploeg; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Omgo E Nieweg; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Bin B R Kroon; Cornelis A Hoefnagel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-10-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Anne Fleissig; Lesley J Fallowfield; Carolyn I Langridge; Leigh Johnson; Robert G Newcombe; J Michael Dixon; Mark Kissin; Robert E Mansel Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2005-09-15 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anthony Lucci; Linda Mackie McCall; Peter D Beitsch; Patrick W Whitworth; Douglas S Reintgen; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukumal Saha; Kelly K Hunt; Armando E Giuliano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R F Uren; R B Howman-Giles; J F Thompson; D Malouf; G Ramsey-Stewart; F W Niesche; S B Renwick Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J Serrano-Vicente; J I Rayo-Madrid; M L Domínguez-Grande; J R Infante-Torre; L García-Bernardo; M Moreno-Caballero; F Medina-Romero; C Durán-Barquero Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Francesco Giammarile; Naomi Alazraki; John N Aarsvold; Riccardo A Audisio; Edwin Glass; Sandra F Grant; Jolanta Kunikowska; Marjut Leidenius; Valeria M Moncayo; Roger F Uren; Wim J G Oyen; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Sergi Vidal Sicart Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: E L Postma; S van Wieringen; M G Hobbelink; H M Verkooijen; H J G D van den Bongard; I H M Borel Rinkes; A J Witkamp Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-06-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Stijn van Esser; Eva V E Madsen; Thijs van Dalen; Ron Koelemij; Peter S N van Rossum; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Richard van Hillegersberg; Arjen J Witkamp Journal: World J Surg Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Min Young Koo; Se Kyung Lee; Soo Youn Bae; Min-Young Choi; Dong Hui Cho; Sangmin Kim; Jeong Eon Lee; Seok Jin Nam; Jung-Hyun Yang Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 3.588
Authors: Alfredo Carlos S D Barros; Lincon Jo Mori; Dolores Nishimura; Alfredo L Jacomo Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-04-30 Impact factor: 2.754