BACKGROUND: Controversy exists in the literature regarding the optimal site for lymphatic mapping in breast cancer. This study was designed to characterize lymphatic drainage patterns within the same patient after subareolar (SA) and peritumoral (PT) radiopharmaceutical injections and examine the impact of reader interpretation on reported drainage. METHODS: In this prospective trial, 27 women with breast cancer underwent sequential preoperative SA and PT injections of 0.5 to 2.7 mCi of technetium-99 m filtered sulfur colloid 3 days or more apart. Patterns of radiopharmaceutical uptake were reviewed independently by two nuclear medicine physicians. Inter-reader agreement and injection success were assessed in conjunction with observed drainage patterns. RESULTS: There was near perfect inter-reader agreement observed on identification of axillary LN drainage after PT injection (P = 0.0004) and substantial agreement with SA injection (P = 0.0344). SA injection was more likely to drain to only axillary LNs, whereas PT injection appeared more likely to drain to both axillary and extra-axillary LNs, although no statistically significant differences were found. All patients with extra-axillary drainage after PT injection (n = 6 patients) had only axillary drainage after SA injection. Dual drainage was observed for six patients with PT injection and one patient with SA injection. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that radiopharmaceutical injected in the SA location has a high propensity to drain to axillary LNs only. After controlling for patient factors and demonstrating inter-reader agreement, the inability to demonstrate statistically significant differences in drainage based on injection site suggests that lymphatic drainage patterns may be a function of patient and tumor-specific features.
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists in the literature regarding the optimal site for lymphatic mapping in breast cancer. This study was designed to characterize lymphatic drainage patterns within the same patient after subareolar (SA) and peritumoral (PT) radiopharmaceutical injections and examine the impact of reader interpretation on reported drainage. METHODS: In this prospective trial, 27 women with breast cancer underwent sequential preoperative SA and PT injections of 0.5 to 2.7 mCi of technetium-99 m filtered sulfur colloid 3 days or more apart. Patterns of radiopharmaceutical uptake were reviewed independently by two nuclear medicine physicians. Inter-reader agreement and injection success were assessed in conjunction with observed drainage patterns. RESULTS: There was near perfect inter-reader agreement observed on identification of axillary LN drainage after PT injection (P = 0.0004) and substantial agreement with SA injection (P = 0.0344). SA injection was more likely to drain to only axillary LNs, whereas PT injection appeared more likely to drain to both axillary and extra-axillary LNs, although no statistically significant differences were found. All patients with extra-axillary drainage after PT injection (n = 6 patients) had only axillary drainage after SA injection. Dual drainage was observed for six patients with PT injection and one patient with SA injection. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that radiopharmaceutical injected in the SA location has a high propensity to drain to axillary LNs only. After controlling for patient factors and demonstrating inter-reader agreement, the inability to demonstrate statistically significant differences in drainage based on injection site suggests that lymphatic drainage patterns may be a function of patient and tumor-specific features.
Authors: D R Byrd; L K Dunnwald; D A Mankoff; B O Anderson; R E Moe; R S Yeung; E K Schubert; J F Eary Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Virgilio Sacchini; José A Pinotti; Alfredo C S D Barros; Alberto Luini; Alfonso Pluchinotta; Marianne Pinotti; Marcelo G Boratto; Marco D Ricci; Carlos A Ruiz; Antonio C Nisida; Paolo Veronesi; Jean Petit; Paolo Arnone; Fabio Bassi; Joseph J Disa; Carlos A Garcia-Etienne; Patrick I Borgen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2006-09-11 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: A Eroglu; A Mudun; K Berberoglu; O Asoglu; V Ozmen; M Muslumanoglu; Y Bozfakioglu; E Yavuz; S Tuzlali; S Cantez Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 7.794