PURPOSE: In breast cancer staging, the need for intraoperative sentinel lymph node (SLN) evaluation has still not been adequately established. This study investigates the impact of intraoperative frozen section (FS) evaluation of SLN to avoid subsequent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in patients with positive SLN. METHODS: A retrospective review of 364 breast cancer patients undergoing SLN biopsy with intraoperative FS evaluation of SLN was performed. RESULTS: Sensitivity and accuracy of FS examination of SLN were 76.4% and 94.2%, respectively. The sensitivity was significantly higher in larger tumors (p < 0.01). No significant correlation was found between FS and histologic type. A second intervention was avoided in 83.9% of the patients with positive SLN. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative FS examination of the SLN is a useful predictor of axillary lymph node status in breast cancer patients. The majority of SLN-positive patients allows for immediate ALND in a one-stage surgical procedure.
PURPOSE: In breast cancer staging, the need for intraoperative sentinel lymph node (SLN) evaluation has still not been adequately established. This study investigates the impact of intraoperative frozen section (FS) evaluation of SLN to avoid subsequent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in patients with positive SLN. METHODS: A retrospective review of 364 breast cancerpatients undergoing SLN biopsy with intraoperative FS evaluation of SLN was performed. RESULTS: Sensitivity and accuracy of FS examination of SLN were 76.4% and 94.2%, respectively. The sensitivity was significantly higher in larger tumors (p < 0.01). No significant correlation was found between FS and histologic type. A second intervention was avoided in 83.9% of the patients with positive SLN. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative FS examination of the SLN is a useful predictor of axillary lymph node status in breast cancerpatients. The majority of SLN-positive patients allows for immediate ALND in a one-stage surgical procedure.
Authors: Charles Cox; Barbara Centeno; Dan Dickson; John Clark; Santo Nicosia; Elisabeth Dupont; Harvey Greenberg; Nicholas Stowell; Laura White; Jayesh Patel; Ben Furman; Alan Cantor; Ardeshir Hakam; Nazeel Ahmad; Nils Diaz; Jeff King Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-02-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Giuseppe Viale; Patrizia Dell'Orto; Maria O Biasi; Viviana Stufano; Luciana N De Brito Lima; Giovanni Paganelli; Patrick Maisonneuve; Janet M Vargo; George Green; Wuxiong Cao; Ailsa Swijter; Giovanni Mazzarol Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sarah A McLaughlin; Lisa M Ochoa-Frongia; Sujata M Patil; Hiram S Cody; Lisa M Sclafani Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Kathryn Spanknebel; Daniel G Coit; Samuel C Bieligk; Mithat Gonen; Juan Rosai; David S Klimstra Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Andrew J Creager; Kim R Geisinger; Stephen A Shiver; Nancy D Perrier; Perry Shen; Jo Ann Shaw; Peter R Young; Edward A Levine Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Igor Langer; Walter Richard Marti; Ulrich Guller; Holger Moch; Felix Harder; Daniel Oertli; Markus Zuber Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sharon Wing-wai Chan; Katherine A LaVigne; Elisa R Port; Jane V Fey; Edi Brogi; Patrick I Borgen; Hiram S Cody Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Maaike de Boer; Carolien H M van Deurzen; Jos A A M van Dijck; George F Borm; Paul J van Diest; Eddy M M Adang; Johan W R Nortier; Emiel J T Rutgers; Caroline Seynaeve; Marian B E Menke-Pluymers; Peter Bult; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-13 Impact factor: 91.245