BACKGROUND: A wide range of false-negative rates has been reported for sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy after preoperative chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to determine whether histologic findings in negative SLNs after preoperative chemotherapy are helpful in assessing the accuracy of SLN biopsy in patients with confirmed lymph node-positive disease before treatment. METHODS: Eighty-six patients with confirmed lymph node-positive disease at presentation underwent successful SLN biopsy and axillary dissection after preoperative chemotherapy at a single institution between 1994 and 2007. Available hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections from patients with negative SLNs were reviewed, and associations between histologic findings in the negative SLNs and SLN status (true negative vs false negative) were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-seven (55%) patients had at least 1 positive SLN, and 39 (45%) patients had negative SLNs. The false-negative rate was 22%, and the negative predictive value was 67%. The negative SLNs from 17 of 34 patients with available slides had focal areas of fibrosis, some with associated foamy parenchymal histiocytes, fat necrosis, or calcification. These histologic findings occurred in 15 (65%) of 23 patients with true-negative SLNs and in only 2 (18%) of 11 patients with false-negative SLNs (P = .03, Fisher exact test, 2-tailed). The lack of these histologic changes had a sensitivity and specificity for identifying a false-negative SLN of 82% and 65%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Absence of treatment effect in SLNs after chemotherapy in patients with lymph node-positive disease at initial presentation has good sensitivity but low specificity for identifying a false-negative SLN.
BACKGROUND: A wide range of false-negative rates has been reported for sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy after preoperative chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to determine whether histologic findings in negative SLNs after preoperative chemotherapy are helpful in assessing the accuracy of SLN biopsy in patients with confirmed lymph node-positive disease before treatment. METHODS: Eighty-six patients with confirmed lymph node-positive disease at presentation underwent successful SLN biopsy and axillary dissection after preoperative chemotherapy at a single institution between 1994 and 2007. Available hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections from patients with negative SLNs were reviewed, and associations between histologic findings in the negative SLNs and SLN status (true negative vs false negative) were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-seven (55%) patients had at least 1 positive SLN, and 39 (45%) patients had negative SLNs. The false-negative rate was 22%, and the negative predictive value was 67%. The negative SLNs from 17 of 34 patients with available slides had focal areas of fibrosis, some with associated foamy parenchymal histiocytes, fat necrosis, or calcification. These histologic findings occurred in 15 (65%) of 23 patients with true-negative SLNs and in only 2 (18%) of 11 patients with false-negative SLNs (P = .03, Fisher exact test, 2-tailed). The lack of these histologic changes had a sensitivity and specificity for identifying a false-negative SLN of 82% and 65%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Absence of treatment effect in SLNs after chemotherapy in patients with lymph node-positive disease at initial presentation has good sensitivity but low specificity for identifying a false-negative SLN.
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Edwin R Fisher; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-08-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: U Veronesi; G Paganelli; V Galimberti; G Viale; S Zurrida; M Bedoni; A Costa; C de Cicco; J G Geraghty; A Luini; V Sacchini; P Veronesi Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-06-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: K S Nason; B O Anderson; D R Byrd; L K Dunnwald; J F Eary; D A Mankoff; R Livingston; R A Schmidt; K D Jewell; R S Yeung; R E Moe Journal: Cancer Date: 2000-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alexander R Miller; Virginia E Thomason; I-Tien Yeh; Amin Alrahwan; Francis E Sharkey; Jay Stauffer; Pamela M Otto; Claire McKay; Morton S Kahlenberg; William T Phillips; Anatolio B Cruz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: A Fernández; M Cortés; E Benito; D Azpeitia; L Prieto; A Moreno; Y Ricart; J Mora; A Escobedo; J Martín Comín Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Edwin R Fisher; Jiping Wang; John Bryant; Bernard Fisher; Eletherios Mamounas; Norman Wolmark Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Asif Loya; Merih Guray; Bryan T Hennessy; Lavinia P Middleton; Thomas A Buchholz; Vicente Valero; Aysegul A Sahin Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: S David Nathanson; David Krag; Henry M Kuerer; Lisa A Newman; Markus Brown; Dontscho Kerjaschki; Ethel R Pereira; Timothy P Padera Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Catherine L Akay; Constance Albarracin; Tiffany Torstenson; Roland Bassett; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Min Yi; Henry M Kuerer; Gildy V Babiera; Isabelle Bedrosian; Kelly K Hunt; Rosa F Hwang Journal: Breast J Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Anne Grabenstetter; Tracy-Ann Moo; Sabina Hajiyeva; Peter J Schüffler; Pallavi Khattar; Maria A Friedlander; Maura A McCormack; Monica Raiss; Emily C Zabor; Andrea Barrio; Monica Morrow; Marcia Edelweiss Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 6.394