INTRODUCTION: The timing of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) of breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting is still controversial. We retrospectively analyzed a Chinese patient cohort with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) to evaluate the accuracy and axilla sparing potentials of different SLNB timings with methylene blue alone for lymphatic mapping. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with NAC and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and either pre- or post-NAC SLNB were eligible. Clinicopathological characteristics, identification rate (IR), false-negative rate (FNR), accuracy, and positive-predictive value were calculated and compared between the pre- and post-NAC SLNB group using appropriate statistical methods. Axilla sparing potentials of different SLNB timings were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen eligible cases were included, and 58 had pre-NAC SLNB while the other 57 had post-NAC SLNB. Both groups were comparable in clinicopathological characteristics, neoadjuvant treatments and pathologic complete response rate. IR, FNR, and accuracy of SLNB, as pre-NAC versus post-NAC, were 100 versus 98.2 % (P = 0.496), 0 versus 8.0 % (P = 0.181), and 100 versus 96.4 % (P = 0.239), respectively. Post-NAC SLNB had significantly higher positive-predictive value for ALNs than pre-NAC SLNB (70.0 vs. 36.4 %, P = 0.014), suggesting as high as 63.6 % of ALND performed in the pre-NAC group could have been avoided while only 30 % of ALND in the post-NAC group were theoretically unnecessary. CONCLUSIONS: Both SLNB timings of breast cancer patients with NAC were feasible and accurate. Although pre-NAC SLNB tends to be better in accuracy, post-NAC SLNB is significantly superior in terms of axilla sparing.
INTRODUCTION: The timing of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) of breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting is still controversial. We retrospectively analyzed a Chinese patient cohort with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) to evaluate the accuracy and axilla sparing potentials of different SLNB timings with methylene blue alone for lymphatic mapping. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with NAC and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and either pre- or post-NAC SLNB were eligible. Clinicopathological characteristics, identification rate (IR), false-negative rate (FNR), accuracy, and positive-predictive value were calculated and compared between the pre- and post-NAC SLNB group using appropriate statistical methods. Axilla sparing potentials of different SLNB timings were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen eligible cases were included, and 58 had pre-NAC SLNB while the other 57 had post-NAC SLNB. Both groups were comparable in clinicopathological characteristics, neoadjuvant treatments and pathologic complete response rate. IR, FNR, and accuracy of SLNB, as pre-NAC versus post-NAC, were 100 versus 98.2 % (P = 0.496), 0 versus 8.0 % (P = 0.181), and 100 versus 96.4 % (P = 0.239), respectively. Post-NAC SLNB had significantly higher positive-predictive value for ALNs than pre-NAC SLNB (70.0 vs. 36.4 %, P = 0.014), suggesting as high as 63.6 % of ALND performed in the pre-NAC group could have been avoided while only 30 % of ALND in the post-NAC group were theoretically unnecessary. CONCLUSIONS: Both SLNB timings of breast cancerpatients with NAC were feasible and accurate. Although pre-NAC SLNB tends to be better in accuracy, post-NAC SLNB is significantly superior in terms of axilla sparing.
Authors: H M Kuerer; A A Sahin; K K Hunt; L A Newman; T M Breslin; F C Ames; M I Ross; A U Buzdar; G N Hortobagyi; S E Singletary Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Harry D Bear; Stewart Anderson; Roy E Smith; Charles E Geyer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Bernard Fisher; Ann M Brown; Andre Robidoux; Richard Margolese; Morton S Kahlenberg; Soonmyung Paik; Atilla Soran; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-04-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kandice E Kilbride; M Catherine Lee; Alexis V Nees; Vincent M Cimmino; Kathleen M Diehl; Michael S Sabel; Daniel F Hayes; Anne F Schott; Celina G Kleer; Alfred E Chang; Lisa A Newman Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-09-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Christoph Tausch; Peter Konstantiniuk; Franz Kugler; Roland Reitsamer; Sebastian Roka; Sabine Pöstlberger; Anton Haid Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Stephane Zervoudis; George Iatrakis; Eirini Tomara; Anastasia Bothou; George Papadopoulos; George Tsakiris Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-10
Authors: Alejandro Martin Sanchez; Daniela Terribile; Antonio Franco; Annamaria Martullo; Armando Orlandi; Stefano Magno; Alba Di Leone; Francesca Moschella; Maria Natale; Sabatino D'Archi; Lorenzo Scardina; Elena J Mason; Flavia De Lauretis; Fabio Marazzi; Riccardo Masetti; Gianluca Franceschini Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-03-02