BACKGROUND: Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy is without doubt a valid method for the detection of the sentinel lymph node (SLN). There has been considerable debate regarding the optimal site for the introduction of the tracer; various sites include peritumoral (PT), periareolar (PA), subdermal, and intradermal injection. PURPOSE: To evaluate retrospectively the lymphoscintigraphic identification rate of peritumoral (PT) injection versus subdermal periareolar (PA) injection in the detection of SLNs in breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between October 2002 and December 2011, a cohort of 906 consecutive patients with biopsy proven breast cancer underwent 914 SLN biopsy procedures. A total of 339 procedures (Group A) were performed using a PT deep injection of radiotracer while 575 procedures (Group B) adopted a subdermal PA injection of radiotracer towards the upper outer quadrant, regardless of the site of the carcinoma. All the patients underwent synchronous excision of the breast cancer and SLN biopsy. RESULTS: SLNs were identified in the lymphoscintigram in 308/339 cases (90.85%) of Group A (PT injection) and in 537/575 cases (93.39%) of Group B (PA injection). Furthermore, in 2/339 patients (0.58%) of Group A, internal mammary lymph nodes were found at lymphoscintigraphy, whereas no internal mammary sentinel nodes were found in the Group B patients. The intraoperative identification rate of axillary SLNs was 99.41% (337 of 339) in the Group A patients and 99.65% (573 of 575) in the Group B patients. There was no significant difference in the two groups between the incidence of the number of SLNs detected and the incidence of identification of positive SLNs. CONCLUSION: PT versus PA injection of radiotracer showed comparable success rates for axillary SLN identification, and can be considered a rapid and reliable method.
BACKGROUND: Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy is without doubt a valid method for the detection of the sentinel lymph node (SLN). There has been considerable debate regarding the optimal site for the introduction of the tracer; various sites include peritumoral (PT), periareolar (PA), subdermal, and intradermal injection. PURPOSE: To evaluate retrospectively the lymphoscintigraphic identification rate of peritumoral (PT) injection versus subdermal periareolar (PA) injection in the detection of SLNs in breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between October 2002 and December 2011, a cohort of 906 consecutive patients with biopsy proven breast cancer underwent 914 SLN biopsy procedures. A total of 339 procedures (Group A) were performed using a PT deep injection of radiotracer while 575 procedures (Group B) adopted a subdermal PA injection of radiotracer towards the upper outer quadrant, regardless of the site of the carcinoma. All the patients underwent synchronous excision of the breast cancer and SLN biopsy. RESULTS: SLNs were identified in the lymphoscintigram in 308/339 cases (90.85%) of Group A (PT injection) and in 537/575 cases (93.39%) of Group B (PA injection). Furthermore, in 2/339 patients (0.58%) of Group A, internal mammary lymph nodes were found at lymphoscintigraphy, whereas no internal mammary sentinel nodes were found in the Group B patients. The intraoperative identification rate of axillary SLNs was 99.41% (337 of 339) in the Group A patients and 99.65% (573 of 575) in the Group B patients. There was no significant difference in the two groups between the incidence of the number of SLNs detected and the incidence of identification of positive SLNs. CONCLUSION: PT versus PA injection of radiotracer showed comparable success rates for axillary SLN identification, and can be considered a rapid and reliable method.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; lymphoscintigraphy; peritumoral; radio-colloid; sentinel lymph node biopsy; sub areolar
Authors: Anita Mamtani; Andrea V Barrio; Tari A King; Kimberly J Van Zee; George Plitas; Melissa Pilewskie; Mahmoud El-Tamer; Mary L Gemignani; Alexandra S Heerdt; Lisa M Sclafani; Virgilio Sacchini; Hiram S Cody; Sujata Patil; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Joost J Pouw; Maarten R Grootendorst; Roland Bezooijen; Caroline A H Klazen; Wieger I De Bruin; Joost M Klaase; Margaret A Hall-Craggs; Michael Douek; Bennie Ten Haken Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Julia Krammer; Anja Dutschke; Clemens G Kaiser; Andreas Schnitzer; Axel Gerhardt; Julia C Radosa; Joachim Brade; Stefan O Schoenberg; Klaus Wasser Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nadja Taumberger; Birgit Pernthaler; Thomas Schwarz; Vesna Bjelic-Radisic; Gunda Pristauz; Reingard M Aigner; Karl Tamussino Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 2.860