Gaurav Agarwal1, Sendhil Rajan2, Sanjay Gambhir3, Punita Lal4, Narendra Krishnani5, Subhash Kheruka3. 1. Department of Endocrine & Breast Surgery, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS), Raebareli Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226014, India. gaurav@sgpgi.ac.in. 2. Department of Endocrine & Breast Surgery, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS), Raebareli Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226014, India. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. 5. Department of Pathology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for staging N0 primary early breast cancers (EBC). Patients in developing countries mostly present with large (LOBC) or locally advanced cancers (LABC) and are treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Accuracy of SLNB in staging stage III N0 and post-NACT N0 patients is uncertain. This prospective validation study on LOBC/LABC patients compared the accuracy of SLNB between primary versus post-NACT surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty T3/T4, N0 patients undergoing primary surgery (Group I) and 70 LOBC/LABC (index stage) treated with NACT and N0 at the time of surgery (Group II) were inducted. Validation SLNB was performed using low-cost methylene-blue and (99m)Tc-Antimony colloid. SLN identification (IR) and false-negative (FNR) rates were compared between the groups. Sub-group analysis was done in Group II per index tumor and nodal stage to identify factors predicting SLN IR and FNR in post-NACT patients. SLN IR and FNR in both groups were compared with those in previously published SLN validation study and meta-analysis in EBC. RESULTS: Using combination of blue-dye and radio-colloid, post-NACT SLN IR and FNR (82.9, 13.5 %) were far inferior to T3/T4 primary surgery group (94, 7.7 %; p values 0.034, 0.041) and in EBC. SLN IR using blue-dye alone was dismally low in post-NACT LABCs. Factors predicting unidentified post-NACT SLN and false-negative SLNB included young age, LVI, skin infiltration, extra-nodal spread or N2a stage, and UOQ tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy of SLNB in T3, N0 tumors undergoing primary surgery is comparable to that of SLNB for N0 EBC. In post-NACT patients, SLNB IR are lower and FNR are higher. Factors predictive of non-identification and false-negative SLNB include pre-NACT skin involvement (T4b), N2a stage or extra-nodal invasion and LVI, and to a lesser extent, young age and UOQ location of the tumor.
INTRODUCTION: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for staging N0 primary early breast cancers (EBC). Patients in developing countries mostly present with large (LOBC) or locally advanced cancers (LABC) and are treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Accuracy of SLNB in staging stage III N0 and post-NACT N0 patients is uncertain. This prospective validation study on LOBC/LABC patients compared the accuracy of SLNB between primary versus post-NACT surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty T3/T4, N0 patients undergoing primary surgery (Group I) and 70 LOBC/LABC (index stage) treated with NACT and N0 at the time of surgery (Group II) were inducted. Validation SLNB was performed using low-cost methylene-blue and (99m)Tc-Antimony colloid. SLN identification (IR) and false-negative (FNR) rates were compared between the groups. Sub-group analysis was done in Group II per index tumor and nodal stage to identify factors predicting SLN IR and FNR in post-NACTpatients. SLN IR and FNR in both groups were compared with those in previously published SLN validation study and meta-analysis in EBC. RESULTS: Using combination of blue-dye and radio-colloid, post-NACTSLN IR and FNR (82.9, 13.5 %) were far inferior to T3/T4 primary surgery group (94, 7.7 %; p values 0.034, 0.041) and in EBC. SLN IR using blue-dye alone was dismally low in post-NACT LABCs. Factors predicting unidentified post-NACTSLN and false-negative SLNB included young age, LVI, skin infiltration, extra-nodal spread or N2a stage, and UOQ tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy of SLNB in T3, N0 tumors undergoing primary surgery is comparable to that of SLNB for N0 EBC. In post-NACTpatients, SLNB IR are lower and FNR are higher. Factors predictive of non-identification and false-negative SLNB include pre-NACT skin involvement (T4b), N2a stage or extra-nodal invasion and LVI, and to a lesser extent, young age and UOQ location of the tumor.
Authors: S L Wong; C Chao; M J Edwards; T M Tuttle; R D Noyes; D J Carlson; A L Laidley; T Q McGlothin; P B Ley; C M Brown; R L Glaser; R E Pennington; P S Turk; D Simpson; K M McMasters Journal: Am Surg Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: P L Fitzgibbons; D L Page; D Weaver; A D Thor; D C Allred; G M Clark; S G Ruby; F O'Malley; J F Simpson; J L Connolly; D F Hayes; S B Edge; A Lichter; S J Schnitt Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: I Bedrosian; C Reynolds; R Mick; L S Callans; C S Grant; J H Donohue; D R Farley; R Heller; E Conant; S G Orel; T Lawton; D L Fraker; B J Czerniecki Journal: Cancer Date: 2000-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Gaurav Agarwal; Pooja Ramakant; Ernesto R Sánchez Forgach; Jorge Carrasco Rendón; Juan Manuel Chaparro; Carlos Sánchez Basurto; Marko Margaritoni Journal: World J Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Vera J Suman; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Bret Taback; A Marilyn Leitch; Henry M Kuerer; Monet Bowling; Teresa S Flippo-Morton; David R Byrd; David W Ollila; Thomas B Julian; Sarah A McLaughlin; Linda McCall; W Fraser Symmans; Huong T Le-Petross; Bruce G Haffty; Thomas A Buchholz; Heidi Nelson; Kelly K Hunt Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stanley P L Leong; Zhen-Zhou Shen; Tse-Jia Liu; Gaurav Agarwal; Tomoo Tajima; Nam-Sun Paik; Kerstin Sandelin; Anna Derossis; Hiram Cody; William D Foulkes Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.352