T J A van Nijnatten1, R J Schipper2, M B I Lobbes3, P J Nelemans4, R G H Beets-Tan5, M L Smidt6. 1. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands; GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Thiemovn@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands; GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands; GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands; GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant systemic therapy in pathologically confirmed node positive breast cancer patients. METHODS: Pubmed and Embase databases were searched until June 19th, 2015. All abstracts were read and data extraction was performed by two independent readers. A random-effects model was used to pool the proportion for identification rate, false-negative rate (FNR) and axillary pCR with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses affirmed potential confounders for identification rate and FNR. RESULTS: A total of 997 abstracts were identified and eventually eight studies were included. Pooled estimates were 92.3% (90.8-93.7%) for identification rate, 15.1% (12.7-17.6%) for FNR and 36.8% (34.2-39.5%) for axillary pCR. After subgroup analysis, FNR is significantly worse if one sentinel node was removed compared to two or more sentinel nodes (23.9% versus 10.4%, p = 0.026) and if studies contained clinically nodal stage 1-3, compared to studies with clinically nodal stage 1-2 patients (21.4 versus 13.1%, p = 0.049). Other factors, including single tracer mapping and the definition of axillary pCR, were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence it seems not justified to omit further axillary treatment in every clinically node positive breast cancer patients with a negative sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant systemic therapy.
PURPOSE: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant systemic therapy in pathologically confirmed node positive breast cancerpatients. METHODS: Pubmed and Embase databases were searched until June 19th, 2015. All abstracts were read and data extraction was performed by two independent readers. A random-effects model was used to pool the proportion for identification rate, false-negative rate (FNR) and axillary pCR with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses affirmed potential confounders for identification rate and FNR. RESULTS: A total of 997 abstracts were identified and eventually eight studies were included. Pooled estimates were 92.3% (90.8-93.7%) for identification rate, 15.1% (12.7-17.6%) for FNR and 36.8% (34.2-39.5%) for axillary pCR. After subgroup analysis, FNR is significantly worse if one sentinel node was removed compared to two or more sentinel nodes (23.9% versus 10.4%, p = 0.026) and if studies contained clinically nodal stage 1-3, compared to studies with clinically nodal stage 1-2 patients (21.4 versus 13.1%, p = 0.049). Other factors, including single tracer mapping and the definition of axillary pCR, were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence it seems not justified to omit further axillary treatment in every clinically node positive breast cancerpatients with a negative sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant systemic therapy.
Authors: Thorsten Kühn; Jean-Marc Classe; Oreste David Gentilini; Corrado Tinterri; Florentia Peintinger; Jana de Boniface Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: María Martínez; Sara Jiménez; Florentina Guzmán; Marta Fernández; Elena Arizaga; Consuelo Sanz Journal: Breast J Date: 2022-07-09 Impact factor: 2.269
Authors: T J A van Nijnatten; J M Simons; M Moossdorff; L de Munck; M B I Lobbes; C C van der Pol; L B Koppert; E J T Luiten; M L Smidt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Linda Holmstrand Zetterlund; Jan Frisell; Athanasios Zouzos; Rimma Axelsson; Thomas Hatschek; Jana de Boniface; Fuat Celebioglu Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Seho Park; Ja Seung Koo; Gun Min Kim; Joohyuk Sohn; Seung Il Kim; Young Up Cho; Byeong-Woo Park; Vivian Youngjean Park; Jung Hyun Yoon; Hee Jung Moon; Min Jung Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 4.679