| Literature DB >> 27117158 |
Andreas Karakatsanis1, Peer Michael Christiansen2, Lone Fischer2, Christina Hedin3, Lida Pistioli3, Malin Sund4, Nils Ryegaard Rasmussen5, Hjørdis Jørnsgård5, Daniel Tegnelius6, Staffan Eriksson7, Kosmas Daskalakis8, Fredrik Wärnberg8, Christos J Markopoulos9, Leif Bergkvist10.
Abstract
The aim of the study is to compare the efficacy of SPIO as a tracer in sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in breast cancer with Tc and patent blue in a multicentre prospective study and perform a meta-analysis of all published studies. It also aims to follow skin discoloration after SPIO injection and describe when and how it resolves. Totally 206 patients with early breast cancer were recruited. Tc and patent blue were administered in standard fashion. Patients were injected with SPIO (Sienna+) preoperatively. SNB was performed and detection rates were recorded for both methods. Skin discoloration was followed and documented postoperatively. Data extraction and subsequent meta-analysis of all previous studies were also performed. SN detection rates were similar between standard technique succeeded and SPIO both per patient (97.1 vs. 97.6 %, p = 0.76) as well as per node (91.3 vs. 93.3 %, p = 0.34), something which was not affected by the presence of malignancy. Concordance rates were also consistently high (98.0 % per patient and 95.9 % per node). Discoloring was present in 35.5 % of patients postoperatively, almost exclusively in breast conservation. It fades slowly and is still detectable in 8.6 % of patients after 15 months. Meta-analysis depicted similar detection rates (p = 0.71) and concordance rates (p = 0.82) per patient. However, it seems that SPIO is characterized by higher nodal retrieval (p < 0.001). SPIO is an effective method for the detection of SN in patients with breast cancer. It is comparable to the standard technique and seems to simplify logistics. Potential skin discoloration is something of consideration in patients planned for breast conservation.Entities:
Keywords: Breast cancer; Sentinel node; Super paramagnetic iron oxide
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27117158 PMCID: PMC4875068 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-016-3809-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat ISSN: 0167-6806 Impact factor: 4.872
Fig. 1PRISMA flow chart for the conduct of the meta-analysis
Evaluation of the studies included in the meta-analysis according to the revised MINORS criteria Scoring
| Douek et al. [ | Thill et al. [ | Rubio et al. [ | Pinero-Madrona et al. [ | Ghilli et al. [ | Houpeau et al. [ | Nordic study | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A clearly stated aim | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Inclusion of consecutive patientsa | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Prospective collection of data | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Unbiased assessment of the study endpointb | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Follow-up period appropriate to the aim | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Loss to follow up less than 5 %c | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Prospective calculation of the study size | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| An adequate control group | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Contemporary groups | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Baseline equivalence of groups | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Adequate statistical analyses | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Total | 23 | 22 | 24 | 23 | 24 | 23 | 24 |
Not reported:0, Reported but inadequate:1, Reported and adequate:2
aNo exclusion or details about the reasons for exclusion
bIf not blind, it has to be explained
cIf important for primary endpoint
Patient characteristics
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| Menopausal status | ||
| Premenopausal | 30 | 14.6 |
| Postmenopausal | 140 | 68.0 |
| Perimenopausal | 6 | 2.9 |
| Not assessed | 30 | 14.6 |
| Type of surgery | ||
| Mastectomy | 52 | 25.2 |
| Breast conserving surgery | 154 | 74.8 |
| pT | ||
| Tis | 10 | 4.9 |
| T1 | 126 | 61.1 |
| T2 | 56 | 27.2 |
| T3 | 7 | 3.4 |
| Not assessed | 7 | 3.4 |
| pN | ||
| N0 | 152 | 73.8 |
| N1mi | 20 | 9.7 |
| N1 | 27 | 13.1 |
| N2 | 6 | 2.9 |
| N3 | 1 | 0.5 |
| Not assessed | 0 | 0.0 |
| Grade | ||
| G1 | 37 | 18.0 |
| G2 | 74 | 35.9 |
| G3 | 32 | 15.5 |
| Not assessed | 62 | 30.1 |
| Ki67 % | ||
| >15 % | 106 | 51.5 |
| <15 % | 60 | 29.1 |
| =15 % | 18 | 8.7 |
| Not assessed | 22 | 10.7 |
Per patient figures from the studies used in the meta-analysis. nd: not defined, na: not applicable
| Study (Ref.) | Total cases | Fail SN | Successful standard technique | Successful SPIO technique | Both techniques successful | Malignant cases | Malignant cases detected by standard technique | Malignant cases detected by SPIO technique | Malignant cases detected by both techniques | Malignant cases in which both techniques failed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Douek et al. [ | 160 | 3 | 152 | 151 | 146 | 39 | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| Thill et al. [ | 150 | 2 | 146 | 147 | 145 | 34 | 31 | 33 | 31 | 2 |
| Rubio et al. [ | 120 | 2 | 113 | 116 | 111 | 36 | 33 | 34 | 32 | 1 |
| Pineiro et al. [ | 181 | 3 | 178 | 177 | 177 | 60 | 53 | 55 | 52 | 4 |
| Ghilli et al. [ | 197 | nd | 195 | 193 | 187 | 57 | 56 | 55 | 54 | 1 |
| Houpeau et al. [ | 108 | 2 | 103 | 105 | 102 | 46 | 44 | 45 | 43 | 1 |
| Nordic study | 206 | 1 | 200 | 201 | 196 | 54 | 53 | 52 | 52 | 1 |
Rates per patient from the studies used in the meta-analysis. nd: not defined, na: not applicable
| Study (Ref.) | Fail SLN rate (95 %CI) | Standard technique detection rate (95 %CI) | SPIO detection rate (95 %CI) | Rate difference [p-value] | Malignancy rate (95 %CI) | Malignant cases detected by standard technique | Malignant cases detected by SPIO technique | Rate difference for malignant cases [p-value] | Malignant cases detected by both techniques | Malignant cases in which both techniques failed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Douek et al. [ | 1.9 (0.5, 5.8) | 95.0 (90.1, 97.7) | 94.4 (89.3, 97.2) | 0.6 [1] | 24.4 (18.1,31.9) | na | na | na | na | na |
| Thill et al. [ | 1.3 (0.2, 5.2) | 97.3 (92.9, 99.1) | 98.0 (93.8, 99.5) | 1.0 [1] | 22.7 (16.4,30.4) | 20.7 (14.7, 28.2) | 22.0 (15.8, 29.6) | 1.3 [0.89] | 20.7 (14.7, 28.2) | 1.3 (0.02, 5.2) |
| Rubio et al. [ | 1.7 (0.3,6.5) | 94.2 (87.9, 97.4) | 96.7 (91.2, 98.9) | 2.5 [0.54] | 30.0 (22.2, 39.2) | 27.5 (19.9, 36.5) | 28.3 (20.7, 37.4) | 0.5 [1] | 26.7 (19.2, 35.7) | 0.8 (0.04, 5.2) |
| Pineiro et al. [ | 1.7 (0.4, 5.2) | 98.3 (94.8, 99.6) | 97.8 (94.1, 99.3) | 0.5 [1] | 33.2 (26.5, 40.6) | 29.3 (22.9, 36.6) | 30.4 (23.9, 37.7) | 1.1 [0.9] | 28.7 (22.4, 36) | 2.2 (0.7, 5.9) |
| Ghilli et al. [ | na | 99.0 (95.8, 99.8) | 98.0 (94.5, 99.4) | 1.0 [0.69] | 28.9 (22.8, 36) | 28.4 (22.4, 35.4) | 27.9 (21.9, 34.8) | 0.5 [0.9] | 27.4 (21.4, 34.3) | 0.5 (0.03, 3.2) |
| Hopeau et al. [ | 1.9 (0.3, 7.2) | 95.4 (89.5, 98.5) | 97.2 (92.1, 99.4) | 1.8 [0.72] | 42.6 (33.2, 52.5) | 40.7 (31.5, 50.6) | 41.7 (32.4, 51.6) | 1.0 [1] | 39.8 (30.6, 49.7) | 0.9 (0.05, 5) |
| Nordic study | 0.5 (0.03, 3.1) | 97.1 (93.5, 98.8) | 97.6 (94.11, 99.10) | 0.5 [1] | 26.2 (20.5, 32.9) | 25.7 (20, 32.4) | 25.2 (19.6, 31.8) | 0.5 [1] | 25.2 (19.6, 31.8) | 0.5 (0.03,3.1) |
The denominator is always the total of patients per study. 95 % CI: 95 % confidence intervals using the Wilson procedure with a correction for continuity. Rate differences are given as|Standard-SPIO|. Fisher’s exact test is performed and 2-tailed p values are given. p values <0.05 are considered significant
Per node figures from the studies used in the meta-analysis. nd: not defined, na: not applicable
| Study (Ref.) | Total nodes | Successful standard technique | Successful SPIO technique | Both techniques successful | Both techniques failed | Malignant nodes | Malignant nodes detected by standard technique | Malignant nodes detected by SPIO | Malignant nodes detected by both techniques | Malignant nodes in which both techniques failed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Douek et al. [ | 404 | 297 | 323 | 268 | 52 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| Thill et al. [ | 291 | 267 | 283 | 263 | nd | 45 | 41 | 43 | 41 | 4 |
| Rubio et al. [ | 287 | 230 | 264 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| Pineiro et al. [ | 321 | 277 | 292 | 260 | 12 | 76 | 67 | 69 | 65 | 5 |
| Ghilli et al. [ | 380 | 360 | 364 | 344 | nd | 77 | 72 | 73 | 68 | 5 |
| Hopeau et al. [ | 214 | 193 | 208 | 188 | 1 | 61 | 54 | 60 | 53 | 1 |
| Nordic study | 403 | 368 | 376 | 353 | 12 | 68 | 63 | 62 | 60 | 2 |
Rates per node from the studies used in the meta-analysis. nd: not defined, na: not applicable
| Study (Ref.) | Fail SLN rate with both techniques (95 %CI) | Standard technique detection rate (95 %CI) | SPIO detection rate (95 %CI) | Rate difference [p-value] | Malignancy rate (95 %CI) | Malignant nodes detected by standard technique | Malignant nodes detected by SPIO technique | Rate difference for malignant nodes [p/value] | Malignant nodes detected by both techniques | Malignant nodes in which both techniques failed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Douek et al. [ | 12.9 (9.8, 16.6) | 73.5 (68.9, 77.7) | 80.0 (75.7, 83.6) | 6.5 [ | na | na | na | na | na | na |
| Thill et al. [ | na | 91.8 (87.8, 94.5) | 97.3 (94.5, 97.7) | 5.5 [0.1] | 15.5 (11.6, 20.3) | 14.1 (10.4, 18.6) | 14.8 (11, 19.5) | 0.7 [0.9] | 14.1 (10.4, 18.6) | 1.4 (0.4, 3.7) |
| Rubio et al. [ | na | 80.1 (75, 84.5) | 92 (88, 94.8) | 11.6 [ | na | na | na | na | na | nd |
| Pineiro et al. [ | 3.7 (2, 6.6) | 86.3 (81.9, 89.8) | 91 (87.2, 93.8) | 4.7 [0.08] | 23.8 (19.2, 28.8) | 20.3 (16.1, 25.2) | 21.5 (17.2, 26.5) | 0.6 [0.9] | 20.3 (16.1, 25.2) | 1.6 (0.6, 3.8) |
| Ghilli et al. [ | nd | 94.7 (91.9, 96.7) | 95.8 (93.1,97.5) | 1.1 [0.6] | 20.3 (16.4, 24.7) | 19 (15.2, 23.3) | 19.2 (15.4, 23.6) | 0.2 [1] | 17.9 (14.2, 22.2) | nd |
| Hopeau et al. [ | 0.5 (0.03,3.4) | 90.2 (85.2, 93,7) | 97.2 (93.7, 98.9) | 7 [ | 28.5 (22.7, 35.1) | 25.2 (19.7, 31.7) | 28 (22.2, 34.7) | 2.8 [0.58] | 24.8 (19.3, 31.2) | 0.5 (0.03,3.4) |
| Nordic study | 3 (1.6, 5.3) | 91.3 (88,93.8) | 93.3 (90.3, 95.5) | 2 [0.35] | 16.9 (13.4, 21) | 15.6 (12.3, 19.6) | 15.4 (12.1, 19.4) | 0.2 [1] | 13.2 (10.1, 16.9) | 0.5 (0.1, 2) |
The denominator is always the total of nodes per study. 95 % CI: 95 % confidence intervals using the Wilson procedure with a correction for continuity. Rate differences are given as|Standard-SPIO|. Fisher’s exact test and p values are given. p values <0.05 are considered significant
Fig. 2Discoloration in the follow-up cohort; size and the colour of the spheres represent the medians of the discoloured surface in cm2 in the discoloured proportion of the cohort and the fading, respectively
Fig. 3Forest plot comparing detection rates per patient
Fig. 4Forest plot comparing detection rates per node
Fig. 5Forest plot comparing detection rates per patient in the presence of malignancy
Fig. 6Forest plot comparing detection rates per node in the presence of malignancy
Concordance and reverse concordance rates per study are presented as linears with 95 %CI
| Study (Ref.) | Concordance (95 % CI) | Reverse concordance (95 % CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Douek et al. [ | 96.0 (91.2, 98,4) | 96.7 (92, 98.8) |
| Thill et al. [ | 99.3 (95.7, 99.9) | 98.6 (94.7, 99.8) |
| Rubio et al. [ | 98.2 (93.1, 99.7) | 95.7 (89.7, 98.4) |
| Pineiro et al. [ | 99.4 (96.4, 99.9) | 100 (97.4,100) |
| Ghilli et al. [ | 95.9 (91.8, 98.1) | 96.9 (93, 98.7) |
| Hopeau et al. [ | 99.0 (93.9, 100) | 97.1 (91.8, 99.4) |
| Nordic study | 98.0 (94.6, 99.4) | 97.5 (94, 99) |
|
| ||
|
| ||
Fig. 7Forest plot comparing concordance versus reverse concordance per patient
Fig. 8Forest plot comparing concordance versus reverse concordance per node
Fig. 9Forest plot comparing concordance versus reverse concordance per patient in the presence of malignancy
Fig. 10Forest plot comparing concordance versus reverse concordance per node in the presence of malignancy