Aoife Maguire, Edi Brogi1. 1. From the Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
CONTEXT: -Sentinel lymph node biopsy has been established as the new standard of care for axillary staging in most patients with invasive breast carcinoma. Historically, all patients with a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy result underwent axillary lymph node dissection. Recent trials show that axillary lymph node dissection can be safely omitted in women with clinically node negative, T1 or T2 invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery and whole-breast radiotherapy. This change in practice also has implications on the pathologic examination and reporting of sentinel lymph nodes. OBJECTIVE: -To review recent clinical and pathologic studies of sentinel lymph nodes and explore how these findings influence the pathologic evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes. DATA SOURCES: -Sources were published articles from peer-reviewed journals in PubMed (US National Library of Medicine) and published guidelines from the American Joint Committee on Cancer, the Union for International Cancer Control, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. CONCLUSIONS: -The main goal of sentinel lymph node examination should be to detect all macrometastases (>2 mm). Grossly sectioning sentinel lymph nodes at 2-mm intervals and evaluation of one hematoxylin-eosin-stained section from each block is the preferred method of pathologic evaluation. Axillary lymph node dissection can be safely omitted in clinically node-negative patients with negative sentinel lymph nodes, as well as in a selected group of patients with limited sentinel lymph node involvement. The pathologic features of the primary carcinoma and its sentinel lymph node metastases contribute to estimate the extent of non-sentinel lymph node involvement. This information is important to decide on further axillary treatment.
CONTEXT: -Sentinel lymph node biopsy has been established as the new standard of care for axillary staging in most patients with invasive breast carcinoma. Historically, all patients with a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy result underwent axillary lymph node dissection. Recent trials show that axillary lymph node dissection can be safely omitted in women with clinically node negative, T1 or T2 invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery and whole-breast radiotherapy. This change in practice also has implications on the pathologic examination and reporting of sentinel lymph nodes. OBJECTIVE: -To review recent clinical and pathologic studies of sentinel lymph nodes and explore how these findings influence the pathologic evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes. DATA SOURCES: -Sources were published articles from peer-reviewed journals in PubMed (US National Library of Medicine) and published guidelines from the American Joint Committee on Cancer, the Union for International Cancer Control, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. CONCLUSIONS: -The main goal of sentinel lymph node examination should be to detect all macrometastases (>2 mm). Grossly sectioning sentinel lymph nodes at 2-mm intervals and evaluation of one hematoxylin-eosin-stained section from each block is the preferred method of pathologic evaluation. Axillary lymph node dissection can be safely omitted in clinically node-negative patients with negative sentinel lymph nodes, as well as in a selected group of patients with limited sentinel lymph node involvement. The pathologic features of the primary carcinoma and its sentinel lymph node metastases contribute to estimate the extent of non-sentinel lymph node involvement. This information is important to decide on further axillary treatment.
Authors: Donald L Weaver; Uyen Phuong Le; Stacey L Dupuis; Katherine A E Weaver; Seth P Harlow; Takamaru Ashikaga; David N Krag Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Donald L Weaver; Takamaru Ashikaga; David N Krag; Joan M Skelly; Stewart J Anderson; Seth P Harlow; Thomas B Julian; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G Houvenaeghel; C Nos; S Giard; H Mignotte; B Esterni; J Jacquemier; M Buttarelli; J-M Classe; M Cohen; P Rouanet; F Penault Llorca; P Bonnier; F Marchal; J-R Garbay; J Fraisse; P Martel; E Fondrinier; C Tunon de Lara; J-F Rodier Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2008-11-28 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Min Yi; Henry M Kuerer; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Rosa F Hwang; Abigail S Caudle; Isabelle Bedrosian; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Jamie L Wagner; Kelly K Hunt Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-11-02 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: J A Bucci; C W Kennedy; J Burn; D J Gillett; H L Carmalt; M J Donnellan; M G Joseph; S C Pendlebury Journal: Breast Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Fabian Riedel; Jörg Heil; Manuel Feißt; Mahdi Rezai; Mareike Moderow; Christof Sohn; Florian Schütz; Michael Golatta; André Hennigs Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Martha J Griffin; Fred M Baik; Margaret Brandwein-Weber; Muhammad Qazi; Lauren E Yue; Marcela Osorio; Mark L Urken Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Anne Grabenstetter; Tracy-Ann Moo; Sabina Hajiyeva; Peter J Schüffler; Pallavi Khattar; Maria A Friedlander; Maura A McCormack; Monica Raiss; Emily C Zabor; Andrea Barrio; Monica Morrow; Marcia Edelweiss Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Cristina L Cotarelo; Annemarie Zschöck-Manus; Marcus Schmidt; Arno Schad; Christoph Brochhausen; Charles James Kirkpatrick; Sonja Thaler Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2020-11-29 Impact factor: 5.150