Yoshinari Ogawa1, Katsumi Ikeda2, Chika Watanabe2, Yuri Kamei2, Shinya Tokunaga3, Yuko Tsuboguchi3, Takeshi Inoue4, Hiroko Fukushima4, Makoto Ichiki5. 1. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, Osaka City General Hospital, 2-13-22 Miyakojima-hondori, Miyakojima-ku, Osaka, 534-0021, Japan. yoshinari@med.osaka-cu.ac.jp. 2. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, Osaka City General Hospital, 2-13-22 Miyakojima-hondori, Miyakojima-ku, Osaka, 534-0021, Japan. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Osaka City General Hospital, 2-13-22 Miyakojima-hondori, Miyakojima-ku, Osaka, 534-0021, Japan. 4. Department of Pathology, Osaka City General Hospital, 2-13-22 Miyakojima-hondori, Miyakojima-ku, Osaka, 534-0021, Japan. 5. Department of Radiology, Osaka City General Hospital, 2-13-22 Miyakojima-hondori, Miyakojima-ku, Osaka, 534-0021, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for breast cancer remains controversial. We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent SNB after NAT to evaluate the effectiveness of this procedure. METHODS: A consecutive 105 women with locally advanced breast cancer (cT1-4, cN0-3, M0) were treated with NAT between 2006 and 2015. The subjects were 80 of these patients who became or remained clinically node-negative after NAT, 53 of whom had axillary management determined by SNB (group A) and the other 27 underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) without SNB (group B). SNB was performed using a modified dye method. RESULTS: The sentinel node (SN) identification rate was 94.3% and the mean number of removed SNs was 2.4. ALND was avoided in 33 patients, who were confirmed as SN-negative. There was no difference in recurrence-free and overall survival rates between groups A and B (p = 0.71 and p = 0.46, respectively) during the median follow-up time of 63 months. Of the 33 patients who did not undergo ALND, 10 suffered recurrence (33%). One patient (3%) had recurrence in an axillary lymph node and four had recurrence in a supraclavicular lymph node. CONCLUSION: Axillary SNB after NAT did not affect the axillary failure rate or the prognosis. SNB may be a reliable procedure, even after NAT.
PURPOSE: Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for breast cancer remains controversial. We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent SNB after NAT to evaluate the effectiveness of this procedure. METHODS: A consecutive 105 women with locally advanced breast cancer (cT1-4, cN0-3, M0) were treated with NAT between 2006 and 2015. The subjects were 80 of these patients who became or remained clinically node-negative after NAT, 53 of whom had axillary management determined by SNB (group A) and the other 27 underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) without SNB (group B). SNB was performed using a modified dye method. RESULTS: The sentinel node (SN) identification rate was 94.3% and the mean number of removed SNs was 2.4. ALND was avoided in 33 patients, who were confirmed as SN-negative. There was no difference in recurrence-free and overall survival rates between groups A and B (p = 0.71 and p = 0.46, respectively) during the median follow-up time of 63 months. Of the 33 patients who did not undergo ALND, 10 suffered recurrence (33%). One patient (3%) had recurrence in an axillary lymph node and four had recurrence in a supraclavicular lymph node. CONCLUSION: Axillary SNB after NAT did not affect the axillary failure rate or the prognosis. SNB may be a reliable procedure, even after NAT.
Authors: Sungmin Park; Jeong Eon Lee; Hyun-June Paik; Jai Min Ryu; Soo Youn Bae; Se Kyung Lee; Seok Won Kim; Seok Jin Nam Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2016-07-09 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: H M Kuerer; A A Sahin; K K Hunt; L A Newman; T M Breslin; F C Ames; M I Ross; A U Buzdar; G N Hortobagyi; S E Singletary Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; Kelly K Hunt; Karla V Ballman; Peter D Beitsch; Pat W Whitworth; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukamal Saha; Linda M McCall; Monica Morrow Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Eugene H Huang; Eric A Strom; Vicente Valero; Bruno Fornage; George H Perkins; Julia L Oh; Tse-Kuan Yu; Welela Tereffe; Wendy A Woodward; Kelly K Hunt; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Aysegul A Sahin; Isabelle Bedrosian; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: B Fisher; J Bryant; N Wolmark; E Mamounas; A Brown; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; M Begovic; A DeCillis; A Robidoux; R G Margolese; A B Cruz; J L Hoehn; A W Lees; N V Dimitrov; H D Bear Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 44.544
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