Leili Zarifmahmoudi1, Atena Aghaee1, Giorgio Treglia2,3,4,5, Ramin Sadeghi1. 1. Nuclear Medicine Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. 2. Imaging Institute of Southern Switzerland, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Bellinzona, Switzerland. giorgio.treglia@eoc.ch. 3. Academic Education, Research and Innovation Area, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Bellinzona, Switzerland. giorgio.treglia@eoc.ch. 4. Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. giorgio.treglia@eoc.ch. 5. Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland. giorgio.treglia@eoc.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The effectiveness of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping and biopsy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in axillary lymph node staging of breast cancer (BCa) patients with initial clinical node positive status (cN +) compared to clinical node negative status (cN0) is not yet known. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the accuracy of SLN mapping following NAC in cN + and cN0 BCa patients. METHODS: PubMed and Scopus were comprehensively reviewed to retrieve all the studies that performed SLN mapping/biopsy and standard axillary lymph node dissection on cN0 and cN + BCa patients following NAC. Pooled detection and false negative rates for N0 and N + patients including 95% confidence interval values (95% CI) were evaluated. Odds ratio (OR) and risk difference (RD) of SLN detection failure and false negative results were compared between two groups. RESULTS: A total of 27 articles were included for SLN detection rate evaluation and 17 for false negative assessment. The OR and RD of detection failure in N + group compared with N0 group following NAC were 2.22 (p = 0.00, 95% CI 1.4-3.4) and 4% (p = 0.00, 95% CI 2-6%), respectively. The OR and RD of false negative rate were 1.6 (p = 0.01, 95% CI 1-2.6) and 8% (p = 0.02, 95% CI 1-14%), respectively. CONCLUSION: SLN mapping in BCa patients following NAC shows high risk of detection failure and high false negative rate of SLN biopsy in cN + patients. In comparison with cN0 BCa patients, SLN mapping and biopsy after NAC was associated with almost two times higher odds of detection failure and false negative results in cN + patients; therefore, this method should not be recommended in this group of patients.
PURPOSE: The effectiveness of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping and biopsy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in axillary lymph node staging of breast cancer (BCa) patients with initial clinical node positive status (cN +) compared to clinical node negative status (cN0) is not yet known. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the accuracy of SLN mapping following NAC in cN + and cN0 BCa patients. METHODS: PubMed and Scopus were comprehensively reviewed to retrieve all the studies that performed SLN mapping/biopsy and standard axillary lymph node dissection on cN0 and cN + BCa patients following NAC. Pooled detection and false negative rates for N0 and N + patients including 95% confidence interval values (95% CI) were evaluated. Odds ratio (OR) and risk difference (RD) of SLN detection failure and false negative results were compared between two groups. RESULTS: A total of 27 articles were included for SLN detection rate evaluation and 17 for false negative assessment. The OR and RD of detection failure in N + group compared with N0 group following NAC were 2.22 (p = 0.00, 95% CI 1.4-3.4) and 4% (p = 0.00, 95% CI 2-6%), respectively. The OR and RD of false negative rate were 1.6 (p = 0.01, 95% CI 1-2.6) and 8% (p = 0.02, 95% CI 1-14%), respectively. CONCLUSION: SLN mapping in BCa patients following NAC shows high risk of detection failure and high false negative rate of SLN biopsy in cN + patients. In comparison with cN0 BCa patients, SLN mapping and biopsy after NAC was associated with almost two times higher odds of detection failure and false negative results in cN + patients; therefore, this method should not be recommended in this group of patients.
Authors: Carlos A Puig; Tanya L Hoskin; Courtney N Day; Elizabeth B Habermann; Judy C Boughey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Birgit E P J Vriens; Kristien B M I Keymeulen; Judith R Kroep; Ayoub Charehbili; Petronella G Peer; Maaike de Boer; Maureen J B Aarts; Esther M Heuts; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-07-11