George Kirkilesis1, Anastasia Constantinidou2, Michalis Kontos3. 1. 3rd Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Attiko" University Hospital, Athens, Greece. 2. Medical School University of Cyprus, Bank of Cyprus Oncology Centre, Nicosia, Cyprus. 3. 1st Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Laiko" University Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Targeted axillary dissection (TAD) has been proposed as an alternative method for the staging of patients with node-positive breast cancer who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, not much is known yet about the false-negative rate (FNR) of the method and the subsequent risk of underestimation of residual axillary disease. METHODS: This study reviews published articles with calculations of false negativity of TAD and potential factors that may influence it. RESULTS: The FNR of TAD is usually reported as being <10%, but this calculation is usually based on small study populations. Lower FNR is a common finding along with lower N status, while not enough data are available yet for greater axillary involvement. When a marked node is revealed to be a sentinel lymph node (SLN) at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), this seems to be another factor that contributes to reliable TAD. With regard to the methods used to mark the positive node before chemotherapy and retrieval at surgery, there is no clear advantage of one over the other. The availability of relevant resources, the costs, and local legislation must all be taken into account for the selection of the optimal strategy. CONCLUSION: Although still in its early days, the FNR of TAD can be low, at least in patients with relatively little axillary involvement and when the marked node is the SLN. All reported methods of lymph node marking seem reliable.
INTRODUCTION: Targeted axillary dissection (TAD) has been proposed as an alternative method for the staging of patients with node-positive breast cancer who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, not much is known yet about the false-negative rate (FNR) of the method and the subsequent risk of underestimation of residual axillary disease. METHODS: This study reviews published articles with calculations of false negativity of TAD and potential factors that may influence it. RESULTS: The FNR of TAD is usually reported as being <10%, but this calculation is usually based on small study populations. Lower FNR is a common finding along with lower N status, while not enough data are available yet for greater axillary involvement. When a marked node is revealed to be a sentinel lymph node (SLN) at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), this seems to be another factor that contributes to reliable TAD. With regard to the methods used to mark the positive node before chemotherapy and retrieval at surgery, there is no clear advantage of one over the other. The availability of relevant resources, the costs, and local legislation must all be taken into account for the selection of the optimal strategy. CONCLUSION: Although still in its early days, the FNR of TAD can be low, at least in patients with relatively little axillary involvement and when the marked node is the SLN. All reported methods of lymph node marking seem reliable.
Authors: Abigail S Caudle; Wei T Yang; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Daliah M Black; Rosa Hwang; Brian Hobbs; Kelly K Hunt; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Henry M Kuerer Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Karla V Ballman; Huong T Le-Petross; Linda M McCall; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Bret Taback; Eric C Feliberti; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Diego Flores-Funes; José Aguilar-Jiménez; María Martínez-Gálvez; María José Ibáñez-Ibáñez; Luis Carrasco-González; José Ignacio Gil-Izquierdo; María Asunción Chaves-Benito; Francisco Ayala-De La Peña; Andrés Nieto-Olivares; José Luis Aguayo-Albasini Journal: Surg Oncol Date: 2019-05-25 Impact factor: 3.279
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
Authors: Won Hwa Kim; Hye Jung Kim; See Hyung Kim; Jin Hyang Jung; Ho Yong Park; Jeeyeon Lee; Wan Wook Kim; Ji Young Park; Yee Soo Chae; Soo Jung Lee Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Joaquín Luis García-Moreno; Ana María Benjumeda-Gonzalez; Marta Amerigo-Góngora; Piero José Landra-Dulanto; Yisela Gonzalez-Corena; Julio Gomez-Menchero Journal: J Surg Case Rep Date: 2019-12-04
Authors: Maggie Banys-Paluchowski; Marc Thill; Thorsten Kühn; Nina Ditsch; Jörg Heil; Achim Wöckel; Eva Fallenberg; Michael Friedrich; Sherko Kümmel; Volkmar Müller; Wolfgang Janni; Ute-Susann Albert; Ingo Bauerfeind; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Wilfried Budach; Peter Dall; Peter Fasching; Tanja Fehm; Oleg Gluz; Nadia Harbeck; Jens Huober; Christian Jackisch; Cornelia Kolberg-Liedtke; Hans H Kreipe; David Krug; Sibylle Loibl; Diana Lüftner; Michael Patrick Lux; Nicolai Maass; Christoph Mundhenke; Ulrike Nitz; Tjoung Won Park-Simon; Toralf Reimer; Kerstin Rhiem; Achim Rody; Marcus Schmidt; Andreas Schneeweiss; Florian Schütz; H Peter Sinn; Christine Solbach; Erich-Franz Solomayer; Elmar Stickeler; Christoph Thomssen; Michael Untch; Isabell Witzel; Bernd Gerber Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 2.754