Lukas Dostalek1, Andrej Cerny1, Petra Saskova1, David Pavlista1. 1. Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Axillary dissection has little diagnostic and therapeutic benefit in node-positive breast cancer patients in whom axillary disease has been completely eradicated after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (ypN0). We sought to assess the efficacy of an algorithm used for the identification of the ypN0 patient consisting of intraoperative evaluation of sentinel and tattooed (initially positive) lymph nodes. METHODS: Included were T1 and T2 breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive axillary lymph nodes marked with carbon who were referred for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by a surgery. Axillary dissection was performed only in the patients with residual axillary disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy on ultrasound or with metastases described in the sentinel or tattooed lymph nodes either intraoperatively or in the final histology. RESULTS: Out of 62 initially included node-positive patients, 15 (24%) were spared axillary dissection. The detection rate of tattooed lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 81%. The ypN0 patients were identified with 91% sensitivity and 38% specificity using ultrasound and intraoperative assessment of both sentinel and tattooed lymph node according to the final histology. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: Lymph node marking with carbon dye is a useful and cost-effective method, which can be successfully implemented in order to reduce the number of patients undergoing axillary dissection. Low specificity of the presented algorithm was caused mostly by the overestimation of residual axillary disease on ultrasound.
INTRODUCTION: Axillary dissection has little diagnostic and therapeutic benefit in node-positive breast cancer patients in whom axillary disease has been completely eradicated after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (ypN0). We sought to assess the efficacy of an algorithm used for the identification of the ypN0 patient consisting of intraoperative evaluation of sentinel and tattooed (initially positive) lymph nodes. METHODS: Included were T1 and T2 breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive axillary lymph nodes marked with carbon who were referred for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by a surgery. Axillary dissection was performed only in the patients with residual axillary disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy on ultrasound or with metastases described in the sentinel or tattooed lymph nodes either intraoperatively or in the final histology. RESULTS: Out of 62 initially included node-positive patients, 15 (24%) were spared axillary dissection. The detection rate of tattooed lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 81%. The ypN0 patients were identified with 91% sensitivity and 38% specificity using ultrasound and intraoperative assessment of both sentinel and tattooed lymph node according to the final histology. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: Lymph node marking with carbon dye is a useful and cost-effective method, which can be successfully implemented in order to reduce the number of patients undergoing axillary dissection. Low specificity of the presented algorithm was caused mostly by the overestimation of residual axillary disease on ultrasound.
Authors: B Fisher; A Brown; E Mamounas; S Wieand; A Robidoux; R G Margolese; A B Cruz; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; N Wolmark; A DeCillis; J L Hoehn; A W Lees; N V Dimitrov Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: William J Gradishar; Benjamin O Anderson; Jame Abraham; Rebecca Aft; Doreen Agnese; Kimberly H Allison; Sarah L Blair; Harold J Burstein; Chau Dang; Anthony D Elias; Sharon H Giordano; Matthew P Goetz; Lori J Goldstein; Steven J Isakoff; Jairam Krishnamurthy; Janice Lyons; P Kelly Marcom; Jennifer Matro; Ingrid A Mayer; Meena S Moran; Joanne Mortimer; Ruth M O'Regan; Sameer A Patel; Lori J Pierce; Hope S Rugo; Amy Sitapati; Karen Lisa Smith; Mary Lou Smith; Hatem Soliman; Erica M Stringer-Reasor; Melinda L Telli; John H Ward; Jessica S Young; Jennifer L Burns; Rashmi Kumar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Mila Donker; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Marieke E Straver; Philip Meijnen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Robert E Mansel; Luigi Cataliotti; A Helen Westenberg; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Lorenzo Orzalesi; Willem H Bouma; Huub C J van der Mijle; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Sanne C Veltkamp; Leen Slaets; Nicole J Duez; Peter W de Graaf; Thijs van Dalen; Andreas Marinelli; Herman Rijna; Marko Snoj; Nigel J Bundred; Jos W S Merkus; Yazid Belkacemi; Patrick Petignat; Dominic A X Schinagl; Corneel Coens; Carlo G M Messina; Jan Bogaerts; Emiel J T Rutgers Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 41.316
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: Amit Goyal; Shama Puri; Andrea Marshall; Kalliope Valassiadou; Moin M Hoosein; Amtul R Carmichael; Gabriella Erdelyi; Nisha Sharma; Janet Dunn; Joanne York Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 4.872
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