BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) using radio-pharmaceutical and a blue dye is gold standard for axillary staging in clinically node-negative breast cancer. High costs and limited availability of radio-pharmaceutical and/or gamma probe are major deterrents in performing SLNB in developing countries. In this study, we evaluated feasibility of SLN identification (SLN-IR) of fluorescein-guided (FG) SLNB in combination with methylene blue dye (MBD). METHODS: This was a prospective cross-sectional non-randomized validation study in patients with clinically node-negative axilla. Patients underwent validation SLNB using fluorescein (and blue LED light) and MBD. Axillary dissection was performed irrespective of SLNB histology. SLIN-IR and False Negative Rate (FNR) were assessed for both groups. RESULTS: The SLNs were identified in 29 (96.6%) pre-chemotherapy patients and 23 (82%) post Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (NACT) patients. The median number of sentinel lymph nodes identified was 3 (range of 1-5) in pre-chemotherapy patients and 1 (range of 1-3) in post NACT patients. The SLN-IR using MBD was 90%, FD was 86.7% and combined MBD FD was 96.7% in pre-chemotherapy patients. The SLN-IR using MBD was 82%, FD was 71% and combined MBD FD was 82% in in post NACT patients. The false negative rate (FNR) in pre-chemotherapy group was 8.0% (MBD), 8.3% (FD) and 7.4% (MBD + FD). The FNR in post NACT group was 8.7% (MBD), 10% (FD) and 8.7% (MBD + FD). CONCLUSION: This prospective validation study showed adequate SLN-IR and FNR using low-cost dual dyes in early breast cancer patients and can be used in low resource settings. However, SLNB in post NACT axilla though viable along with a satisfactory FNR, is associated with low identification rate and needs further evaluation.
BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) using radio-pharmaceutical and a blue dye is gold standard for axillary staging in clinically node-negative breast cancer. High costs and limited availability of radio-pharmaceutical and/or gamma probe are major deterrents in performing SLNB in developing countries. In this study, we evaluated feasibility of SLN identification (SLN-IR) of fluorescein-guided (FG) SLNB in combination with methylene blue dye (MBD). METHODS: This was a prospective cross-sectional non-randomized validation study in patients with clinically node-negative axilla. Patients underwent validation SLNB using fluorescein (and blue LED light) and MBD. Axillary dissection was performed irrespective of SLNB histology. SLIN-IR and False Negative Rate (FNR) were assessed for both groups. RESULTS: The SLNs were identified in 29 (96.6%) pre-chemotherapy patients and 23 (82%) post Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (NACT) patients. The median number of sentinel lymph nodes identified was 3 (range of 1-5) in pre-chemotherapy patients and 1 (range of 1-3) in post NACT patients. The SLN-IR using MBD was 90%, FD was 86.7% and combined MBD FD was 96.7% in pre-chemotherapy patients. The SLN-IR using MBD was 82%, FD was 71% and combined MBD FD was 82% in in post NACT patients. The false negative rate (FNR) in pre-chemotherapy group was 8.0% (MBD), 8.3% (FD) and 7.4% (MBD + FD). The FNR in post NACT group was 8.7% (MBD), 10% (FD) and 8.7% (MBD + FD). CONCLUSION: This prospective validation study showed adequate SLN-IR and FNR using low-cost dual dyes in early breast cancer patients and can be used in low resource settings. However, SLNB in post NACT axilla though viable along with a satisfactory FNR, is associated with low identification rate and needs further evaluation.
Authors: Robert E Mansel; Lesley Fallowfield; Mark Kissin; Amit Goyal; Robert G Newcombe; J Michael Dixon; Constantinos Yiangou; Kieran Horgan; Nigel Bundred; Ian Monypenny; David England; Mark Sibbering; Tholkifl I Abdullah; Lester Barr; Utheshtra Chetty; Dudley H Sinnett; Anne Fleissig; Dayalan Clarke; Peter J Ell Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: William J Gradishar; Meena S Moran; 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; Sara A Hurvitz; Steven J Isakoff; Rachel C Jankowitz; Sara H Javid; Jairam Krishnamurthy; Marilyn Leitch; Janice Lyons; Jennifer Matro; Ingrid A Mayer; 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; Kari B Wisinski; Jessica S Young; Jennifer L Burns; Rashmi Kumar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Gaurav Agarwal; Pooja Ramakant; Ernesto R Sánchez Forgach; Jorge Carrasco Rendón; Juan Manuel Chaparro; Carlos Sánchez Basurto; Marko Margaritoni Journal: World J Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Sreekar Devarakonda; Shawn Sam Thomas; Supriya Sen; Varghese Thomas; Reka Karuppusami; Anish Jacob Cherian; Pooja Ramakant; Deepak Thomas Abraham; Paul Mazhuvanchary Jacob Journal: Indian J Surg Oncol Date: 2021-01-16
Authors: Martha S Kedrzycki; Maria Leiloglou; Hutan Ashrafian; Natasha Jiwa; Paul T R Thiruchelvam; Daniel S Elson; Daniel R Leff Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 5.344